Senators spent three hours discussing the first page and a half of an eight-page proposed revision to the Student Union constitution at last night’s weekly meeting after several Union Tribunal rulings made the discussion possible.
Union president Ethan Clay presented the proposed document, created by what had been until last night an unofficial committee of Union executive board members. The committee met throughout the past three months to discuss the revisions.
Senators amended a March 3 Tribunal clarification which had deemed the e-board committee unofficial and gave guidelines for committee composition after Tribunal officers last night announced that Senate had the ability, with a two-thirds majority vote, to “amend a clarification” made by the body.
The Senate’s amendment allowed “any member of the student body to present a revision to the constitution” and permitted revisions made by an e-board committee to be presented for discussion. Clay spent the last several weeks working to pass a similar amendment to the current Union constitution, an effort he said is now unnecessary to continue.
Clay said he was pleased with Senate’s decision to amend the clarification and felt exploring the possibility of revising the whole constitution in Senate would help the Union in the long run.
He said last night’s lengthy Senate input was valuable.
“I think discussion was productive because we were able to address a number of concerns and incorporate suggestions,” he said.
Senators spent nearly half an hour discussing the similarities between the style and grammar used in the proposed Preamble with that of the U.S. Constitution before Clay requested Senate to “move on.”
Article one, section one of the proposed revision calls for seven “senior senators” to be elected during the spring semester to serve for one calendar year. These senators would be “recognized as leaders” and required to have at least one year of experience in the Senate.
Debate arose when many Senators expressed concerns about the possibility of “collusion” between the e-board and the “senior senators.” Several said they could be used as “friends in the other branch,” causing a split in the Senate, though Clay said he did not see a reason to eliminate the proposed position.
“I do not see this as a problem in any way shape or form – I believe this is going to be a solution,” he said.
A decision was made to change the title to “senators-at-large” after a lengthy debate ensued over the meaning of the name.
“I don’t like the name ‘junior Senators,'” School of Education Sen. Meredith Classen said. “It connotes something that isn’t necessarily meant.”
Senators questioned article one, section three because of a lack of “specificity” about how involved the Senate vice chairman would be in Senate committees – the new constitution would eliminate the position’s committee responsibilities.
The proposed document also changes the position’s name from Senate vice chairman to “Senate Chairperson Pro Tempore.”
Clay said the committee intentionally did not explain the change within the document.
“We’re trying to be more specific in certain areas and less specific in others,” he said.
Despite heavy debate, Clay asked the Senate to avoid getting “emotional” when considering the proposed revision in order to expedite the process.
School of Hospitality Sen. Ernie Clarke said he agreed changes needed to be made, but the time allotted for the e-board’s “moment of glory” was not beneficial to the college governments.
“I really want to see constitutional revisions happen but I don’t think this is fair to college governments,” he said.
Discussion was closed for the night after senators discussed the vice chairman provision, after several first questioned whether they had quorum. Senators will try to discuss the document’s other six and a half pages next week, unless a majority vote removes it from the agenda.
If the revisions are approved by a three-fourths vote in the Senate and two-thirds of the college governments, the current constitution would be nullified.
Clay said Tribunal’s final clarification brought an end to the problems that had “slowed the process down.”
“For the past three weeks, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person that saw the constitutional flaw in Tribunal’s initial clarification,” he said. “I have a newfound respect for Tribunal because they did the right thing – it was a little late but they finally did the right thing.”
As of last night’s meeting, the “Hope Amendment v. 2.0” had been ratified by seven of the 11 college governments, Senior Tribune James Hoogenhous said. If the amendment is ratified by another college government, it would officially pass, though Clay said if the proposed constitutional revisions pass, the “Hope Amendment” would not be needed.
“At this point, the ‘Hope Amendment’ does not need to pass,” he said. “I will make sure they do not go on the record books because without ‘Hope Amendment v. 2.1,’ I will have no way at this point to repeal ‘Hope Amendment v. 2.0′ without the college governments’ approval.”
CANCELLATION, SOAP
A Senate committee investigating Hoogenhous’ possible impeachment did not announce any findings during last night’s meeting, after it was formed last week.
Senate chairman Joel Fajardo said another committee formed last week to investigate former Tribune John Underwood “no longer exists” because of his April 15 resignation, though senators discussed continuing the committee despite his resignation.
“There are members who would like to consider coming to a consensus on the matter and there are those who would like to see it dropped,” Fajardo said.
Union Service Council chairman Mike Pereira also officially announced the cancellation of “Fight for Life” last night due to what he called “petty politics” surrounding the event. He said planning every event this year has been a “constant fight” with administrators.
SUSC officials are considering raising money for the American Cancer Society anyway, he said.
Senate Residence Life committee chairwoman Meredith Rutrick announced that progress has been made on South Campus recycling problems and the proposal to install soap dispensers in dormitories.
“Over the summer, [soap and dispensers] will be installed and the period of trial is next semester,” Rutrick said.
Soap will be installed in six floors of The Towers dormitory over the summer. Half of the floors will use paper towel dispensers and the other half electric hand dryers in an effort to test the positives and negatives of each.