The Boston University Student Union Cabinet members will decide within the next few days whether or not to censure Union President Matt Seidel at the next General Assembly meeting after he violated the advocacy group’s constitution at the Feb. 9 GA meeting.
Seidel’s possible public reprimand is a result of his decision to continue with five proposal votes despite the fact that the Union was four voting members shy of achieving a voting quorum at the last GA.
Rhett’s Rules of Order, which dictate how Union meetings are supposed to be run, states, ‘There must be quorum for any proposal to be voted on.’ Quorum counts as a minimum 50 percent of all voting members present, but only 16 of 39 voting members attended the Feb. 9 meeting, which was held during the same time as the final Beanpot hockey game.
‘It is a critical mistake, and it is on the heavier end of mistakes that have been made this year in terms of the e-board,’ Academic Affairs Committee Chairman James Sappenfield said. ‘In hopes of achieving something positive, it showed ignorance of constitutional rules, and ultimately that leads to everything positive being reverted and corrupted.’
Seidel apologized for his decision to Union members in an email sent Thursday and plans on issuing a public apology at the next GA meeting.
‘I admit that I made a mistake,’ Seidel, a College of Arts and Sciences junior said. ‘We just want to put some closure on it.’
Union will revote on the five proposals – which included a registration proposal that would prevent students from holding classes for friends – at the next GA meeting on Feb. 23.
Seidel and the Union will now have to figure out how to get past this controversy. While Sappenfield, a CAS and School of Management junior, expressed continued confidence in Seidel and said he thinks the president can learn a lot from the mistake, other Union members said they are questioning Seidel’s leadership.’ ‘
‘I have lost some faith in Matt,’ Campus Safety Committee Chairman Leo Gameng, who attended the Beanpot instead of the meeting on Feb. 9, said. ‘I have heard members, that if and or when’ [Seidel] gets censured, they would want to move for an investigation on impeachment.’
Though a call for impeachment is unsubstantiated, Gameng’s words are representative of the sort of adversity that Seidel faces within the Union. Seidel said he primarily wants to ensure that his decision at the last GA meeting does not hinder Union’s progress.
‘Nobody wants to get caught up in some trumped up controversy,’ Seidel said. ‘I think it’s good that people in the GA voiced their concerns, and we’re fixing it. It doesn’t help anybody not to be focused on our goals.’
A lack of attendance at GA meetings, which is essentially what triggered this entire ordeal, could halt Union’s progress, however, Union Vice President Paula Griffin said. There are a handful of voting members who consistently do not attend GA meetings, send a proxy or even send an e-mail explaining their absences.
While four or five people will not prevent Union from achieving quorum, and were not the sole reason that quorum wasn’t reached on Feb. 9, voting members’ involvement is an important issue.’
‘We will be evaluating who has been coming to meetings and who is over the number of unexcused absences, and we’re going to try and sit down and talk to whoever we can to make sure this doesn’t happen again,’ Griffin said.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
