2008 Woodie Awards
SectionsSGA Senator: Constitution and by-laws contradict administration rules
James Rigdon
Issue date: 11/6/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
I have been on SGA for a number of years, and I attended my final Senate meeting on the 30th; on the agenda were several resolutions of various conflictive natures, but none so revelatory as the last one on the agenda.
At Tuesday's Senate meeting, we again saw how the Student Government's leadership is fraught with problems. I wrote a resolution to investigate why the administration has chosen to ignore the SGA Constitution and disregard the requirement for Senators to work one office hour per week. My resolution asked for an investigation, but was made somewhat obsolete when it was admitted that the president and vice president had made the decision.
I was confused - they admitted to knowing that this rule was in the Constitution, and they admitted to ignoring it. The Vice President even claimed that he had been on SGA for four years prior, and that office hours had always been replaced by committee work; this was when I became angry, as I realized the lie for what it was. The reason that I know this was a lie was that I was Sergeant-at-Arms four years ago, and I enforced office hours as attendance requirements. The next Sergeant-at-Arms also enforced them.
The Sergeant-at-Arms before me also strictly enforced them.
The speech that I never got to make - I don't like working office hours any more than anyone else does. But the Constitution has that requirement, and you cannot simply ignore the rules because you do not like them - you change them. This point was raised during the meeting, but the administration did not answer it. There is a very clear way to change the Constitution, and yet the administration has not chosen to follow that route- they would rather break the rules than change them.
I suppose that nobody should be surprised; this administration has chosen to be as selective as it can where the rules are concerned. At the internal affairs committee meeting on Oct. 23, when asked about following and enforcing resolutions that had been previously passed, Vice President Matt Jungers actually said, "If it's not in the Bylaws or the Constitution, it doesn't exist." An exemplary attitude for an elected official, to be certain.
As I stated in my last column, I have worked with several administrations, some good and some less than, but I have never seen an administration that thought it could ignore the rules so obviously, and even say so publicly.
As my resolution stated, ignoring the rules and encouraging others equates to malfeasance of duty, and there is a clear Constitutional path for that: The President or Vice President of the student body may be impeached for malfeasance in office or failure to carry out the duties and responsibilities of office as provided in this constitution and its bylaws.²
(Article III, Section 9, Subpoint A)
The choice is clear.
At Tuesday's Senate meeting, we again saw how the Student Government's leadership is fraught with problems. I wrote a resolution to investigate why the administration has chosen to ignore the SGA Constitution and disregard the requirement for Senators to work one office hour per week. My resolution asked for an investigation, but was made somewhat obsolete when it was admitted that the president and vice president had made the decision.
I was confused - they admitted to knowing that this rule was in the Constitution, and they admitted to ignoring it. The Vice President even claimed that he had been on SGA for four years prior, and that office hours had always been replaced by committee work; this was when I became angry, as I realized the lie for what it was. The reason that I know this was a lie was that I was Sergeant-at-Arms four years ago, and I enforced office hours as attendance requirements. The next Sergeant-at-Arms also enforced them.
The Sergeant-at-Arms before me also strictly enforced them.
The speech that I never got to make - I don't like working office hours any more than anyone else does. But the Constitution has that requirement, and you cannot simply ignore the rules because you do not like them - you change them. This point was raised during the meeting, but the administration did not answer it. There is a very clear way to change the Constitution, and yet the administration has not chosen to follow that route- they would rather break the rules than change them.
I suppose that nobody should be surprised; this administration has chosen to be as selective as it can where the rules are concerned. At the internal affairs committee meeting on Oct. 23, when asked about following and enforcing resolutions that had been previously passed, Vice President Matt Jungers actually said, "If it's not in the Bylaws or the Constitution, it doesn't exist." An exemplary attitude for an elected official, to be certain.
As I stated in my last column, I have worked with several administrations, some good and some less than, but I have never seen an administration that thought it could ignore the rules so obviously, and even say so publicly.
As my resolution stated, ignoring the rules and encouraging others equates to malfeasance of duty, and there is a clear Constitutional path for that: The President or Vice President of the student body may be impeached for malfeasance in office or failure to carry out the duties and responsibilities of office as provided in this constitution and its bylaws.²
(Article III, Section 9, Subpoint A)
The choice is clear.
Be the first to comment on this story