Election and Disputes Commission Student Government George Mason University

Transcription

1 Election and Disputes Commission Student Government George Mason University EDC Commissioners: Eric Nielsen Chair, Kinda Ahmed, Anthony Bedward, Patrick Grady, Caleb Kitchen, Andrew Naioti Matthew Owens, Victoria Rudd, and Priya Sorot Dispute Board Minutes 9/18/2018 Commissioners: Ahmed, Naioti, Kitchen (Chair) -Hearing commenced at 8:24 A.M. -President Bekah Pettine and Speaker Davide Genoese-Zerbi in attendance along with EDC Chairman Eric Nielsen and EDC Advisor Phil McDaniel. -Chair: Described procedures and rules. Introduction of attendees. Disputes being addressed are in reference to 3 CSG 207 and 3 SBC 1.4. President Pettine: Filed petition on behalf of the Executive Branch. This decision is critical to the functioning of the organization. My cabinet has worked hard over the last 6 months with work that had to be completed over the summer. Their appointments were made at the first two Senate meetings of the 39 th Student Senate in the spring. The election code, which caused the need for this dispute, was voted on twice by the 38 th Student Senate 8 months ago. Past 5 Presidential candidates sworn in along similar timeframe and began appointing their cabinet at the same meeting. Why is this being called into question now? First notified of this issue 3 weeks ago when Senator Genoese-Zerbi made a motion to recall the confirmation votes taken in the spring. Acting Speaker Bates recognized the motion but declined and recommended that Senator Genoese-Zerbi take his issue up with the EDC. The Student Body Constitution designates the EDC as the sole interpreters and adjudicator for disputes in the organization. When Senator Genoese-Zerbi was elected Speaker, the ratification of executive appointments made in the spring was added to the Student Senate Agenda at the next meeting. I immediately filed a grievance with this body and claimed that because these actions had already occurred it was no longer in the Senate s purview. Following my complaint, the EDC issued an injunction prohibiting any action or consideration on the agenda items until the EDC could handle the dispute. Injunctions have been respected in the past, but that did not happen this time. Senators discussed the issue, unaware of the injunction, therefore violating the text of the injunction under deliberate negligence

2 of Senate leadership. Regular senators tabled the issue for one week. When the motion was made and approved. At the last meeting it was tabled indefinitely. The actions were taken as though the Senate had the ability to act at all on the matters. Speaker Genoese-Zerbi relayed to me prior to the meeting that he planned on moving forward on the matter choosing to ignore the injunction due to his belief that the EDC contained invalid membership and therefore their decision could not be applied. This demonstrates to be not of procedure but of personal gain, and to only follow the rules when they are benefiting the Student Senate. Context matters. If my appeal is denied and the Senate recalls appointments, the functionality of the organization will be set back weeks or months over something that has already been dealt with. The precedent set could be bad. Many of these positions hold seats on university committees and boards that have been functioning for weeks. Questioning their membership questions the legitimacy of the organization. In the spring of 2015, the EDC addressed a similar issue. They recognized the issue and made an attempt to rectify but the Student Senate failed to properly address the issue and left inconsistencies in statute. If you were to follow Speaker Genoese- Zerbi s logic, every vote from 36 th Student Senate on is void and their appointments were never members of Student Government. My hope is that these mistakes can be corrected in the documents. Governing documents are often inconsistent between each other. Speaker Genoese-Zerbi: Two primary subjects for hearing: 1) Lead Team s response to injunction, and 2) the original dispute. We received the injunction 4 hours before Senate meeting and would not have been an issue if it were clear. Confusion: 1) injunction was not addressed to Senate but to the Clerk and instructed Clerk to violate state record keeping law, while it contained language pertaining to the Senate it was filed to the Clerk, and I was unsure how to respond. I ed the EDC and did not receive a timely response. After consultation with the Speaker Pro- Tempore, Clerk, and Student Government Advisor, I decided the best way to comply with the injunction was to table the issue for one week, and this is what we did. After the meeting, the Student Body President stated in an to the EDC that the motion to postpone for one week was not done with respect to the EDC s instructions to stop them from acting. These statements are false. If you examine the minutes, the motion to postpone indefinitely was made after the motion to delay a week. That motion was made by Speaker Pro-Tempore and I deliberately recognized her first so she could postpone action one week to comply with injunction. I hope the EDC, no matter their decision on the primary complaint, would be so kind as to exonerate myself and the Student Senate LEAD team for this slander against us. Original Grievance: Student Body Constitution clearly states the first Saturday after the first Monday after election in May as the beginning of the President s term. Therefore, President Pettine s term began on May 5 th Because the Student Senate voted on these appointments prior to the end of President Kanos term and before the beginning of President Pettine s term, the Senate voted on appointments not made by the same president. The current president, by date, is the only one who has power to make such appointments at that first meeting. It was due to this, I suggested ratifying the vote taken by the

3 Student Senate in the spring under proper parliamentary authority. However, the current president alleges the Student Senate cannot revote on an issue. This claim is unfounded, and has no assertion in governing documents and parliamentary authority. Claim runs afoul of the founding principles of a Republic. I believe the President is claiming the only legitimate way to remove a duly appointed/elected individual is through impeachment. This claim is void if the individuals were never elected/appointed/confirmed in the first place. For example, if I as Speaker attempted to appoint an EDC member, and it was confirmed by the Senate, there would be no question whether my appointment was legitimate or not. The President s secondary contentious issue is that there are powers of the presidency imparted to her prior to the start of her term as outlined in the Student Body Constitution. This claim is dubious, no statutory basis for this claim. No powers for President-elect. I came to these conclusions when I realized over the summer that the term of the Student Body President are different than the student senators. I did not make the best decision in regards to the handling of the injunction by the Senate at my first meeting, but the 4-hour notice made it difficult. Additionally, I did not express to President Pettine that I would ignore the injunction, rather I wanted to know exactly how to comply with it, and furthermore wanted explanation explaining the validity of the injunction due to the questionable membership of some EDC members. This doubt was alleviated after speaking with the Student Government Advisor. President Pettine mentioned inconsistency between the Code and Student Body Constitution, but the Constitution contains a supremacy clause. If the Constitution cites one date as the beginning of a term, it invalidates code. It should be easily interpreted. EDC should dismiss the grievance and let the Senate act on the ratification of appointments in question. Chair: Each side may submit 5 questions, written down and given at my discretion deeming appropriateness, relevance, and repetitiveness. Responses limited to one minute. Chair Questions: 1) President Pettine: When were you elected to your current office? Late March. 2) President Pettine: Did you begin executive interviews before or after you were elected? After I was elected. 3) Speaker Genoese-Zerbi: Did you vote on any of the disputed appointments during the April 26 th or May 3 rd meeting? Voted on appointments at April 26 th meeting. Came to conclusion over the summer that the votes were not valid. 4) President Pettine: Were you aware that the election timeline violated 3 SBC 1.4? Why didn t you wait to start executive interviews until after you were sworn in? Historically, the President offers a slate of candidate to Student Senate consideration at the first meeting. This year was different in the fact that there were two Student Senate meetings prior to the end of the semester. *Offered hypothetical question, EDC advisor suggested that we keep to relevant facts of this case.

4 5) President Pettine/Speaker Genoese-Zerbi: In regards to the 2015 EDC decision, do you think their conclusion was appropriate? President Pettine: Yes, reached out to chair at the time and it was in regards to the senate terms. Encouraged the senate to change the language but it never did. Documents do not coincide, which makes interpretation difficult. Speaker Genoese-Zerbi: Not familiar with particular case but the Student Body Constitution clearly states how the election timeline should look in agreement with statute language. *Advisor noted Student Senate only votes on election code. Timeline is established by EDC. Questions from Speaker Genoese-Zerbi to President Pettine: 1) Which governing documents did you swear to uphold in your oath of office? Student Body Constitution, Code of Student Governance, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Constitution of the United States. 2) Should the historical actions of Student Government supersede the text of our governing documents? No, but I believe that there are inconsistencies in the documents and that I was given no other option for the events surrounding the beginning of my term. I don t believe any other President would have done anything different. These appointments take place at Student Senate meetings and I don t control their schedule. Questions from President Pettine to Speaker Genoese-Zerbi: 1) Can you explain what part/phrase within the injunction was unclear? Because it was not filed against me, it was unclear whether or not the injunction was applied to me because it did not address myself, it addressed the Clerk and commanded him to violate state law. I did my best to interpret it, but it contained no specific instructions for me. I did not know if it was open to the public as it was ed to a select few. I asked the EDC for clarification but did not receive a response. 2) At what point, if ever, was the Student Senate informed of the injunction and what that action meant? I stated the reason that pro-temp made the motion to postpone was because a grievance had been filed with the EDC, I wasn t comfortable revealing more information because the injunction instructions toward myself were unclear. 3) Why did you not file the dispute with the EDC as soon as you realized the issue? I came to the conclusion that there was a different way to handle this situation. Because the actions of the Student Senate in the spring were illegitimate, the Student Senate could now correct those actions. Roberts Rules allowed us to validate an invalid vote post-facto, and able to resolve the issue. I did not think it necessary to go to the EDC when the Student Senate had not officially taken an issue with it.

5 Closing Statements: 2 minutes President Pettine: I hope you can understand this case establishes precedent. I hope my comments are considered. My end goal is to adjust governing documents. I hope we don t recall people who have worked hard so far for the organization. This dispute makes my cabinet members feel compromised in their job and our goal should be to make them feel welcoming while we try to work under the governing documents. Speaker Genoese-Zerbi: The question before the EDC is do we abide by the governing documents or operate under convenience? It is important that we put emotions aside and act based on what the governing documents say, and only then can we move forward and represent the student body. I would like to see the cabinet ratified and put into place properly so we can get back to work. The Respondents were dismissed at 9:01 a.m.