SENATE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OSAS CONFERENCE ROOM October 13, 2009 6:00PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: Senate Operations Chair Joe Norris Vice Chair Tyler Sharp Student Senate Parliamentarian Nathan Spriggs Senator Luke Fangman Senator Natalie Scott Senator Brandon Abbott Senator William Muir Senator Dee Rodriguez Intern John Reinert Intern Erin Fain GUESTS: Senator Matt James Senator Mark Savoy Senator Michael Champlin President Dalton Henry Senator Andrew Huschka Priv. Fee Chair Jessica Schultz
Present x x x
Excused
Unex.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ANNOUNCEMENTS: • The application went live on Web site today for the Elections Review Commissioner. Applications are due next week. Interviews will follow the week after. The commissioner should be in place by the end of the month. GENERAL BUSINESS: • Proofread legislation. • President Henry presented an amendment to the By-Laws regarding the Student Body President’s Cabinet. The amendment related to the Creation of Student Body President’s Advisory Board. Members of the advisory board would include: the President of Graduate Student Council or designee, President of InterFraternity Council or designee, President of the International Student Coordinating Council or designee, A representative of the Multi-Cultural Student Organizations selected by the Multi-Cultural Student Organization office, A representative of Non-Traditional students selected by the Non-Traditional Student Office, President of the Pan-Hellenic Council or designee, President of
•
the Association of Residence Halls or designee, The College of Technology and Aviation Student Body President or designee, A representative of student athletes selected by the Department of Athletics, A representative of the Campus Sustainability Office recommended by the Director of Sustainability, and such other officers appointed by the Student Body President. Chair Norris opened discussion to the By-Laws amendments and Statutes. . o He reviewed the By-Laws revisions. Speaker Schultz questioned whether there was a way if the ByLaws and Statues passed to allow for additional time in appointing the Elections Review Committee this year. Senator Muir proposed adding November 1 as the date each goes into effect. o Chair Norris reviewed the grammatical changes to the Statutes. o General discussion commenced on the content of the Statues. Senator Champlin brought up the Appeals of Violations section. • He believes it doesn’t spell out who can file a violation. Senator Champlin brought up adding a section of appeal for a penalty being too soft. • Chair Norris said this concern had been raised to him. • Senator Savoy provided an example. • Chair Norris said the idea stemmed from potential favoritism of one campaign. • The committee agreed it should be included. • Senator Muir proposed including wording about too much leniency. • Senator Savoy said he believed everything should be enumerated so newcomers to Senate could know all of the specifics. • Chair Norris added to line 284 a specification about a penalty being too lenient. • Attorney General Tank said there is no place for a respondent to appeal a ruling in the K-State judicial system. • Senator Savoy said he believed for the sake of transparency and openness it should be included. • Bill Harlan provided a point of information regarding the By-Laws allowing the complainant and respondent to appeal a ruling. • Speaker Schultz revised the section regarding the appeal process. Senator Huschka said the documents have had great changes made to them. But he has an issue with the Elections Review Commissioner being allowed to police and judge in this system. • He proposed making the Elections Review Committee a three-member committee. o With the possibility of permanently reserving a room in the Union during the elections process.
• • •
•
•
•
• •
Or appointing a judge and stripping that role from the Elections Review Commissioner. Senator James added that he believed there should be more than one person in charge. Chair Norris said he believed it was a legitimate concern but expressed an issue with having the Elections Review Committee. o Senator James said he believed all voices could be equal. o Senator Huschka said he disagreed with that because of the Elections Review Commissioner’s potential to sway opinion. o Senator Huschka said he had spoken with a lawyer and found the current system to be “ludicrous.” o Senator Muir respectfully disagreed. o Senator Muir said in the past the Elections Review Commissioner had functioned as an educator and enforcer. Senator Savoy said he admired Senator Huschka’s intention of being unbiased but said he believes bias will exist regardless. o The ability to appeal to the Student Tribunal makes this a good process. Senator Scott said she believes there is something staunchly wrong with a person being able to judge and file complaints. o You cannot compare it to the United States. o There are a lot of checks on the Elections Review Commissioner and the person can be removed easier. o She said the way it is set now is the best possible way. Senator Huschka raised a question of timeliness. o Chair Norris said there is 48 hours for the Elections Review Commissioner to investigate and the review has to be made during this time. o After the review, the Elections Review Commissioner has three hours to rule. o An appeal must be filed within 15 hours after the completion of the hearing. Senator Huschka questioned whether including the same timeline but having a judge. Senator Huschka said giving that much power to one individual is unreal.
o Chair Norris said he believed it would be productive because of the training that the Elections Review Commissioner must undergo. o Senator Scott said there would be a more intense vetting process to help eliminate bias. o Chair Norris said the appointee will come to the Senate Operations Committee and answer questions. o Senator Huschka expressed worries about elections in the future and the potential for Senate to not be monitoring the process as closely. o Bill Harlan said the regulations would not look like this in five years so the focus should be on what could currently be improved upon. Bias has not been an issue with the exception of the past year. He said he doesn’t want people to get caught up with what happened in years past. He said the system is good enough and what it needs to be. o Chair Norris said the committee is not trying to be reactive to last year’s elections. Rather to be proactive to have a better process in place to avoid problems in the future. o Senator Huschka questioned the negatives to going along with one of his proposals. Senator Abbott said he believed it would be because of duplicating the ideas of the same person. Chair Norris said it also stemmed from an inability to have qualified members serving on the committee. Senator Huschka said he didn’t believe it would be duplicating a person because the person would be separate and not have prior knowledge of the complaint. Senator Huschka said it makes him feel better with someone judging and someone filing a complaint. • Senator Scott said it would be a good idea in a perfectly Utopian system. Bill Harlan said having the attorney general or another individual adjudicate a complaint takes the process out of legislative hands. • He said the Elections Review Committee ruling incorrectly was a
motivation for having the system set up as it is. Bill Harlan said he understands the concerns but feels it’s a good system and having another person outweighs the issues with bias. Senator Huschka questioned having the Collegian print information regarding complaints. • Bill Harlan questioned shrinking the appeal process. Senator Savoy said the issue of filing complaints should be addressed and the Collegian should not be excluded from the process. Senator Huschka expressed support for withholding the ruling until the time frame for an appeal had passed. Chair Schultz questioned sending the documentation of the ruling to the Collegian. Bill Harlan said Gayle Spencer has had concerns about completely wrong complaints. She wants a provision for incorrect complaints that can be dismissed without going through the system. Senator Savoy questioned whether multiple witnesses could be used as evidence. • Chair Norris said there could be. Speaker Schultz expressed support for a provision penalizing a campaign for filing excessive claims without merit. Senator James said he believes that it would be an educational issue. Senator Huschka said willfully doing an action could easily be distinguished. Senator Huschka said making it clearly known at the beginning of the elections process would be beneficial and viable. The committee decided to address the issue at a later point. o Chair Schultz questioned the issues surrounding sending information to the Collegian. Bill Harlan said as a policy the Office gives any and all necessary information.
• •
•
o Bill Harlan questioned if withholding the information would be just until an appeal had been made. Attorney General Tank said he didn’t believe that would be an issue. Speaker Schultz said she didn’t believe it would be a good because the Collegian would likely form their own opinion based upon how the hearing went. o Senator Huschka questioned making the public the reason for removing him/her from office. Senator Savoy said the powers the Elections Review Commissioner make it a unique position. Senator Scott moved to favorably recommend the By-Laws, Bill 09/10/05. It was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Senator Scott questioned whether anything could be done to assuage Senator Huschka’s concerns. o Bill Harlan said the appeal process allows for a fair process. But acknowledged that there may be some other move to make. o Senator Fangman said the Elections Review Commissioner kicking a campaign out of the election must be justified and must account for evidence. Senator Fangman moved to favorably recommend the Statutes, Bill 09/10/13 as amended. It was approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
LEGISLATION PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE: • Speaker Schultz presented a Resolution of Appointment considering a new Student Senator for the College of Education. The committee reviewed the qualifications and selection process. Motion was made and seconded to author and recommend favorably the appointment of Brittany Lykins as Student Senator for the College of Education. It was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Senator Fangman. Adjourned at 8:21 p.m.