SENATE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OSAS CONFERENCE ROOM September 22, 2009 6:00PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Senate Operations Chair Joe Norris Vice Chair Tyler Sharp Student Senate Parliamentarian Kathy Sexton Senator Luke Fangman Senator Natalie Scott Senator Brandon Abbott Senator William Muir Senator Dee Rodriguez Intern 1 Intern 2
Present x x
Excused
Unex.
x x x x x x
ANNOUNCEMENTS: • There were no announcements. GENERAL BUSINESS: • Proofread legislation. • Chair Norris met with Speaker Schultz and Attorney General Tank regarding ways of getting around the Elections Review Commissioner’s functioning as a judicial board not being a Constitutional issue. o They proposed a fix in the form of filling the role of the Elections Review Committee with the Student Review Board. o The timeline was examined and it appeared to be as drawn out as it is now. o The proposed fix would be to move the primary elections back one week. All other deadlines would be adjusted accordingly. Bill Harlan expressed that he and Gayle Spencer didn’t think it would be a good idea. Three weeks is a long time to campaign and cost becomes a more predominate issue. • Timing concerns will still exist. It will merely be an additional week to file a complaint. • Bill Harlan said he worries that it’s not addressing the issues. • Senator Weston said one problem with the appointment process was that he was asked to serve during the week of appointments.
He said he believes there should be set times for potential complaints rather than trying to coordinate multiple schedules. Chair Norris questioned whether a student’s right to an appeal would be violated. Attorney General Tank said it would not technically fulfill the definition. Chair Norris said he keeps returning to the idea of the Elections Review Commissioner rendering an initial ruling then allowing appeals to be made to the Student Tribunal. Bill Harlan read from the By-Laws regarding what an appellant is. There is no explicit definition of a ruling stemming from a board initially. He said he believes all systems that have been presented fulfill the role of allowing a proper appeal process. He encouraged the Committee to think about how they want the Election to be run. A new framework may be established to make the elections work right. Chair Norris questioned what the Committee’s views on the originally proposed process. Senator Weston questioned Chair Norris’ views on how the Elections Review Commissioner is selected. Chair Norris noted the joint appointment would still be made. The appointment would be asked to attend a meeting of the Senate Operations Committee to answer questions of their qualifications for the position. The appointment would be made by the third Thursday of October. Senator Weston asked what happened if the Senate did not approve of the appointment. The process would be repeated if the Senate did not approve. Bill Harlan presented grounds for review of a violation essentially stating that an Elections Commissioner did not have appropriate evidence. Chair Norris noted that the provision had already been included. Senator Weston questioned the issues of power given to the Elections Commissioner. Chair Norris noted that more time was being allowed for the Commissioner to become privy to the rules and regulations. Senator Weston questioned if an election of an Elections Commissioner within the Senate body would be feasible. • Speaker Schultz stated that the position is not a highly sought after position. • Senator Scott said there had been discussions about a potential appointment hearing within the Student Senate body. •
o
o o
o o o
o o o
Speaker Schultz said she believed that may tie the Elections Commissioner to one branch rather than the shared responsibilities the position currently has. Bill Harlan said the result last year was an abnormal one from a system that usually works. Senator Scott noted that a special session of Student Senate can be called for removal of an Elections Commissioner. Chair Norris took a straw poll vote regarding moving forward with the initial outline. The Elections Review Commissioner would hold an initial review. Followed up with a review to the Student Tribunal. Senator Muir expressed his belief that the Elections Review Commissioner should be classified as a judicial board to avoid judicial interpretation issues at a later date. Bill Harlan read from Article VI Section 1 of the SGA Constitution about the definitions of judicial boards. Senator Scott questioned what negatives would result from the Elections Review Commissioner be qualified as a board. Bill Harlan provided those. Bill Harlan said he would not be opposed to defining the Elections Review Commissioner as a judicial board, if there was a reason. He said he could not think of a compelling reason though. Speaker Schultz questioned whether the Elections Review Commissioner should be allowed to file complaints. She expressed concerns of bias resulting from the roles of the position. Bill Harlan expressed that if you don’t allow the Elections Review Commissioner to do so, would just have the commissioner to find a colleague to file a complaint. Bill Harlan said this might result from a lack of concrete discussion with the Elections Commissioner regarding the complaint process. Speaker Schultz questioned whether there would actually time be saved. Chair Norris noted that the Student Tribunal could choose the cases, which they want to hear. • Attorney General Tank said cases can be thrown out but all must be heard. Senator Scott expressed concerns that the process was not fair, allowing the Elections Commissioner to investigate and rule on a complaint they made. Chair Norris questioned the use of a Deputy Commissioner. Speaker Schultz noted that that is how the idea of utilizing the Student Review Board was ultimately arrived at. Senator Scott said she believes a good ultimate solution would not be allowing the Elections Commissioner to make complaints. •
o
o o o o
•
Bill Harlan said making complaints a part of the “political game.” Speaker Schultz questioned whether the issue of utilizing the Student Review Board as the initial judicial body was one of time. • Chair Norris said it would create a longer process. Senator Scott raised concerns about bias. Attorney General Tank noted questions of a “fair” hearing. Chair Norris noted the proposed process mirrors the current process for minor violations Bill Harlan noted that the Elections Review Commissioner meets with Gayle with their complaints. o Bill Harlan proposed a system where the Elections Review Commissioner would handle everything themselves. o Attorney General Tank proposed a system where the Elections Review Commissioner serves as a complainant and the candidates as the respondent. The Attorney General or another judicial branch member would serve as a chair. Bill Harlan expressed concerns that it would remove more control from the legislative branch. Senator Scott proposed allowing the attorney general to file complaints. o Chair Norris proposed having a deputy commissioner to file complaints. o The idea of a Senate Operations Committee member filing complaints was proposed. o Bill Harlan agreed that a ruling be issued by the same individual who filed a complaint could be problematic. o There was general discussion that there is a lack of information about people filing complaints. o Chair Norris expressed interest in using violations rather than complaints. He also noted though that that might hamper the appeal process. Senator Scott said there are some legitimate complaints. o Senator Scott proposed coming to a conclusion about the issue of the Elections Review Commissioner filing a complaint. o Bill Harlan noted that time still remains for changes to the Statutes. He recognized that there are still concerns about the Elections Review Commissioner acting as a czar. o Bill Harlan said he believed he’d be shocked if the Committee was stranded without a solution. The committee next reviewed the financial contributions section. o Chair Norris said he believes the Student Senate personal contribution is sufficient. o Senator Muir said the numbers are arbitrary. o Numbers have not adjusted with inflation. o Any donations not from students are taken out of personal contributions; Chair Norris noted this might be an issue. o Bill Harlan noted that there was a lack of clarity regarding non-student donations.
• • •
• • •
o Senator Muir noted that the cost of living has risen 20% over the last five years. o Senator Muir said he believed the numbers were artificially low. o Bill Harlan said the committee should consider what they want to see in elections when considering the figures. o The committee’s consensus was keeping the numbers at their current levels. The committee reviewed the shared contributions section. o Bill Harlan clarified that the intention was costs being one in terms of promoting or opposing a campaign. Chair Norris said the committee should clarify violations. Bill Harlan noted an area for potential change. Article IV Section 4C1 of the ByLaws calls for the Speaker to fill in as interim Student Body President if both Student Body President and Vice President leave. o If the Speaker is unable to fill that vacancy, the section calls for an Emergency Elections Committee to be established to fill the vacancy. Bill Harlan also presented Article VI Section 5C3 of the By-Laws and how it references the Elections Review Committee. Senator Muir questioned including the Statutes changes with the By-Laws changes. Chair Norris expressed his belief that the committee should add itself as an author of the legislation.
LEGISLATION PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE: • Speaker Schultz presented a Resolution of Appointment concerning one Student Senator being appointed to the Diversity Programming Committee. The Committee reviewed the appointment and qualifications. Motion was made and seconded to recommend favorably the appointment of Samuel Brinton to the Diversity Programming Committee and to co-author Resolution 09/10/35. Motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. • Speaker Schultz presented a Resolution of Appointment concerning two Student Senators being appointed to the Educational Opportunity Fund Committee. The Committee reviewed the appointments and qualifications. Motion was made and seconded to recommend favorably the appointment of Jessica Schultz and Molly McGuire to the Educational Opportunity Fund Committee and to co-author Resolution 09/10/36. Motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. • It was moved and seconded that the Senate Operations Committee be added as an author to Bill 09/10/05 and to recommend favorably for passage as well as to be reprinted with amendments. Motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Senator Fangman. Adjourned at 8:30 p.m.