SENATE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OSAS CONFERENCE ROOM September 29, 2009 6:00PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 6:03 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 John Reinert Intern Erin Fain GUESTS: President Dalton Henry Senator Tanner Banion Attorney General Adam Tank Parliamentarian In-Training Nathan Spriggs
Present x x x x x x x
Excused
Unex.
x x x x x x x
ANNOUNCEMENTS: • There were no announcements. GENERAL BUSINESS: • Proofread legislation. • Speaker Schultz presented the proposed changes to the Elections Regulations Code. o Bill Harlan explained the changes. Major and minor violations were placed in the definitions section. The time frame for filing complaints was not changed. The review process was defined. • All actions of the review should be documented. • The respondent will have the opportunity to submit a written response. • The hearing process was defined. o After the hearing is completed, the Elections Review Commissioner cannot do further investigation into the case.
o Failing to attend the hearing does not constitute an admission. o If neither party shows up, the Elections Review Commissioner can make a decision. o Following the hearing, a determination will be made within 24 hours of whether the Elections Review Code was violated or not. • Speaker Schultz said there could be other ways of allowing the Elections Review Commissioner to file complaints, such as having a more transparent process. Bill Harlan said with the proposed process and increased transparency having a bias would be a lot more complicated of a process. Senator Fangman said there would have to be a justification of the hearing process being fair. Bill Harlan said he would have no problem having a document outlining what the hearing process would entail. Senator Fangman said establishing a script similar to an actual judicial hearing would boost its authenticity. Senator Banion questioned the similarity of the process to an actual appeals court. Bill Harlan said new evidence that had not previously been available would be allowable for a appeal. Chair Norris questioned what should be included within an appeal. The committee agreed a more formalized script should be established for the hearing process. Chair Norris questioned whether the committee believed the time frame was fair. • Senator Fangman expressed support for the weekend being included within the initial review time frame. Chair Norris expressed support for limiting the amount of individuals present at the initial hearing. • The Elections Review Commissioner would publish the results following the hearing. • Senator Fangman expressed support for the inclusion of the Collegian in the process. • Speaker Schultz expressed hesitancy about including the Collegian in the initial hearing while including as much transparency as possible. • Senator Muir said a decision could be made immediately following a hearing. • Bill Harlan expressed some questions about interpretations by the Collegian. • Senator Muir said he believed anyone should be allowed to come to the meeting.
Speaker Schultz expressed her fear that the Collegian would print any violation. • Senator Scott said the committee should place a bit more faith in the Collegian. • President Henry articulated support for transparency in the process. He also questioned whether a 24-hour period to make a determination was necessary. If new information exists, that’s why an appeal exists. • Chair Norris said the period might not need to be 24 hours. • Senator Scott expressed she would not be opposed to the commissioner having to render a ruling upon leaving the room. • Speaker Schultz expressed support for more time for a decision to be made. • Chair Norris said it is written in the Elections Regulations Code that they may not gather additional information. • Senator Banion said new information could be filed if the Elections Review Commissioner uncovers it during the 24hour period to make a determination. • Parliamentarian Sexton said too long of a time period might result in over thinking a decision. • President Henry said he believed the campaigns should be able to know if their actions were violations of the elections code. He expressed support for considering all options on the time frame. • Chair Norris questioned having an initial ruling then to have an opinion issued subsequently. • Committee members questioned including Coordinator Spencer or a designee in the meeting. • Speaker Schultz questioned giving the Elections Review Commissioner a three-hour time frame. o Senator Fangman and Senator Scott expressed support for the idea. o The committee agreed to change the time frame to within three hours after the conclusion of the hearing. • The committee agreed to include a section about keeping records of opinions up to five years after the hearing. • Bill Harlan questioned making the section about records its own section. o He created a new section. o It included keeping expense records for up to a year. • It was decided to have an open hearing with no allowances on who could ask questions. Senator Banion questioned if three minor violations still equaled a major violation. •
There was debate about having violations versus complaints. • Speaker Schultz expressed support for the Elections Review Commissioner to file complaints with as much transparency as possible. • Chair Norris expressed support for progressive sets of punishment for repeated violations. • Chair Norris questioned the committee’s support for the proposal. • Bill Harlan added a section to the proposal noting that the commissioner shall consider repeat violations and the number of violations. • Speaker Schultz questioned separating disqualifications because there is no process to accompany it. o Chair Norris said he believed they should remain separate. o Bill Harlan suggested moving disqualifications to the section on candidate qualifications, 50-0117B. o Chair Norris expressed support for including an exceptions clause to compensate for mitigating circumstances. Chair Norris questioned the practicality of presenting the By-Laws and Statues separately. • Senator Muir expressed support for presenting the two together. Chair Norris opened discussion to the appeals process. • The committee proposed a deadline to file appeals of 10 a.m. the day after the determination of a violation. • Speaker Schultz expressed support for the proposed appeal filing deadline. • Chair Norris proposed including a clause allowing for a six-hour time period in the case of a morning hearing. • Speaker Schultz questioned the number of days included within the process. • It stands at 3 days and 3 hours. • Bill Harlan proposed changing the clause to read 10 a.m. the next day or 6 business hours whichever comes first. • The committee discussed who to present the appeal paperwork to. o Proposals included the Elections Review Commissioner or Chancellor of the Student Tribunal. • Parliamentarian In-Training Spriggs questioned who would notify the candidates of the appeals time frame. • Chair Norris noted that the commissioner is required to notify the campaigns upon reaching his/her decision. •
• • •
•
•
Speaker Schultz said she supported a 12-hour time frame. Parliamentarian In-Training Spriggs expressed support for an equivalent amount of time for all candidates/campaigns. Chair Norris expressed support for a 12-hour time frame. o He questioned whether the committee would accept a 15-hour time frame from completion of the hearing. o The committee agreed. Chair Norris reiterated the grounds for appealing a decision for the interns. o Failure to follow written procedures. o Lack of substantial evidence. o The hearing failed to provide a fundamentally fair process. o The Elections commissioner made their decision in an unfair manner. o The Elections commissioner denied SGA Constitutional rights. o The sanction was too harsh. o The committee reviewed whether or not to include an allowance for the availability of new evidence. o The committee supported providing for an appeal in the event of additional evidence coming to light. o Bill Harlan and Chair Norris said they believed it would help Student Tribunal zero in on whether or not to hear an appeal. o Parliamentarian Sexton proposed outlining the process for appeals to student tribunal outlined in the SGA By-Laws. Chair Norris opened discussion on the appeals of contested elections. o He read through the section. o He said he believed the section was good as it is, but proposed cleaning up the timeline. o Bill Harlan proposed moving the section to the section on General Election Procedures Section 131 of Chapter 50. o Speaker Schultz proposed including specifications about when Student Tribunal would be forced to meet within 24 hours rather than their usual 48 o It was proposed for the appeals to be an appeal of record. o The appellant was defined as the person filing the appeal to the Student Tribunal. o The Student Tribunal will call the commissioner as a witness.
o Senator Scott noted there might need to be changes in wording in the event of a response and the Elections commissioner being classified as a respondent. o Parliamentarian In-Training Spriggs said he thought the Elections commissioner should be able to clarify facts but not able to serve as a witness. o The only individuals that will be parties to the hearing will be the appellant and the respondent. Chair Norris proposed keeping the last four out of five proposed chapters as is. The committee discussed a caveat in the bills about passage of one is contingent on passage of the other. Speaker Schultz said she believed the process is an improvement. Bill Harlan said he believed it would be important to educate people. The wording will be finalized and presented on October 8.
LEGISLATION PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE: • President Henry presented a Resolution of Appointment considering five new members of the Diversity Programming Committee. The committee reviewed the appointments and qualifications. Motion was made and seconded to favorably recommend the appointment of Ariel Anib, Jeffrey Hart, Matthew Vanschenkhof, Cyngyz, Sherniliazov and Jaime Espinosa-Galvis to the Diversity Programming Committee and for the committee to co-author the resolution. It was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. • President Henry presented a Resolution of Appointment considering universitywide committees. The committee reviewed the legislation and appointment process. It was moved and seconded to favorably recommend the appointment of Megan Papenfuhs to the Environmental Health and Safety Committee, Kristen Tebow to the Dorothy L. Thompson Civil Rights Lecture Series Committee, Mark Savoy to the Campus Recycling Advisory Committee, Amy Schultz to the Child Care Center Development Board, Shane Blaes to the Classified Employee of the Year Committee, Katy Baker to the Counseling Services Advisory Committee and Brohgan Evans to the HLC Accreditation Steering Committee and for the committee to co-author the resolution. It was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. • President Henry presented a Resolution of Appointment concerning one new member of the Honor Council for the College of Human Ecology and one new member of the Honor Council for the College of Architecture, Planning and Design. The committee reviewed the legislation and appointment process. It was moved and seconded to recommend favorably the appointment of Alexis Kiel as member of the Honor Council for the College of Architecture, Planning and Design and Dora Winfough as member of the Honor Council for the College of Human Ecology and for the committee to co-author the resolution. It was approved by a vote of 7-0-0.
•
•
•
•
President Henry presented a Resolution of Appointment considering members of the Educational Opportunity Fund. The committee reviewed the legislation and appointment process. It was moved and seconded to favorably recommend the appointment of Vincent Adams, Jamie Ball, Hazen Short, H.B. Thompson and Kerry Gooch to the Educational Opportunity Fund and to co-author the resolution. It was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Speaker Schultz presented a Resolution of Appointment considering one new College of Business Administration Senator. The committee reviewed the legislation and appointment process. It was moved and seconded to recommend favorably the appointment of Matt Marchesini as student senator for the College of Business Administration and for the committee to co-author the Resolution. It was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Speaker Schultz presented a Resolution of Appointment considering a new Student Senate Parliamentarian. The committee reviewed the legislation and appointment process. It was moved and seconded to favorably recommend the appointment of Nathan Spriggs as Student Senate Parliamentarian and for the committee to co-author the Resolution. It was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. The Commendation to Gary Hellebust was favorably recommended. It was approved by a vote of 7-0-0.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Senator Fangman Adjourned at 8:54 p.m.