Student senate met Wednesday to discuss -- and ultimately table -- a resolution that would change its rules and procedures on votes of no confidence that remove executive officers accused of failing their required responsibilities to the senate.
Governmental affairs senator Lydia Colvin is the primary sponsor of the resolution. She said in passing the resolution, a timeline would be appointed to the process of removing an executive officer and allowing them more due process. This bill would only investigate an executive officer’s performance in their role, not misconduct which would be investigated by the senate judicial panel’s process.
The resolution comes after the Student Senate’s removal and reinstatement of its Vice President Isaac Davis. At senate’s Feb. 21 meeting, Senate President Megan Handle said 22 of 32 voting members voted to remove him from his position in a vote of no confidence because they believed he was not fit to remain in office. At the Feb. 28 meeting, Handle said Davis was reinstated due to irregularities in the vote.
Colvin said the process starts with any senate member or members submitting a statement to a graduate assistant detailing the reasons they believe an officer is not fulfilling their required duties. The graduate assistant will then meet with the officer and the officer will be given two weeks to improve their performance.
If the member or members who submitted the statement believe the officer has not improved, they can submit a referral to the judicial panel, which must consider the referral within a week and present it in front of the full senate. The judicial panel will then be given two weeks to conduct an investigation on the officer’s performance.
If the panel determines the officer is potentially unfit, it will read its findings, the officer will have time to defend themself and members will have a chance to ask questions in an executive session. Then, a vote of no confidence will be held, also in an executive session.
“I believe this change of rules and procedures would increase accountability and the senate allow for due process for executive officers and create a process in which members can bring concerns about executive officers' performances,” Colvin said.
Following Colvin’s explanation of the bill, Grace Jarchow, executive justice within senate’s judicial panel, told senate that the judicial panel had denied this resolution because of several concerns.
Jarchow said the primary concern for the judicial panel was that they felt it would be better for the student body if a vote of no confidence was removed altogether.
Another concern of the judicial panel, Jarchow said, is the amount of power the resolution gives to the graduate assistant in the future, through students being able to report complaints directly to them.
The final concern of the judicial panel, and the reason for its rejection of the resolution, was the possibility of recurring or redundancy of referrals and content against one executive officer.
Addressing the final concern, Colvin said any subsequent referrals containing the same content that are submitted to either the graduate assistant or directly to the judicial panel would be used as further evidence of the officer not fulfilling their duties.
Jarchow also said the bill would not give the panel enough time to do a proper investigation. The judicial panel currently has three ongoing investigations and two closed.
“I will say that two weeks to develop the proper investigation is extremely close to impossible,” Jarchow said. “As students (and) senate members, we're very busy. A lot of people have very low availability, and two weeks is definitely difficult.”
After further discussion, senate members -- including Davis -- suggested not voting on the resolution until the judicial panel has closed all of its investigations surrounding the last vote of no confidence.
“I would say, at least, this should obviously be discussed until investigations are closed about the irregularities surrounding the last vote of no confidence,” Davis said. “That way, we get a lot more context into how the system can be reformed.”
Following the discussion, the senate tabled the resolution, allowing members to read the document themselves, and to vote at their next meeting April 3.
