In the wake of controversial proceedings at the Student Union Treasury meeting last Tuesday, a Student Life investigation into the meeting’s events has shown that the recent midterm Treasury elections could have been illegal.

“The vote of confidence motion [for elections] needs a [general] vote.ÿWe set that precedent two years ago,” said Chris Wray, a former speaker of the Treasury and a certified parliamentarian. “This is in sharp contrast to the events of last week.”

According to “Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised,” the handbook used by Student Union (SU) to guide their proceedings, “If the question is not debatable, or debate has been closed by order of the assembly, the chair, immediately after stating the question, puts it to vote.” In layman’s terms, this means that any motion, after being debated, must be put to a vote before taking effect.

“There is no justification for their actions,” said Wray. “You would need at least a majority, if not a super majority [two-thirds of the body].”

At last week’s meeting, the election was triggered by only a motion and a second, not a vote on the part of the entire body. Former Co-Chair of the Student Group Activities Committee Harsh Agarwal was unanimously selected as the Treasury’s speaker.

Despite the required adherence to “Robert’s Rules,” several top SU executives were unable to cite the legal justification for the events of last week’s meeting. When asked about “Robert’s Rules,” SU President David Ader and Assistant Vice Chancellor for Students Jill Carnaghi each referred Student Life to Agarwal. Yet Agarwal referred reporters to former Speaker of the Treasury Judson Clark, who declined to comment and referred reporters back to Agarwal.

“As far as the legality of the election is concerned, I go by common sense. We did not have a vote,” said Agarwal. “It seems logical.”

He added, “‘Robert’s Rules’ does not do the best job of guiding how elections work.”

Agarwal did not run the proceedings of the election.

“Effectively, there was no speaker to run the meeting [at the time of the election],” said Agarwal. “I was not the one who approved elections. The previous speaker would be the one who would have to. I don’t know what was going through the previous speaker’s head.”

He added that there was an unofficial general consensus to have an election.

“It was agreed to by everyone in the room that we should find a new speaker first and then he or she would run the meeting,” said Agarwal. “We did not have a vote on whether we should have an election or not. It made sense to do it [that way].”

He continued, “Honestly, if we had had a vote in there, I don’t think anything would have changed.”

In addition to issues regarding the legality of the elections, another issue arises concerning whether the Treasury followed their own precedent, set in Nov. 2003, when electing a speaker.

“In 2003, the Treasury leadership decided to hold midterm elections,” said Wray. “Two weeks before the elections were held, a member of the Treasury called for elections. It was something that we did well in advance.”

With Treasury as a relatively new organization, though, Agarwal sees the precedent as still being set.

“Treasury is two and a half years old,” he said. “This is a time for setting precedent. You will find a lot of precedents that are constantly overturned. If exceptions need to be made, we have been elected to do so.”

Overall, Agarwal feels that the elections were carried out equitably.

“I wanted to ensure fairness,” he said. “I gave the option to both candidates if they wanted to defer elections. Budget allocations for student groups were due right then, and deferring elections would do no good if both [candidates] were ready to run.”

Furthermore, he feels the focus should not be on the internal proceedings of the Treasury, but rather on its future interactions with the student groups that it oversees.

“What I am charged to do is see that student groups’ interests are maintained,” said Argawal. “Had we deferred the elections for two weeks, the budgets may not have come back to the groups until next semester. It is not unethical. It is what we have been elected to do.”

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, December 9th, 2005 at 12:00 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.