SGA Confronts Election Aftermath

Author: Chesley Thurber

Repercussions from last month's Student Government Association (SGA) polling-station controversy continued to rattle the SGA Senate last Sunday as the group addressed three new constitutional amendments designed to prevent similar problems in the future.

The first, written by Co-Sophomore Class Senator Erin Sullivan '04.5, created a set of comprehensive guidelines governing the use of public voting stations in SGA elections. The amendment, which reinforces legislation passed in an emergency meeting of the Senate during the election period, easily achieved the two-thirds majority necessary for a constitutional change by a vote of 12-0 with two abstentions.

Atwater Commons Senator Kevin Sullivan '04.5 reintroduced his amendment that would allow for the Speaker of the Senate to be removed by a two-thirds majority vote in the event that he or she failed to lead the Senate impartially due to a conflict of interest. The modified proposal contained a revised protocol where a member of the Presidential Cabinet would assume the responsibilities of the speaker in such an incident. Although the amendment was supported by SGA President Brian Elworthy '02.5 and Student Co-chair of Community Council Erica Rosenthal '02, it failed to win even a simple majority of Senate votes.

The third amendment, authored and proposed by Ross Commons Senator Fahim Ahmed '03, restricts access to election results to only the members of the Elections Council until the conclusion of the election when the final results must be verified by the SGA advisor, the Dean of Student Affairs, before being released publicly. The amendment passed unanimously.

The first two amendments in particular were drafted in direct response to controversy over voting practices in last month's SGA election and the series of intense emergency Senate meetings that followed. It began when the SGA Elections Committee, led by Director of Membership Sara Schuman '02, shut down computer voting terminals set up in Proctor Dining Hall because the students running the terminals were wearing clothing explicitly supporting presidential candidate Neil Onsdorff '03.

As the Senate met in emergency sessions, tensions continued to grow as many felt that Speaker of the Senate Kevin King '02 violated his responsibility to lead the meeting impartially due to a conflict of interest.

E. Sullivan's amendment builds upon a bill passed at the emergency session creating a set of protocol to govern the use of public voting terminals during SGA elections. Public voting terminals have received widespread support and had a significant effect on this year's increased voter turnout. The protocol is designed to ensure that public voting terminals are managed in a way that does not give advantage to any particular candidate.

The amendment states that such terminals must be managed by the SGA Elections Council and must not be structured in a way to "coerce" voters. Candidates must be notified of the public voting locations at least 24 hours prior to the beginning of elections and a radius will be established around each location in which candidates are prohibited from campaigning.

In a revised version of the amendment he proposed last week, K. Sullivan created a simpler method of temporarily replacing the Speaker of the Senate. While the amendment still required a two-thirds majority vote to remove the current speaker in the case of a conflict of interest, the process of nominating another senator to replace him or her was eliminated. Instead, a member of Presidential Cabinet would assume the responsibility as determined by an order stated in the amendment.

K. Sullivan stated that he felt it "imperative" to pass such an amendment. However, he received stiff opposition from a block of senators who disagreed with the principle of temporary removal. "I really think we should stick with the speaker," said Cook Commons Senator Jacob Carney '04. He added that if the speaker were truly failing in "his job which is to be impartial … he should be gone," referring to permanent removal of the speaker.

Co-Sophomore Class Senator Matthew Reimer expressed similar reasons for opposing the bill. He worried that such a procedure would "take away from the severity of an impeachment charge" and might be "overutilized against an unpopular speaker." Saying the bill "just wasn't helpful," Reimer accused both Sullivans of having "a personal vendetta against Kevin King."

Denying the accusation, K. Sullivan defended the bill, explaining that it was intended to "ensure by a very simple and immediate procedure that efficiency and objectivity are maintained at all times."

King, whose actions as speaker during the emergency sessions resulted in the origin of the bill, abstained from voting. He did express support for the principle saying, "I think there is a way in which this could be a useful tool for the Senate."