SGA Stalls Proposal to Remove Speaker Amendment Would Have Provided for Interim Speaker in Conflict of Interest Case

Author: Nicha Rakpanichmanee

After an hour and a half of debate Sunday night, the Student Government Association (SGA) Senate failed to pass a proposal for provisional removal of the Speaker of the Senate. The amendment to the SGA Constitution fell two votes short of the required two-thirds majority, with a vote of eight to five with two abstentions.

The amendment would have allowed for the Senate's with a majority vote to nominate an interim Speaker "in the event that there is a conflict of interest between [the current Speaker] and the topic of current discussion to an extent that it is detrimental to the efficacy and efficiency of deliberation."

As written in the rationale of his proposal, Atwater Commons Senator Kevin Sullivan '04.5 authored the bill "in light of the most recent emergency meeting" on April 18, during which the SGA discussion on computer voting stations degenerated into heated exchanges.

Sullivan said during an interview that the bill would provide "a warning sign" for the Speaker under circumstances in which "it's very easy for the Speaker to not be able to self-evaluate his actions or how he runs the meeting when there is that level of tension in the room."

Several SGA members agreed with the need for intermediate recourse because the current constitution offers only impeachment as a possible reprimand for a Speaker's misconduct.

"[The amendment] respects the work of the Speaker thus far," continued Sullivan. "It's a less severe step, and one that protects the rights of the Speaker as well as affords equal rights to every senator."

Senior Senator and Speaker Kevin King cast one of the eight votes in favor of the bill. Although King initially announced to the Senate that he would abstain, he said he told Sullivan that he would vote for the bill "if it was in danger of not passing."

"It wasn't as much that I felt [the bill] was absolutely necessary as I felt hard work had been done," explained King. "The SGA can move on and be productive without it, but it was a question of having one more tool available to us."

Student Co-chair of Community Council Erica Rosenthal '02, who also voted in favor of the bill, cited one example from the emergency meeting to reflect the importance of Sullivan's bill. She recalled that one senator had requested that King step down due to a possible conflict of interest with the topic of debate.

"Kevin declined," said Rosenthal, "and there was no procedure to get at that. He could have volunteered to step down."

"I think that obviously everyone acknowledged that that [King stepping down] would have probably been the best thing to do," commented SGA President Brian Elworthy '02.5, who "really liked [Sullivan's] bill."

Noting that the bill was "a direct result" of some senators' reaction to King's conduct at the emergency meeting, Elworthy recalled, "At that point, there was no constitutional procedure to follow, aside from a full impeachment trial. And at 11:30 p.m. on a Thursday night, the night before the election, when senators are called to decide on an issue that will have bearing on the election on the next day, an impeachment proceeding was not even possible."

Meanwhile, some of the bill's opponents argued against creating the protocol for such an intermediary recourse for reasons of efficiency as well as principles. Sophomore Senator Matthew Riemer viewed the nomination and election procedures for an interim Speaker as "more red tape in any given meeting, rather than expediting a meeting, as the author intended it to do."

Riemer quoted Sullivan's rationale that a Speaker's actions are "at the crux of the SGA" and added that this "automatically means that if [the Speaker] is ever in violation of his/her duties, he/she must be removed permanently."

In voting against the final version of Sullivan's bill, Riemer also "worried that the bill would strip an impeachment charge of its seriousness" in the case that a Speaker may be "asked to step down for multiple meetings before [being] reprimanded in the only appropriate manner."

Brainerd Commons Senator Stoddart Pierce '04 alluded to similar reasoning in his vote against Sullivan's bill. He added that the provisional removal procedure could also be "too often used as a tool for the opposition."

Pierce considered the bill to be "a reaction to that [emergency] meeting," but continued that "in the case of King at Thursday's [April 18] meeting, it wasn't a serious violation [of the Speaker's role]." While Pierce noted the high tension at the emergency meeting, "it wasn't just [King]. Although it was a little chaotic, the right decision was made," he said.

Riemer's fellow Sophomore Senator Erin Sullivan voted in favor of the bill and was also a sponsor. "King just wasn't able to control his emotions [at the emergency meeting]," she said. "We have seen a pattern that King is more often driven byself-interest rather than what is best for the College community, thus polluting what the SGA tries to accomplish. From King, we have all learned the lesson. Some precedent needs to be set that this behavior is not tolerated."

"It's good sometimes to have a little blood flowing every now and then," said King in an interview. He explained further, "It is pretty unreasonable to think that the speaker who is in a sense just another senator who has some additional responsibilities should shed his or her opinions out the door." King called the emergency meeting "a great success" even though some SGA members were "frustrated" or "speaking out of order." He emphasized that the agreement resulting from the emergency meeting reflected the positive end result.

According to the SGA constitution, even if the amendment had been passed, it would not take effect until after the first SGA meeting of next semester. King mentioned this detail as he affirmed that the debate on this bill "absolutely [did] not" cause a conflict of interest for him, despite comments about the emergency meeting voiced by many SGA members on Sunday.

SGA Director of Student Organizations Kate Moffett '04, as a cabinet member, could not cast a vote on Sunday. However, she said she supported the bill's intent. "I think the bill did not pass because we talked about it for too long," commented Moffett. "That night, people were talking about King and not about the general issue," added Moffett, "and that made it hard as well."

"People were inching their way out of the meeting tonight," said Sullivan on Sunday, "and I think they let that influence their vote." He said he plans to revisit the issue before the end of the year.