By Michael Travis
News Editor
The ballots have been counted, the decision is in and the voting is over. But the controversy is not. After an extended dispute, the Programming Board has been removed from the Student Government Association constitution. And the dust hasn’t settled just yet.
Resolution 10 was passed by the student body last Wednesday and affirmed by the General Judicial Council at last night’s SGA meeting, despite a protest that was raised by some SGA members, including sophomore class senator Joy Campbell and junior class senator Marcus Cooke.
“Personally, I didn’t like how things were done,” said Cooke, who is also the finance director of the Programming Board. “People’s votes were being swayed during the voting for the constitutional amendment.”
Campbell drafted a formal letter of protest and submitted it to the Election Rules Chair and the General Judicial Chair.
The principle concern that the SGA members had with the election was that Article VIII, Section 9.F of the SGA constitution had been violated. It states, “There shall be no active campaigning within fifty feet of the ballot box.”
SGA member John Grogg and junior class senator Eddie Policastro were reportedly witnessed making comments that influenced the decisions of the voters to pass the resolution and eliminate the Board, hence engaging in “active campaigning.”
“It doesn’t matter that they [Grogg and Policastro] were lobbying for the resolution,” Cooke said. “The point is that they shouldn’t have been lobbying, period. They said things they were not supposed to say.”
The complaint also stated the presence of the resolution at the voting table was not fair, since most students did not understand the details of why the resolution was drafted. To these individuals, the resolution would appear to have a negative slant toward the Programming Board, since it only highlighted what the Board had done wrong.
For these reasons, a request was made that the GJC call for a re-vote.
The case was reviewed by the GJC last Monday. Only three senators that were involved in they controversy were able to attend the hearing. They included Campbell and two other SGA members who remain anonymous. Other members that were involved were not able to attend the meeting, and hence were not able to tell their side of the story.
According the GJC’s official statement, the three stories given by the SGA members had “varying and at time conflicting accounts of the elections.”
Because of this, the GJC reached the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to show that the accused senators had done anything wrong, since they had only been “paraphrasing” what was written in the resolution. In addition, it concluded that the presence of the resolution had not impacted the outcome of the voting.
Although the majority of the GJC held these opinions, there was a dissenting opinion that stated even the slightest bit of emotion in an SGA member’s voice could sway a voter one way or the other.
For the rest of this semester, the Programming Board will remain a part of the constitution. It still has 50 percent of SGA’s budget. However, it now has only $42,658.42, once the total after last semester’s deficit of $18,141.08 was deducted, also pending further bills from that time.
Next year, campus events and activities will still be planned by the Programming Board, with a few exceptions. The difference will come in the form of how much money is acquired and spent.
“The bottom line is the Programming Board still exists,” Cooke said. “We’re still here, we’ll still be putting on events, and we still love the students.”
The Executive Board of SGA will be responsible for determining how much money the special events chair will have in its budget, and the SGA senate will ratify that amount if they agree with it. If the committee needs more money, it will have to apply for the funds through the SGA treasurer and the SGA senate.
“I am confident that the students made the right decision,” SGA Treasurer Ben Veenendaal said. “It will help make the budget cleaner cut and more straightforward next year. We will give them [the Programming Board] as much as possible without depleting other committees, clubs and organizations.”
it to the Election Rules Chair and the General Judicial Chair.
The principle concern that the SGA members had with the election was that Article VIII, Section 9.F of the SGA constitution had been violated.
It states, “There shall be no active campaigning within fifty feet of the ballot box.”
SGA member John Grogg and junior class senator Eddie Policastro were reportedly witnessed making comments that influenced the decisions of the voters to pass the resolution and eliminate the Board, hence engaging in “active campaigning.”
“It doesn’t matter that they (Grogg and Policastro) were lobbying for the resolution,” Cooke said. “The point is that they shouldn’t have been lobbying, period. They said things they were not supposed to say.”
The complaint also stated the presence of the resolution at the voting table was not fair, since most students did not understand the details of why the resolution was drafted.
To these individuals, the resolution would appear to have a negative slant toward the Programming Board, since it only highlighted what the Board had done wrong.
For these reasons, a request was made that the GJC call for a re-vote.
The case was reviewed by the GJC last Monday. Only three senators that were involved in they controversy were able to attend the hearing. They included Campbell and two other SGA members who remain anonymous. Other members that were involved were not able to attend the meeting, and hence were not able to tell their side of the story.
According the GJC’s official statement, the three stories given by the SGA members had “varying and at time conflicting accounts of the elections.”
Because of this, the GJC reached the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to show that the accused senators had done anything wrong, since they had only been “paraphrasing” what was written in the resolution.
In addition, it concluded that the presence of the resolution had not impacted the outcome of the voting.
Although the majority of the GJC held these opinions, there was a dissenting opinion that stated even the slightest bit of emotion in an SGA member’s voice could sway a voter one way or the other.
For the rest of this semester, the Programming Board will remain a part of the constitution. It still has 50 percent of SGA’s budget. However, it now has only $42,658.42, once the total after last semester’s deficit of $18,141.08 was deducted, also pending further bills from that time.
Next year, campus events and activities will still be planned by the Programming Board, with a few exceptions. The difference will come in the form of how much money is acquired and spent.
“The bottom line is the Programming Board still exists,” Cooke said. “We’re still here, we’ll still be putting on events, and we still love the students.”
The Executive Board of SGA will be responsible for determining how much money the special events chair will have in its budget, and the SGA senate will ratify that amount if they agree with it. If the committee needs more money, it will have to apply for the funds through the SGA treasurer and the SGA senate.
“I am confident that the students made the right decision,” SGA Treasurer Ben Veenendaal said. “It will help make the budget cleaner cut and more straightforward next year. We will give (the Programming Board) as much as possible without depleting other committees, clubs and organizations.”
January 31, 2002