SGA President Jason Palmer said the decision was his, but the Programming Board chair has a much different view.
By Virginia Thomas
News Assistant
A member of the Student Government Association made perhaps the most controversial SGA decision of the year last Wednesday. As of Oct. 29, Jimmy Hutcheson is no longer the Programming Board Chair of SGA. But SGA members disagree about who made the decision and why it was made.
SGA President Jason Palmer said he dismissed Hutcheson. Hutcheson said he resigned.
In an e-mail interview, Palmer said the final decision was his, and he made it “solely because of rules found in the (SGA) constitution, Article 4.”
This article states, among other things, that “No member of the senate shall be allowed to miss more than three meetings per semester.” Hutcheson was a non-voting member of the senate and Palmer said Hutcheson missed four meetings including HUTCHESON
the retreat held in October.
“I made it clear in several meetings that members of SGA could only be excused from meetings for emergency-type situations,” Palmer said. “I do not believe it was right to excuse him from meetings he had chosen to miss.”
Hutcheson said he only missed three meetings including the retreat.
“Technically it was a resignation, because I never received any formal dismissal,” he said. According to Hutcheson, he received only a message on his cell phone from Palmer saying he was dismissed, which he doesn’t consider official.
Palmer said he also mailed Jimmy an actual paper letter. Hutcheson said he has yet to receive such a document.
“It was a simultaneous deal,” Hutcheson said. “It was basically a dismissal/resignation. It was more of a resignation on my behalf, and if Jason wants to call it a dismissal that’s his prerogative.”
The question of what to do concerning Hutcheson’s attendance arose after the Oct. 22 SGA meeting was recorded as his fourth absence. The Executive Board later met with SGA adviser Michael Houston and SGA General Judicial Chair David Raimer to discuss what to do about the situation.
“After that we sent a letter basically asking (Hutcheson) to clarify why he missed one of the meetings,” Raimer said. “It was not a dismissal notice.”
Hutcheson said he saw it as a threat of dismissal. Upon receiving it, he promptly wrote an appeal in which he explained both his reasons for absence and why he deemed them excusable. Hutcheson said he was given the impression that two of his absences were excused and complained that there is a lack of clear guidelines pertaining to absences.
“The kinds of justification for what constitutes an excused absence are not in the constitution,” Hutcheson said. “Clarification for what justifies an excused absence would be good to have, considering that this is one of the first years that this is being enforced so cruelly.”
The article states “Absences may be excused by reason the president deems valid.”
Palmer agreed that constitutional article was ambiguous and that it should be reviewed.
“I agree that the president should have the final say of certain issues, and maybe even this issue,” Palmer said. “Yet I believe the Constitution should be clearer on what is and is not considered an excusable absence and how the President should go about deciding whether or not excuses are valid.”
Hutcheson said he missed the meetings in question because of other commitments, such as his fraternity’s rush events, setting up a sound system for a group using the Sandbar and his role in the Students in Free Enterprise business club.
After receiving the appeal, Raimer said that he, the E-Board and Houston spent many hours in several meetings discussing what to do.
“After hours, literally, of meetings, discussions, thought and prayer,” Palmer said, “I had to make the final decision that none of his reasons were valid for exemption, thus making him in breach of his constitutional responsibilities.”
Palmer attempted to meet with Hutcheson prior to the SGA meeting Oct. 29, but was eventually forced to inform the Programming Board Chair of the decision by voicemail.
“I really hated having to notify him in such a way,” Palmer said. “My choice was to tell him in person, for that is most respectful, but since that could not be arranged, my hope was to at least talk to him on the phone. Since I could not get in touch with him I was left with no other option.”
After receiving the voice mail, Hutcheson sent an e-mail to all SGA members and the Graphic resigning from the Programming Board.
Most SGA members were disappointed by Hutcheson’s dismissal and resignation.
“It’s ridiculous that they kicked him out of SGA,” Sophomore Sen. Ryan Rush said. “It’s such a huge loss … He puts in so much time and effort into the things that he has done. There are plenty of people that go to every meeting and don’t do anything. Their SGA experience consists of coming to meetings, and they’re just in it to put it on their resume.”
Junior Sen. Scott Withycombe said that when he looks at Hutcheson’s performance, concern for the student body and drive to improve Pepperdine, he doesn’t see his attendance as enough to warrant removal.
“I’m personally disgusted,” said Withycombe. “You eliminated a person who, in effect, knows exactly what he’s doing, does it better than any of us probably could, has connections, has information, has all of the factors that are necessary to do his job … It wasn’t a good move for the SGA or for the student body.”
Overseas Chair junior Jessica Blackstock thought Hutcheson’s absences were permissible. Particularly because one of them was the SGA retreat, which coincided with fraternity and sorority rush.
Of the 51 SGA members, 18 attended this event.
“When Jason and his group sat down and looked at the constitution, they saw black and white,” Withycombe said. “When I look at it, I see gray. And I think we should have put this within that gray area.”
If Palmer would have seen Hutcheson’s excuses as “gray” and excusable, Hutcheson said it wouldn’t have mattered. He said he wrote the appeal not with the intention to stay on SGA, but to say he was wrongfully dismissed.
“I no longer feel that God is confirming my endeavors in SGA,” he said in the e-mail. “I especially know that I can no longer function successfully with my hands tied by both our advisor and by the leadership in SGA.”
He continued, “I sternly warned against the irresponsible use of funds over the summer for the (Waves of Mercy) concert, but my warnings were ignored. It is in fact over budget by about $5,000-$10,000, though the leadership of SGA seems (to) prevent the release of any numbers to anyone yet.”
Palmer said the concert is at most $10,000 over budget, and numbers have not been released because they are not finalized.
“We are still waiting to receive the donations that have been promised to us and we want to ensure that there was no other way for us to pay for the added expenditures out of our own budget first,” Palmer said. “I can promise that we will not leave next year’s SGA in any kind of debt, as past SGA’s have faced.”
Hutcheson also told the Graphic that “there wasn’t a lot of advocacy on the part of the E-Board this year for developing better programming … there were things that I was rallying the administration for that they weren’t, and that they told me they would, but they didn’t.”
He cited the Nederlander business plan he had been working on as an example. In this plan, Pepperdine would sign a contract with an outside production company called Nederlander and that company would host large events such as concerts on Pepperdine’s campus. In theory, the restriction of one large event per semester would be eliminated by the plan.
Hutcheson also had suggested the separation of the Programming Board from SGA, which would have substantially reduced the power of SGA.
Both Withycombe and Blackstock said they were uncertain if factors other than attendance played a role in Palmer’s decision, but they both noticed that Hutcheson didn’t always agree with decisions that were made.
“I do think Jimmy definitely was very outspoken in what he thought should happen and shouldn’t happen, and those didn’t always agree with the powers that be,” Blackstock said.
Withycombe said issues surrounding the Waves of Mercy concert and Madness Reloaded may have caused some tensions. The concert is an estimated $10,000 over budget and Withycombe said it wouldn’t have been if the E-Board had listened to Hutcheson and not had Mark Schultz perform.
“They signed the contract without Jimmy knowing it, which they have the constitutional authority to do, but isn’t necessarily the right thing to do,” said Withycombe.
Palmer said Hutcheson’s sometimes dissenting opinions had nothing to do with the outcome.
“There were moments we did not see eye-to-eye,” said Palmer. “But this happens in any organization. Jimmy’s job performance and any interactions we had with him previously played no part in this decision.”
Junior Sen. Ryan Breedyk said he doesn’t think Palmer let personal bias interfere with decision making.
“Nothing blatantly sticks out to me that would cause him to do something like that,” Breedyk said.
Though nobody interviewed, including Palmer, said he or she was happy about the decision, some looked more favorably on it than others.
“I guess it was fair because it’s in the rules that you can’t miss that many meetings,” Programming Board Concerts Chair Alexa Johnson said. “But I found Jimmy to be a good mentor to me, because I just started and I needed help right now, so I was disappointed.”
Until a new programming board chair is appointed, the E-Board will fill the position. Palmer said the application process will begin in one or two weeks, and they hope to have someone in place by the end of the semester.
November 06, 2003
