Senate Operations 9-8-09

SENATE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OSAS CONFERENCE ROOM September 8, 2009 6:00PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Senate Operations Chair Joe Norris Vice Chair Tyler Sharp Student Senate Parliamentarian Kathy Sexton Senator Luke Fangman Senator Natalie Scott Senator Brandon Abbott Senator William Muir Senator Dee Rodriguez Intern 1 Intern 2

Present x x x x x

Excused

Unex.

x x x

ANNOUCEMENTS: • There were no announcements.

GENERAL BUSINESS: • The spot for College of Education Student Senator was filled, but the individual backed out. They will elect someone at the council’s next meeting.

• Proofread legislation.

• Chair Norris provided an overview of what was discussed in a special meeting about the By-Laws and Statutes revisions. o The outline of the complaint process was discussed. o There was a consensus about the first hearing including the Elections Commissioner.  A formal hearing procedure must be developed for the Elections Commissioner to go through.  The Elections Commissioner will function as judge, so it will differ from Student Tribunal hearings.  Attorney General Tank provided several documents for reference in determining what the hearing would entail. o It was also discussed to have the Elections Commissioner and Student Tribunal not be allowed to submit a complaint. They would not be allowed to file a complaint and try that same complaint.  Speaker Schultz and Bill Harlan, assistant coordinator of the Office of Student Activities and Services, expressed concerns over the repercussions of that system.



o o

o o o

o

Parliamentarian Sexton questioned whether the reporting party could abstain from the hearing if they were to report a violation.  Senator Muir questioned whether a person should be included whose sole responsibility would be to police violations.  Bill Harlan explained the process of a complaint and how it is dealt with.  Bill also explained his disagreement with the term hearing being applied to the initial “hearing” occurring with the Elections Commissioner.

Chair Norris also explained the Administration Resolution Form, provided

by Attorney General Tank. It has been discussed as a potential addition to the election review process.

It was also considered to eliminate the difference between a major violation and minor violation.  Chair Norris noted discussions had included an idea to include a list of violations in the Statutes that should be considered more seriously and could be grounds for expulsion.

The problem with repeated offenders was also discussed and how to aid in deterrence.

Senator Muir noted the step below a hearing is referred to as a review.  There was positive reception to this opposed to a hearing.

Chair Norris provided tentative proposals for the entire review process to span 3 ½ days.  It was discussed earlier with several committee members.  24 hours would be the time frame for conducting a review.  Candidates would have 12 hours to appeal a ruling.  There would then be a 48-hour period for Student Tribunal to conduct a hearing.  Bill Harlan noted that it might be more practical to denote actual times, because the review and appeals process would not commence at night.  Chair Norris also noted that the Statues do not appear to discern whether complaint violation proceedings can or cannot stretch into the weekend.  Bill Harlan said the judicial branch operates on weekdays.

The committee also reviewed the judicial branch’s appeal process.  Chair Norris said it would be helpful to have rules set out for an appeal.  Chair Norris questioned about including something about timelines.  Bill Harlan noted that that would be covered by the pre-existing guidelines.  The Student Review Board would not operate on a fact-finding basis. It would merely conduct a review with the information given to the Elections Commissioner as part of the initial “hearing” or “review.”

Senator Scott discussed the idea of the Elections Commissioner presenting their decision and justification to the Student Review Board as part of the appeal process.

Chair Norris noted the Statues state the Elections Commissioner must be appointed four weeks before the primary election.  The committee had previously discussed setting an approval deadline of November 1.  Senator Muir expressed support for setting a calendar day rather than a specific date. He proposed the first Thursday in November.  Bill Harlan proposed setting a deadline for names to be presented to the Operations Committee.  Speaker Schultz discussed setting a date for the Senate Operations to present the appointment to the Student Senate body by a certain date.  The third Thursday of October was proposed and received a positive reception.  Bill Harlan read the section of the Elections Regulations Code regarding the presentation of evidence as part of the appeal process.

The committee also discussed the idea of limiting the appeals to not include appealing the decision of the Student Tribunal to the university president.

Chair Norris noted the consensus of the committee was to not differentiate between major and minor violations but to continue doing so in regards to consequences.  Senator Fangman proposed referring to the violations as a Class 1 or Class 2 violation.  Bill Harlan said it still seemed violations were being defined as minor and major. Rather removing the section on how it is handled.

• Senator Muir noted that wording could be included about non-negotiable sanctions.

Senator Scott questioned whether fines could be imposed on pairings.  Bill Harlan said arbitrary fines couldn’t occur.

Bill Harlan noted issues with the definition of candidates and campaign.  Senator Fangman proposed making the candidates responsible for their campaigns and the actions of their campaigners.  There was a positive reception to this idea.  Bill Harlan noted arguments against the idea including persons independent of the campaign hanging signs to incur violations.

Chair Norris discussed how the committee will be able to use a Word document to make changes to the Statutes.

Chair Norris discussed the changes to the By-Laws.  The changes include eliminating the Election Review Committee and the position of Deputy Elections Commissioner.

Speaker Schultz noted that she had re-ordered the By-Laws.

•

o

o o

o o

o o o



• •

She also made changes regarding the appointment of a new Elections Commissioner, if the Elections Commissioner resigns or cannot fulfill their duties.  Chair Norris proposed adding a section about Student Tribunal and how members of the Tribunal must carry out all provisions of the Elections Regulation Code.

Chair Norris asked the committee to review the list of violations.

There was discussion about how to present the By-Laws and Statue violations to the Student Senate body. o The By-Laws revisions will be presented at this week’s Senate meeting on September 10.

LEGISLATION PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE: • Speaker Schultz presented a Resolution of Appointment concerning one new Arts & Sciences Student Senator. The committee reviewed the legislation and appointment process. Senator Fangman moved and it was seconded to recommend favorably the appointment of Eric Spiess as student senator for the College of Arts and Sciences and for the committee to co-author the Resolution. It was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.

ADJOURNMENT: The committee adjourned at 7:38 p.m.