USG Senate Tramples Club Rights

Submitted by Robert J. Romano
Former USG Senator
 
At the September 27th meeting of the USG Senate, as several club officers were still in line waiting to express their displeasure with the newly proposed off-campus travel policy which would force clubs to fundraise 15% of their off-campus travel costs, Executive Vice President Nathan Shapiro determined that the meeting was becoming out of order and disrespectful of the junior Senators present, and he adjourned the meeting before 9PM.  The incident sparked outrage from the Senate gallery, who approached USG officials after the meeting to continue petitioning their government.  When one club officer questioned Shapiro’s right to adjourn the meeting, he replied that he was the Chair of the Senate.  And apparently, the Chair can do no wrong.
 
This is not the first time that a Senate meeting has seemingly been wrongly cut short.  As reported by Esam al Shareffi last spring on The Independent, when students were questioning the newly passed budget during open agenda, the meeting was adjourned before all could be heard.
 
To be fair, Shapiro believes in “legislative supremacy,” a doctrine which would certainly hold that the chair of a legislative body could adjourn a meeting if it became disorderly.  However, in the USG, the principle of “legislative supremacy” does not apply.  The Senate is limited in particular by the rights of clubs and organizations which are contained in both the USG Constitution and in the laws of the USG, such as the clubs’ right to challenge the legitimacy of the Senate’s funding decisions in the judicial branch. 
 
Of particular importance, section 2.C.1. of the “Club and Organization Bill of Rights,” adopted by the Senate in 2004 states that “All clubs shall be notified … of their right to be placed on the agenda.” By adjourning the meeting before all of the clubs could be heard, the Executive Vice President violated the rights of clubs to be on the Senate’s agenda.  This breach was compounded by Shapiro’s refusal to allow John Gemma to be added to the agenda, the President of both the Men’s Rugby team and the Sports Club Council, who had approached the Executive Vice President days before the Senate meeting to ask to be added to the agenda.  Gemma had asked for ten minutes on the agenda to address the proposed off-campus travel policy at length, but was refused by Shapiro.  This was a violation of his club’s right to be added to agenda which is provided for by law.  This is a matter in which the Chair of the Senate does not have discretion.  When clubs ask to be on the agenda, the Senate and its Chair are bound by law to add them to the agenda.
 
It was perhaps fitting that on the same night clubs were denied their right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, the Senate voted to abolish the Council of Representatives, a deliberative body which was to be composed by the clubs funded by the USG to address club issues and to pass resolutions on USG policies from the perspective of clubs.  It should be noted that last year’s VP of Clubs and Organizations, Ralph Thomas, was impeached from office in part for his failure to organize the Council of Representatives.  It was therefore frustratingly ironic that the repeal of the “Council of Representatives Act” was supported by President Joe Antonelli at the meeting itself, who originally voted in favor of both the bill and the impeachment of Thomas, and Vice President of Student Life Jonathan Hirst, who proposed the legislation in the first place and similarly voted in favor of the impeachment.  To add to the irony, as the Senate voted to repeal the one deliberative body that was ever established for clubs, they were applauded by former Senator Alexsandra Borodkin in the gallery, who too had originally voted in favor of composing the Council and impeaching Thomas.
 
Fortunately, President Antonelli has since the meeting vetoed the measure to disband the Council after hearing some of the dissenting views at the Senate meeting.  He wanted to give the Council a chance to be organized at the September 29th Leadership Day.  After speaking with Antonelli about the veto, he informed me that the current VP of Clubs and Organizations, Jeffrey Akita, had successfully constituted and organized the Council utilizing Leadership Day, and that the clubs had elected their representatives.  It may be too early to tell if the Council will be an effective body or not, as it has yet to meet, but it is safe to say that the Senate acted prematurely in voting to disband the body.  I would like to commend the President for at least giving the Council a chance to be organized,  VP of Clubs and Organizations Akita for getting it done and disproving the Senate, and those Senators who did vote against disbanding the Council of Representatives, including Senators Chris Pitera and John Kriscenski.  
 
Disbanding the Council of Representatives had been justified on the grounds that composing the Council of Representatives was not practical, and was somehow redundant because clubs now had votes on the Student Activities Board and because there was a Student Life Council enacted.  This latter argument was and is poor because the Student Activities Board was established to put on activities for the student body and the Student Life Council was established to address quality of life issues on campus.  Neither body was designed to address club-related issues, which the Council of Representatives was established to do. 
 
As for the establishment of the Council of Representatives being impractical, the Executive Council had no way of knowing if it would have worked or not because it never had been tried.  Leadership Day, which all funded clubs were threatened with their budgets being frozen if they did not attend, was precisely where the Council of Representatives was supposed to be composed.  With all of the clubs in attendance, the VP of Clubs and Organizations is supposed to break each club up into its respective “bureaus” (i.e. athletic, academic, advocacy, etc.) and then have them elect their representatives which would compose the body.  Thanks to the efforts of President Antonelli and VP Akita, the Council will now have a chance to work, and clubs will have a chance through their representatives to make their voices heard.
 
Thursday’s meeting of the Senate followed the September 19th meeting where the Senate voted to place a new USG Constitution on the ballot.  Amongst other changes, this proposal removes most of the club rights which are currently contained in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, including the right of clubs to appeal the Senate’s funding decisions to the judiciary.
 
In two short weeks, clubs rights have been trampled upon by the USG Senate and its Chair, who ought to in the very least be censured for violating the letter of the law in section 2.C.1. of the “Club and Organization Bill of Rights” and its spirit in Article II, Section 3.I. of the USG Constitution which states in part that “No club, organization, or entity shall be denied the right … to petition any Government for a redress of grievances…” Clubs should protect their rights by casting votes against the new Constitution online SOLAR from October 22nd through the 26th, lobbying Senators to take action against Shapiro for violating the law, and by continuing to petition the Senate for a redress of their grievances. 
 
In the meantime, it appears that the clubs have won an early victory in their fight against the proposed off-campus travel policy.  President Antonelli has recently issued an executive order clarifying that the policy will not be enforced unless and until the Senate changes the Financial Bylaws and makes it the law of the land.  This should give clubs, especially those who travel often, some temporary relief that they will be able to fulfill their missions without any obstruction from the Treasurer’s office.  As the Senate is still considering the policy, however, clubs should not ease up their pressure on the Senate.   Through reasoned lobbying, clubs can still defeat the proposed policy by persuading the Senate to vote against it, and in extension, convince the Senate to protect the rights of clubs instead of violating them. 

Letters to the editor are not the opinion of the Independent, but rather individuals who submit their own opinions for publication.