Student Congress deliberates Superior Court impeachment
Published: April 28, 2010
During the Undergraduate Student Congress meeting Tuesday night, Graduate Student Senate Chairman-elect Silas DeBoer encouraged the Undergraduate Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the entire UOSA Superior Court.
DeBoer said the court issued fines against GSS and specific senators in a court proceeding that they were not present for or informed of.
The Graduate Student Senate has twice delayed a resolution to encourage impeachment. DeBoer, communication graduate student, said the Senate was ignorant in not recommending impeachment.
“I’m doing this because one of my constituencies has been wronged,” DeBoer said.
DeBoer encouraged the Undergraduate Student Congress to pass an impeachment bill so that the Graduate Student Senate could begin proceedings against the court.
Rep. Kody Shipley questioned whether it would be a conflict of interest for the GSS to hold a trial against the court, which issued a fine against GSS.
DeBoer said it wouldn’t be a conflict of interest and he didn’t think the Senate would achieve the two-third majority needed to impeach the court.
“I promise the senate will give the courts due process rights that were denied to [our members],” Deboer said.
The Judicial Code of Conduct lists four impeachable offenses: breaching confidentiality, ex parte communication, recusal and endorsement of a candidate. DeBoer said that these were impeachable offenses, but that the court could be impeached for other reasons.
Congress attempted to bring the bill to the floor through a parliamentary procedure and achieved a two-thirds majority, but members opposed to the bill left the room and a majority was lost. After two roll call votes, a quorum was regained. Soon, a recess was called.
After a long recess, in which the legality of passing a bill not on the agenda was discussed, the meeting reconvened and a bill for impeachment was drafted.
The Oklahoma Open Meetings Act allows new business to be presented at meetings, but it must be reasonably unforeseen. A bill encouraging impeachment was first heard at GSS April 18.
Next in the Undergraduate Congress meeting, due to a mix-up in parliamentary procedure, the Congress voted again to move to committee of the whole to vote on a bill for impeachment. Moving to committee of the whole is a parliamentary method for introducing new legislation. This time, a two-thirds majority was not reached and the bill was not voted on, voiding the question of whether it violated the Open Meetings Act.
“I think the more we went through it, the more people understood what we were doing,” said Sam Peyton, University College district representative. “If we had moved into committee, I think we may have violated the Open Meetings Act.”
Also at the meeting, a bill was passed to deregulate administrative organizations’ elections.
Administrative organizations fall into three categories: governmental, such as UOSA; residential, such as the Housing Center Student Association; and campus activities, such as the Campus Activities Council.
The bill allows administrative organizations to hold elections without UOSA sanction. The bill also removes a requirement of these organizations to register all of their voting members with UOSA.
Organizations would still be required to hold their elections during a UOSA election time frame.
Comments
localsooner 1 year, 9 months ago
So what do these people actually do? Takes up a bunch of space on this website, and I can't seem to figure out the function of these whole organization, except for a few people to play grown-up
NormanNow 1 year, 9 months ago
Just more proof on why they should stop wasting OUR MONEY to play games. With the economy how it is, its time to get rid of UOSA and give us OUR MONEY!
soonerboomers 1 year, 9 months ago
Time well spent once again by the congress.
crimethink 1 year, 9 months ago
And deciding whether to impeach the justices was not persued in a "petty, personal, and vindictive" manner either. Impeachment was persued because a majority of Student Congress thought that "the members of the student court had the temerity" to disregard the fact that the event was hosted by a registered student organization not subject to the cited law and to fine two individuals and Graduate Student Senate without informing them that they were in jeopardy of a fine which violates the due process clause of the UOSA Constitution. I would also argue that the design of the proposed forum with an author's summation, graduate student comments, and undergraduate student comments was fair because the forum was not designed to be a proponent vs. opponent debate. It was simply to be a forum with legitimate representatives from each group of students explaining the effects of the amendments. Allowing the court to get away with violating the law just because most of the justices are graduating is unconscionable. That suggests that a senior should be allowed to cheat on their final exams and get away with it just because they are graduating. There is no justice in that inaction. The legislature will still have the chance to pass a curative act or bring up charges for impeachment in the future, and I believe it is the duty of UOSA to do so. We will not waste student time or money by pursuing justice. We will restore faith in the justice system while continuing to consider projects and ideas.
Further, we did not break any law Mr. Harrison. Nor in my opinion would we have been in violation of the law if we had proceeded with new business because the Congress as a whole did not reasonably forsee passing charges of impeachment until after Senator DeBoer spoke on the topic. The Congress is empowered to tackle new business when it sees fit, and neither the body as a whole nor a committee had conceived the idea of passing charges of impeachment until after being persuaded by Senator DeBoer during the meeting. In the future, please file your complaints with authorities of competent jurisdiction before assuming that UOSA violated the law. I do not take kindly to you or Troy Weatherford speculating about laws in order to scare members of Student Congress. Justice will come in this case whether it is through a curative act or charges for impeachment. I swear that to you.
In the meantime, UOSA will continue to work for students by initiating projects that improve students' lives. UOSA will always be here to advocate for students and search for solutions to problems on campus.
kipt 1 year, 9 months ago
All I feel that I should say is that last night was VERY frustrating, I am not proud of that meeting but also I must ask to you all to come to a meeting OR even talk to a representative. WE WANT TO HELP! But instead you leave remarks here instead of talking to us. As far as the money it is not like we are being paid. If you think that we are useless what is the harm in talking to us or sending us an email. I honestly think that if a student was to come to a meeting and stand up and voice their opinion A LOT more people would listen.
crimethink 1 year, 9 months ago
While some of Mr. Harrison’s ideas would benefit students, I believe that he did not receive a large share of student votes in the spring election because many of his proposals are too difficult to achieve in one year or even two. Further, Mr. Harrison has failed to show that he is capable of cooperating with other parts of student government or is connected with students’ daily lives and concerns. Many of his proposals confuse students who do not wish to spend hours formulating ways to take over the government as Mr. Harrison does. Most students wish to study, be involved with various student organizations, and participate in campus activities. That is precisely why they elect representatives to student government to advocate on their behalf. These proposals will be best accomplished by the legislature with the authority to advocate on behalf of the students. Mr. Harrison should rest assured that his ideas have been heard and will be debated alongside the changes other presidential candidates have proposed.
Moreover, Kipt is right. Representatives talk to people in their district on a daily basis, but it is impossible to talk to every person represented every single day. So it becomes necessary for students that are upset to seek out their representatives in Congress. If even a single student comes to their Representative with a complaint or concern, that student can be certain that they will receive a powerful response. And if even one student comes to speak at a Congress meeting during student concerns, then that student can expect their concern to be referred to a committee and acted upon in a reasonable way. That, Mr. Harrison is not "petty, personal, and vindictive."
crimethink 1 year, 9 months ago
Stopping the sale of student information to credit card companies and adopting financial literacy programs could benefit students.
Getting tuition and fees back under control and eliminating special fees for services that should be part of tuition should be advocated if students so wish.
Establishing more night programs and correspondence courses for nontraditional students would be worth advocating for.
Extending National Guard tuition waivers to cover fees, graduate studies, and out-of-state tuition, securing room and board grants for ROTC students, and creating a UOSA Department of Student Veterans Affairs are all worthwhile endeavors if these ideas can be shown to have the support of many students and would benefit the greater good.
Forming a graduate student union has many implications, but UOSA would look into the idea if many students supported such an idea.
Establishing a professional code of conduct and a formal professional misconduct system is slightly unnecessary since such a code is contained in the faculty handbook at http://www.ou.edu/provost/ouncfhb.pdf and a procedure to prosecute violations already exists, but a more formal process could be established if many students support such an idea.
Allowing the students to vote on additional funding earmarked for campus activities and student organizations is a process that can already be initiated through the Initiative, Petition, Referendum, and Recall article of the UOSA Constitution if students are unhappy with the way money was allocated by the legislature.
Giving student organizations their own legislature in UOSA would lead to calamity far beyond what has already occurred in UOSA in recent years. A body composed of more than 400 members could never be expected to function and have quorum. University students do not have the same amount of time to dedicate to legislation and meetings as the United States House of Representatives. Given this fault, that type of legislature would be prone to takeover through proxy voting and the creation of new student organizations. Student organizations can already be represented through UOSA, and elected UOSA officials do so on a daily basis.
Receiving full disclosure of all university contracts, perks, discretionary funds, donations, and investments may already be possible through the Oklahoma Open Records Act, but a website of some sort could be created if students wish to have access to this information.
Including sexual orientation and gender identity in the university’s core non-discrimination statement and Equal Opportunity complaint policy is an initiative that UOSA, especially Congress, has been ardently fighting for all year. UOSA will continue to fight for equal rights.
brandeis 1 year, 9 months ago
All of the things listed by crimethink are extremely insignificant. Every single one of them. The only vaguely interesting ones are "the future projects" and let's see how those turn out because I am doubtful they will go anywhere.
Anon 1 year, 9 months ago
I agree with kipt. Most of the people who complain about UOSA have never even tried talking to their representatives - if you tell them you want something changed, they will put forth a bill to try to change it (provided it's reasonable, of course).
Try talking to your government before deciding it's not doing anything for you. We can't exactly do anything unless you let us know what you want.
alaskaairborne 1 year, 9 months ago
Dude, you are NEVER going to draw your average student to UOSA so long as this atmosphere continues in student government. Over the past year, it has gotten petty, personal, and vindictive.
As someone who HAS been involved in UOSA prominently (both from within and from without), I get asked all of the time why I waste my time with it. And, after reading about last night's spectacle at Student Congress, I have real difficulty coming up with a good answer.
Duirng my campaign, I provided a shopping list of fifteen different issues that people in student government COULD be addressing. But, instead of taking on any of those items, people have chosen to start out their terms by breaking state law (i.e. the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act once again) and trying to impeach the entire student court a couple weeks before most of the justices graduate?!?
And, why? Because the members of the student court had the temerity to insist that student government follow its own laws and give equal time to both sides during a UOSA-sponsored debate?
People have come to UOSA repeatedly with a wide variety of issues. And, it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Anytime anyone would like to take a stand, to build bridges, to stop making personal attacks, to stop blocking bills just because they don't like who's name is on them, to pick one of fifteen different issues that are ALREADY out there, I would be happy to talk with them. And, I think you'll find a widespread base of support from even the harshest UOSA critics.
But, don't debate impeaching the student court and then turn around and ask the average student to come to you to express their concerns. It kinda has the feel of "Okay, who wants to be the next target?"
crimethink 1 year, 9 months ago
First, I would like to list a few of the accomplishments of UOSA this year:
Registered Student Organizations have close to $14,000 more this upcoming year, the UOSA Constitution and UOSA Code Annotated make slightly more sense now when they talk about numbers needed for petitions and such, students voted in favor of creating a fund for study abroad scholarships, Higher Ed Day was better organized than ever, the Integrity Council and Graduation Retention Task Force are better off, students' lives were improved by such projects as future condom machines in the dorms and new sidewalks and bike racks, Green Week turned out to be a success, UOSA Tailgate provided a place for all students to gather before football games and continues to be a growing event in size and scope, Safe Ride has been evaluated and will be worked on, UOSA posters and fliers were more effective than ever, Pick A Prof continues to serve students, and there are other things that UOSA did as well.
Could more things be done in the future? Of course! And UOSA is constantly working on projects all over campus. All presidential candidates this spring created a great list of projects for UOSA to work on, and I believe the two candidates with the most votes had the best ideas that can be accomplished within the next year. Yet, do not assume that these candidates had no long term goals.
I would respond to Mr. Harrison by saying that some of his ideas have some merit while others do not:
A university community council is an interesting idea that would empower all members of the community in decision making, but I must note that the University of Oklahoma differs in many ways from the private institutions that have such a system. OU is a public institution with the interests of the State of Oklahoma held in high regard. Students, faculty, staff, and alumni may not always hold the interests of the State of Oklahoma in high enough regard. That is why the Board of Regents is composed of seven citizens appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate. These citizens are tasked with furthering the mission of the three universities they govern. Whether these citizens do a great job is a matter of debate, but the Board of Regents system ensures that the University of Oklahoma serves the State of Oklahoma. A compromise solution may be to add a few members to the Board of Regents that must be students, faculty, staff, or alumni.
A campus planning committee is another novel idea. Students, faculty, staff, and alumni should have some say in the planning of campus, yet again there must be a balance between the State's public interest and the desires of students, faculty, staff, and alumni.
Both candidates with the greatest number of votes campaigned on the idea of improving dead week policy. I believe that can be accomplished within the next year.
Anon 1 year, 9 months ago
I completely agree. But not all of the UOSA representatives are like the ones who are controlling things like this. There are several that I know who are legitimately trying to change these stupid little things, but it's not easy because it's so ingrained in the system.
But the people who are trying to change UOSA can't do that if everyone just goes, "Ugh, you work for UOSA, so I'm not even going to bother." Instead, people need to figure out who is working for them and who is not. Vote the people out who aren't and watch UOSA go from a petty, irrelevant body to a congress that does really great things for the campus and its students.
alaskaairborne 1 year, 9 months ago
No one is trying to scare members of Student Congress. I think everyone involved is simply trying to get Student Congress to follow state law and provide the necessary public notice.
I would encourage you to secure legal counsel before trying to interpret and apply the "reasonably forseeable" language of the statute. And, I would remind you that you have no formal legal training.
The reporters for the Daily have interviewed several licensed attorneys for the other two stories they ran when Student Congress broke the same law earlier this semester. And, I thought it was made pretty clear to the entire Student Body that Student Congress couldn't continue to play fast and loose with state law.
Although I do have some formal legal training, it is inappropriate for me to provide legal counsel until I have been admitted to the bar. Nevertheless, without expressing a formal legal opinion, I do think it is safe for me to maintain that Student Congress broke the law once again on Tuesday night.
alaskaairborne 1 year, 9 months ago
Furthermore, I think some of your impressions regarding Superior Court clearly illustrate some of the policy considerations underlying the public notice requirements.
You, obviously, did not have all of the information. And, the people who could have provided the other side of the story were never given notice of the proceedings on Tuesday night -- that they might have given you a bit more to think about.
Ms. Harvell, Ms. Adams-Johnson, and the Graduate Student Senate were represented by counsel throughout all of the proceedings. Mike Davis was cc'ed on and responded to the Motion for Sanctions. And, he was present throughout the entire hearing. He chose to say nothing.
The truth is that there were no factual issues in dispute. No one disputed that the event was planned, organized, and publicized by the Graduate Student Senate. They acknowledged that much in their briefs to Superior Court prior to the injunction.
Even accepting the premise that the people involved went out of their way to say it was organized by someone else at the event (as the Court did), it doesn't change the set-up. You can't go back and undo how people were invited, how the room was reserved, and how the publicity was drawn up after the fact.
Furthermore, once again noting that I am not offering a formal legal opinion, consider this:
The Graduate Student Senate had the chance to speak their piece. And, they were never penalized for that. However, the Graduate Student Senate abused their position of authority to censor an opposing viewpoint -- denying the other side access to a public forum.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID