The ASUO Constitution Court dismissed a grievance Wednesday that was filed against a Student Senator for voting in favor of providing special funding for a conference at which he would be a delegate.
The Oregon Commentator Editor-in-Chief Ted Niedermeyer, who filed the grievance against Sen. Nate Gulley, called its dismissal a “disservice” to good government.
Sen. Nate Gulley has issued this response to the ruling: “Having the grievance against me unanimously dismissed is exactly what I expected. Nobody knows the rules better than Constitution Court and they obviously understand that I didn’t break any. Hopefully we can all keep our focus on votes that are actually contentious, like the racist attacks Senators (Jacob) Daniels, (Kyle) McKenzie, (Sara) Hamilton, (Athan) Papailiou, (Natalie) Kinsey, (Jonathan) Rosenberg, (Ashley) Sherrick, (Karen) Trippe, (Jeremy) Ebner, and (Jacqueline) Justice continue to make against programs.
“I’m sure there will be more grievances filed against me in the near future, but for the record, Ted Niedermeyer can kiss my ass,” he wrote in an e-mail Tuesday.
At a Feb. 28 Senate meeting, the United States Student Association requested $2,000 from Senate surplus funds to pay hotel and registration costs at the group’s annual legislative conference in Washington, D.C.
Sens. Nate Gulley, Chii-San SunOwen and Jennifer Lleras, as well as ASUO Vice President Juliana Guzman, were scheduled to attend the conference.
The Senate voted twice on the matter. On the first vote, which failed, SunOwen and Lleras abstained from the vote while Gulley voted. As Vice President, Guzman was asked to break a tied vote but also abstained.
After the vote, Niedermeyer requested before the Senate that Gulley follow the example of his fellow Senators and abstain from the next vote. Gulley declined to do so and the request passed by one vote.
Niedermeyer filed a grievance against Gulley the day after the meeting, citing section 4.6 of the ASUO Constitution, which states that members may not vote on the budgets of programs for which they hold paid positions. It also states: “This section shall be construed so as to prohibit conduct that creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, as well as an actual conflict of interest.”
The Court’s ruling cites several prior cases involving conflict of interest, including a 1990 case in which a publisher-president of The Oregon Commentator filed a grievance against a member of the now-defunct Incidental Fee Committee for voting in favor of the budget of the USSA. The member in question did not hold a paid position within the USSA but had attended a trip to Washington, D.C.
“I have to get a hold of this guy,” Niedermeyer said. “I have a lot of anger right now and I’m sure he’d be able to sympathize.”
The Court ruled that the sentence in the Constitution that prohibits the “appearance” of conflict of interest is intended to be applied specifically to ASUO members who hold paid positions within the groups making the requests. The ruling says that since Gulley clearly holds no paid position within the USSA, he is not in violation of this rule and can not be censured.
Niedermeyer said he disagrees that the sentence about the appearance of a conflict only applies specifically to votes on budgets.
“I get the feeling that the Con Court wanted to avoid looking like they were legislating from the bench and they wanted to say ‘look, the rules are vague, we can’t do anything about it,’” Niedermeyer said. “Unfortunately, I think their ruling has the exact opposite effect.”
Niedermeyer said he thinks the clause is intentionally broad to avoid having to include every possible example of conflict of interest in the Constitution. He said the Court’s ruling removes any justification for having broad clauses in the first place.
He added the difference in this case is that the money came from a Senate special request – a procedure he said did not exist when the Constitution was drafted.
“If anything, ethics rules on special requests should be even more stringent because it is the Senate handing out lump sums of cash,” he said. “It’s way easier to have a conflict of interest in handing out lump sums of cash than when you’re voting on a budget someone else worked on in the first place.”
The Court also dismissed Niedermeyer’s claim that Gulley violated Robert’s Rules of Order, which the Senate are required to follow.
Chapter XIII, section 45 of the Robert’s Rules of Order reads: “No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. . . However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances.”
The Court ruled that this statute does not bar members of an organization from voting on matters of personal interest.
“While this statute advises against members voting on questions of direct personal interest, it clearly states that it is ultimately the decision of the member as to whether he will abstain,” the ruling reads.
Niedermeyer said he believes the “wiggle room” in Robert’s Rules of Order is there to allow for situations in which people can vote in their favor, such as voting for oneself for President.
“We are not a Court of morals; we are a Court of law,” the ruling reads. “This Court has determined that Senator Gulley has broken no rules that we have jurisdiction to enforce.”
Niedermeyer said there should be something within the ASUO rulebook to enforce ethics rules.
“There should be a political solution, not a judicial solution to this,” Niedermeyer said. “But given the way the ASUO works, I’m not holding my breath to see stricter rules come around anytime soon.”
Contact the campus and federal politics reporter at [email protected]