Over a month ago, before the ASUO elections had even ended, the ASUO Constitution Court removed Senate President Sara Hamilton from her position on the ASUO. She was also a candidate for ASUO executive, so the ruled-upon grievance, filed by former Senator Erica Anderson, could not have come at a less politically advantageous time.
According to the grievance, Hamilton was not fulfilling her duties by failing to e-mail Senate agendas 48 hours in advance. The punishment – a removal from Senate – did not fit the crime, if there even was a crime.
The ruling is indicative of the slipshod nature of Constitution Court this year. It will set a negative precedent for the future. The reasons are manifold: First, there is no precedent for the Constitution Court to remove a duly elected Senate President using such specious reasoning. The court argues that it was simply following the rules, that its collective hands were tied. But the vagueness of the rules gave the court a multitude of choices for punishment – such as suspension of certain duties, including a limited suspension of Senate president duties. The court did not adequately argue for the complete removal of Hamilton, as she fulfilled two separate duties – as a Senator and as a Senate president – and received two separate stipends.
The problem is that the Green Tape Notebook, the main rule book of the ASUO, is not a trustworthy source of information. The ASUO treats it as if it were holy scripture, but this is ridiculous. The notebook contradicts itself often. The way the rules are written is opaque and inconsistent. For example, there are inconsistencies between Oregon Public Meeting Law and the Senate Rules, delineated in the Green Tape Notebook. Oregon Public Meeting Law requires governing bodies to send agendas within 24 hours; the Senate Rules asks for a 48-hour period. Which one holds precedence?
If any organization requires institutional memory, it is the Constitution Court. This is not an issue concerning Hamilton; this is an issue that concerns the entire ASUO.
Currently, Hamilton is appealing the decision. If she is not vindicated, then next year’s ASUO could be even more frivolous and childish than this year’s: If the Constitution Court has the ability to remove a duly elected public official from all of her duties based on a ruling that comes from whole cloth, then there is nothing stopping members of next year’s ASUO from filing a litany of petty grievances against each other simply to remove their enemies.
This should be unacceptable. The last time the Constitution Court removed members of the ASUO from their positions was in 2005, when a number of PFC members were found guilty of violating the sacred tenet of viewpoint neutrality when allocating student funds, perhaps the most important regulator of their jobs. Hamilton’s offense, on the other hand, was not on the same level.
Thus, the question arises: What can we do? First, the Green Tape Notebook needs to be revised in order to stay on top of certain externalities. Further, the ASUO should look at reworking the Constitution Court. Currently, it holds too much power. Perhaps, because it is a legal body beholden to state law and University dictates, it needs a law school adviser, in order to make the organization an educational entity.
The Hamilton situation shows that the ASUO needs reformations now more than ever. The Constitution Court must be a fair body. It hasn’t been this year. In order to make sure this doesn’t happen again, we need to make changes.
Constitution Court needs overhaul to make it fair
Daily Emerald
May 29, 2007
0
More to Discover