Before the story came out in the Emerald about ASUO VP Katie Taylor and ex-OSPIRG Chair Charles Denson, there was quite a bit of discussion in the newsroom about whether to run with this story or not. I went through a lot of mental wrangling before I reached the conclusion that I am happy that it did run.
Yes, we got feedback as to whether we were being sensationalistic about it, whether it was pertinent, whether we were being professional, whether we were delving into a couple’s private lives. The result is that the Emerald news team and the paper itself have taken some hard hits from various members of the ASUO and students alike.
I am not here to discount any of the complaints made, as I feel that would be impertinent.
But the question remains: What should be done now?
Last week, ASUO Sen. Kaitlyn Lange called for the removal of Taylor. And as things stand now, it looks like this may become a reality.
Of course, this call then brings up whether, as ex-officio member of Senate by way of her position as vice president, Taylor should have divulged her conflict of interest when elected to office — as the ASUO senators are required to do.
Yes, Taylor quit her position at OSPIRG upon being elected. And yes, we all knew that she ran on a platform supporting the organization.
But at the time of her tiebreaking ACFC vote as ex-officio senator, which allowed growth for OSPIRG, she was also married to the OSPIRG chair — and therein lies the rub. 
Don’t get me wrong. I think many people agree that making this knowledge known should have been common sense. I do.
Yet, there was no rule explicitly compelling her to do so.
If you look at Section 5.23 in the Green Tape Notebook (page 21), it states that the ASUO VP “shall serve as an ex-officio member of the Student Senate.”
Does this in fact make her a senator?
If so, then she would be subjected to Rules of the Student Senate, Section 5.1.i. (page 42), which states that “At the beginning of each term, Student Senators shall prepare a statement listing all ASUO Recognized Programs that they are in any way involved with or with which they may have a conflict of interest.”
Though, it is hard to say, really, if she is one. I mean, she wasn’t elected to be a Senator, to which the rule in the Notebook was seemingly to apply to. But technically yes? No? Maybe?
In other words, reading through the Notebook, I could see how there could be enough wiggle room in her defined role as vice president/ex-officio senator that she could get away with not reporting her conflict of interest — according to the rules that currently stand.
Ethically, yes, her marriage at the time of the November OSPIRG vote was a blatant, substantial conflict of interest. But as I mentioned earlier, nothing was compelling her to do divulge that conflict.
What I really like about the story we initially ran is it pointed out a huge hole that exists in the Notebook: The ASUO Executive does not have to “prepare a statement listing all ASUO Recognized Programs that they are in any way involved with or with which they may have a conflict of interest” — like Section 5.1.i noted above does for senators.
That is why the initial story we ran on the marriage was so important.
Now, does VP Taylor need to be removed from office? Good question.
Personally, my trust in VP Taylor has eroded, as what she has said in news reports and emails among senators has been mismatched with reality.
But, I don’t think you could blame her for not following a Notebook rule that wasn’t really there. Or could you? Such a sticky problem. I could actually see the Con Court — if it ever gets to this point — writing an opinion about whether she falls within the “Senator Category” or not.
Had there been a rule delegating she explain her conflict of interest when she didn’t, well, then I would say kick her out of office.
The rules in place now, depending on how you look at it, could make one go one way or another about whether she should have stated or not her obvious then-conflict of interest.
However, common sense should have dictated that she do just that, however — especially when she was casting the tie-breaking vote for a funding motion in November, which was so central to OSPIRG getting a substantial increase at the University. Curious, too, how none of the senators who knew of her marriage said anything at this point, either.
Simplest thing to do now would be to update the Notebook to include a conflict of interest provision for future ASUO presidents and/or vice presidents, particularly with a new election coming up.
And as for Taylor? Well, we’ll just have to wait and see what happens, won’t we?