A complaint filed against the leader of the Student Senate on Friday might clear the way for the Senate to re-vote on the option of freezing funding for student groups next year.
In a written complaint to the ASUO Constitution Court, the judicial branch of government, former Sen. Dallas Brown alleges that Senate President Sara Hamilton let members of the Programs Finance Committee wrongly vote at Wednesday’s Senate meeting on the PFC’s budget increase instead of excusing themselves from the vote.
At the meeting, senators approved a 2.5 percent total budget increase for groups, an amount less than the 7 percent allocated in past years but still more than the zero percent increase advocated by students in favor of reducing the incidental fee.
Students currently pay $202 per term in fees, a number set to increase next year unless fiscal conservatives prevail in a Senate re-vote.
Hamilton defended the senators’ actions, saying the student government rule in question does not cover benchmark hearings, which determine budgeting goals for three major programs: the Athletics Department Finance Committee, the EMU Board and the PFC.
Brown has also asked the court to forgo its normal procedure of mitigating with the student government and to hear oral arguments in each case – a request the court says it will grant.
Brown’s filing argues that when senators who serve on the PFC, the committee charged with recommending budgets for all ASUO programs, voted in last week’s benchmark hearings to increase funding for the PFC, they prevented a motion for a zero percent increase from passing.
That motion failed 6-7-4. All three senators who are also PFC members voted against the motion, tipping the balance of power, Brown said.
Brown’s complaint singles out Hamilton for not preventing PFC members from voting on the increase to the program, alleging that she acted improperly by not allowing Brown to ask for a point of information during a roll-call vote.
The grievance states Hamilton “denied that any rules were broken in last night’s meeting” when contacted by Brown the day after the Senate meeting.
Green Tape Notebook rules forbid senators holding elected positions from voting on the budget of any program in which they will hold a paid position during the year the budget in question is in effect.
Brown’s claim states that since the PFC is technically a program, the senators’ votes violated ASUO rules and broke student government tradition.
Brown’s request for a point of clarification during a roll-call vote was not immediately recognized because it disrupted the vote, Hamilton said, but she listened to his complaint immediately following the conclusion of the vote even though she did not have to because Brown is no longer a senator.
“I ruled against it,” Hamilton’s response to the court states, “because it is my professional and personal interpretation that Constitution 4.6 does not apply to benchmark hearings, although I noted that historically finance Senators have abstained from both the benchmark and budget vote. At this point, Senators could have motioned to appeal my decision, however no such motion was made and the meeting continued.”
Hamilton does not believe the wording of the particular rule includes benchmark meetings, according to her response.
“Further, the clause only covers members which will be holding a paid position the year the budget is in effect, and is not explicitly clear what constitutes a conflict, or perceived conflict of interest. After all, every Senator is a member of a PFC program, the ASUO Senate,” the response states.
Hamilton asked the court for a hasty but thorough ruling because all three major program benchmarks had at least one committee member vote. The benchmarks are due no later than Nov. 21, and the Senate does not plan to meet this week unless the court rules in favor of Brown’s complaint, in which case the Senate will be required to call an emergency meeting to re-vote on all program increases.
In a separate grievance also filed Friday, Brown alleges that the Executive wrongly appointed Jeremy Ebner, an EMU Board member, to Senate Seat 13, violating a student government rule.
ASUO spokesman Slade Leeson said the Executive does not believe it violated any rules.
Brown said the Executive’s appointment of Ebner gives the EMU an additional vote in the Senate.
Green Tape Notebook rules state that the court will determine if there is a conflict of interest when a person holds an elected seat and an appointed seat simultaneously. The rules are clear that a person may not hold two elected seats, but it allows one to hold an elected and an appointed seat or two appointed seats.
Leeson called the accusation “baseless,” saying Ebner’s position as a EMU Board member does not qualify as an elected position because the board uses an internal search process to select its members. The Senate position is an elected position, according to the ASUO.
The court will hold a public hearing about the grievances, but a date has not been set, Chief Justice Matt Greene said.
Contact the federal and campus politics reporter at [email protected]