After six hours of heated debate, members of the Student Government assembly found themselves one representative short of a quorum necessary to vote on a measure to eliminate tickets from student elections.
Around 1 a.m. Wednesday morning, a motion to indefinitely table the bill failed. Several representatives who argued against the bill left the room, effectively blocking the legislation from a vote.
Supporters of the bill immediately criticized those members, calling their actions a "political maneuver."
"This shows the assembly should take a serious look at its procedures," said Matt Ross, a two-year-at-large representative, and sponsor of the bill. "I've never been this ashamed to be a part of SG."
Grant Stanis, business representative, defended his decision to leave, saying it was an issue the next assembly should handle. "We thoroughly discussed the issue, but we see too many issues and problems with the legislation," Stanis said. "We didn't feel like this was something that needed to be voted on now."
The bill proposed an overhaul of the election process, calling for individualized campaigns and eliminating the ticket system. If passed, only the presidental and vice-presidental candidates would be allowed to pool resources.
SG president Brent Chaney said while he would have like to have seen a vote, he didn't think "all the research was there." He also said he hoped this assembly would be judged by more than Tuesday night's meeting.
"I'm disappointed this was our last meeting. To have it end like this was disenchanting," Chaney said.
Supporters of the legislation promised to try to call a special session Friday at 7 a.m. To do this, they would need 26 members, or a quorum.
The debate lasted well into the night and emotions ran high. One member shed tears when another member pointed out that the assembly had discussed her amendments alone for an hour and a half.
Much of the debate centered on spending limits for candidates. Several amendments dealing with the campaign budgets were filed,
Arguments about the amendment ranged from keeping limits as low as two cents per student in the college, to having no limits on spending at all.
"A person shouldn't have to spend $300 to get elected," said Matt Stolhandske, two-year-at-large representative and business honors senior.
The assembly also amended the proposed bill by deciding that all candidates, including president and vice-president, would have to run individually. Elizabeth Brummett, along with other SG members, addressed the amendment as an issue of fairness to representatives who have to run individually.
Other highly debated issues were proposals to allow candidates within in the same college to run on tickets together and the prohibition of written endorsements. The idea to allow pairings within colleges was struck down because many members felt the idea defeated the bill's original intended purpose of eliminating the ticket system.
Graduate representative Laura Gladney-Lemon argued that prohibiting written endorsements would be a violation of the First Amendment, which could cause a potential law suit for the University.
The original bill was created in hopes of eliminating party sweeps and increasing diversity in SG assemblies. Creators of the bill felt that by not having to run as part of a ticket, underrepresented communities would be more encouraged to run. Michelle Fuller-Wigg, communications representative and public relations junior, said she hoped the change would increase debate within colleges, creating more informed voters. She said accountability among representatives would be stronger if students strongly interested in SG would run rather than ones who were "begged" to be a part of a ticket.
Be the first to comment on this article!