A resolution calling for the impeachment of SGA Vice President Seaton Brown was presented by SGA Chief of Staff and Sophomore Senator Jamie Shafer at the SGA Senate meeting held on Tues., Feb. 26. The resolution was drafted by Shafer after the SGA executive council received three letters citing possible violations made by Brown. During a Feb. 19 Senate meeting, Brown stepped down from his position as President of the Senate. According to Brown, he was supposed to preside over a bill that included what he believed to be an unconstitutional amendment to the SGA constitution. The amendment proposed that the SGA change their name in order to include the "University of Charleston" within it. Brown stated that the amendment was unconstitutional because the University of Charleston is not under the SGA's jurisdiction. According to Brown, the SGA governs only undergraduate students, while the University of Charleston is composed of graduate students. He said that he was upset that no other Senator noticed the mistake. "It was something that had obviously not been looked at," said Brown. According to Brown, the role of the President of the Senate is to preside over the Senate meeting without being bias. Brown said that he felt it would be unethical for him to preside over a bill he felt strongly against and therefore passed his gavel on to President Pro Tempore Morgan Bauserman so that she could properly lead the meeting. SGA President Whitney Hinds said that Brown, a member of the junior class, then attempted to act as a Junior Senator but was reminded that he was not elected into that position. He then relinquished his powers and chose to act as a non-voting member of SGA. Brown stated that he did so in order to express his opinion on the legislation at hand. According to the letter submitted by Freshman Senator William Porter, Brown caused a disturbance during the Feb. 19 meeting by doing so. "This is not only inexcusable, but a clear violation of his oath of office," Porter said. In the letter written by SGA Secretary Peter J. Neiger, the author stated that Brown refused to exercise his duties as President of the Senate in an appropriate manner. Neiger said, "He acted as an authoritarian figure and tried undermine the democratic process to further the agenda he felt was correct." In addition to the charges brought about by the Feb. 19 meeting, Brown is accused of not properly providing paper work to Senators, which is one of the duties of the Vice President. According to the letter written by Shafer, several Senators had not received a copy of the SGA constitution or bylaws. Brown maintains that he made the paperwork readily available for Senators through the SGA Web site and in a box on his desk.
How Impeachment Works "His violations fall under two categories: failure to exercise the powers and duties of his office and failure to refrain from activities which may bring shame and/or disgrace to his office," Neiger said.
In accordance with SGA bylaw 1500.002, the impeachment process will be instigated only if a letter is submitted to the executive council. Hinds said that if a letter is received, the matter must be drafted into a resolution and automatically goes before the Senate.
An impeachment resolution, like the one Shafer presented in the Feb. 26 Senate meeting, "determines that the said offenses listed in the letters calling for the impeachment exist." Hinds said resolutions of impeachment are not intended as a punishment.
"An impeachment is the retraction of the duties of an office. We're not looking at the possibility of a punishment since our offices are a privilege but more of a job review to ensure that each of us are serving the student body in the way we were elected to," Hinds said.
A two-thirds vote must pass the Senate for the resolution to pass. If the measure passes, the SGA member under scrutiny will be suspended until a hearing can be conducted by the Honor Council, the judicial arm of student government.
A few differences According to Hinds, Shafer's Feb. 26 resolution was read and handled in the same regard as any piece of legislation that has come before the Senate, with the exception of three key differences.
First, instead of the vice president presiding over the Senate, the president pro tempore will preside. According to Hinds, brown felt that stepping down during the Feb. 26 was important.
"As a president I did not ask him to step down for the meeting," Hinds said. "He voluntarily did."
The second difference concerns the voting method. In a typical Senate meeting votes are spoken and the results determined by the amount of "ayes" versus the amount of "nays."
Due to the sensitive nature of an impeachment proceeding, Hinds said, "Senators may make a motion to use an alternative voting method to record the yes's or no's."
In a secret ballot vote, the names of the Senators voting in the affirmative or the negative are kept private while the count of yes and no votes would be announced. If a motion is passed for this type of vote, two neutral tellers would assess each of the ballots to ensure that the votes had been tabulated correctly.
Hinds said that some Senators preferred the secret ballot method in this situation since they believed it would encourage their peers to vote without fear of consequence. "This may ensure that the Senators vote based on their true feelings and do not feel pressured to vote in a certain way," Hinds said.
Brown was strongly opposed to the secret ballot method. He said that he believes politicians should be open about their opinions with the people they represent.
"I'm of the opinion that the impeachment of a public officer should be totally transparent with all available information being given to their constituency. When Bill Clinton was impeached, he saw every Senator stand before him and state whether or not he should lose his office," he said.
The final difference between the Feb. 26 meeting and a traditional meeting involves the implementation of a warning system. With this system, Bauserman had the right to hand out warnings to people she felt were acting out of order. If someone continued to act inappropriately after their first warning, he or she was escorted out of the meeting.
Hinds said that, due to the sensitive nature of the meeting, she felt it was necessary to implement the warning system. She wanted to guarantee that the meeting move as smoothly as possible and with little distractions or inappropriate behavior.
How the resolution progresses After being called upon, the resolution author presents the bill to the Senate, then participates in First Rights. Hinds said that, in this case, the First Rights is a two-minute period of time in which the resolution author repeats the opinions of the letter authors. In general, the two-minute period can be extended by a motion made by another Senator.
Following the First Rights, the Senate enters into a five-minute Period of Discussion, a time in which anyone-including gallery members not affiliated with the Senate-can ask questions by raising their hands. "The only difference between Senators and students in this section is that only the Senators can vote and make motions," Hinds said. "Anyone can speak."
While the initial time allotted for the Period of Discussion is five minutes, it can be extended as long as needed through motions by the Senators. During this time, questions are directed to the resolution author that relate to the logistics of the measure being discussed.
The Parliamentarian is responsible for compiling a list of those wanting to speak. The list is shared with the presiding member of the Senate. Usually, the vice president presides over the Senate, but in the Feb. 26 hearing, the president pro tempore will preside.
those who wish to speak are recognized in the order of whose hand was raised first, with no regard to where they may be sitting. The executive council has anticipated a high turnout for this meeting and decided that a more organized form of selection needed to be implemented.
For this particular meeting, the SGA executive council decided to divide the gallery into three parts: Half of the senators composed one part, the other Senators and the executive council made up another, and the non-SGA members in the gallery were included in the last.
When the Period of Discussion has been exhausted, the Senate moves into a Period of Debate. During the Period of Debate, people raised their hands with closed fists if they wished to speak in opposition of the bill and with open fists if they wished to speak in favor of the bill.
According to Bauserman, SGA bylines dictate that Senate meetings can only last two and a half hours unless a motion is passed to extend it beyond the time limit. Conversely, the resolution could also be tabled and resume at the next SGA meeting.
If the impeachment resolution passes, then the member will be suspended until Honor Council makes a final ruling.
In the Honor Council According to Dan Burkard, deputy chair of the Honor Board, the Council abides by the rules set forth in the C of C Student Code of Conduct. Burkard said that the Honor Council operates separately from the SGA.
"We're kind of like the judicial branch of the government," he said.
The Council is comprised solely of C of C students. Honor Board chair Jennifer Von Der Heiden stated that there are 40 students in the Council.
Burkard said that, to his knowledge, the Council has never faced a situation similar to a SGA impeachment. "There's no precedent set, really," Burkard said.
According to Burkard, Von Der Heiden will decide how the Council hearing will be run. "Because this has never happened within our scope," he said, "It's up to her to decide how to run the hearing."
Burkard believes that the Honor Council hearing would be run as a normal proceeding. He said that both sides would present their opening statements, witnesses, and closing statements as usual. At any point in time both the members of the opposite counsel or the Honor Council can ask questions whomever is speaking.
The SGA has only had one other Vice President go through the impeachment process. According to Hinds, in the 2003-2004 academic year, the SGA Vice President did not place a bill on the docket due to his personal feelings. The bill proposed that C of C acknowledge the Boston Red Sox as it's official team.
After letters calling for the Vice President's impeachment were received, the matter was put before the Senate. The Senate voted to not pursue the matter further and the Vice President resumed his duties as usual.
According to Hinds, the 2003-2004 incident does not compare to Brown's impeachment. She says that the circumstances behind the two were entirely different.
Be the first to comment on this article!