By Kathryn Engelsdorfer

November 2009

With a nearing deadline, SGA’s recent meeting the topic of discussion has primarily been the organization’s by-laws, specifically attendance policy and defining “quorum” and “closed session.”

“If [the decision on by-laws] is not moved on by today, it will have to wait until spring,” said vice president Evan Cunningham at the Nov. 5 meeting.

Quorum was an issue last year which caused controversy around SGA. 

Senior J.P. Salazar believed himself to be denied a right to presidency through ambiguous by-laws.  This year’s members have decided that the regulations need to be made clearer.

The article on quorum, Article VIII, Section 1, defines student representatives, apply quorum to the “total number of student representatives recognized by SGA at the time of the scheduled meeting and […] defined by the number […] present at the scheduled meeting.”

“Point three on quorum has been completely revamped,” said Cunningham, who also reminded students that this work will be used to set precedent in future construction of the by-laws.

The new article will also provide a minimum quorum by setting “the total number of representatives recognized by SGA … 14 or more” in order to “maintain fair representation.”

If this total number falls below 14, SGA’s powers will be severely limited.  This way, SGA can continue to hold elections and move forward while still being restricted while without fair representation of the student body.

The current by-law states, “Business regarding executive board elections, budget changes, allocation of money, by-law amendments, and/or constitutional amendments will be suspended,” which applies if there are not 14 members present.

While the issue of quorum moved along after much debate, section six of the by-law revision was split off from the first five Articles.  Article VIII, Section 4, which defines ‘closed session,’ was the subject of discussion for the Nov. 12 meeting.

A part of SGA that has never been defined concerns the eligibility of advisors to remain present during ‘closed session.’ 

“In the past this has never been an issue,” said President Hannah Wahlen. Traditionally, advisors have remained present during these private discussions, although there was no real regulation to say whether or not they were to be included as non-voting members.

Representative Chad Ludvik pointed out that not having them specifically defined as eligible for remaining during the closed session “gives us freedom […] we can invite them.”

“Advisors might have too much of a swing,” said representative Paul Chirichurillo, suggesting that with advisors present to share information a young board might be tempted to follow suggestions without personal experience.

On Nov. 12, the new by-law revision submitted to the full board read that non-voting members must leave until recalled by a voting member to return.

“When we leave things open for discussion it leads to confusion,” said Wahlen.