Pre-agenda tactics, a codifying committee, and the SORC-ing of Senator Krause

These summer senate meetings are always the apex of the month for me. All the effort and planning of around thirty days goes into a hour long meeting. Usually I am left unsatiated and wanting. Today was different, I feel accomplished. I have known for a few weeks that this would be one of my most active meetings, as I had two pieces of legislation to be voted on, a committee appointment to block, and the task of referring one of my peers to SORC, the Senate Oversight and Rules Committee. I am pleased to say that 3 out of the four tasks were successfully completed.

My activity today started off during the approval of the agenda, when I objected to it outright. The ever-controversial Kyle Duerstein was up for appointment to the Chancellor's allocable fund review committee, and most of the senate was shocked to think of the Big D. becoming active in SA again. A line had be drawn. If we as an organization are serious about fixing our reputation in the eyes of the students, we must rebuff any attachment to our past demons. After I stated this belief to the senate, I moved to amend the agenda by removing Kyle's name. The amendment passed with only two or three nays.

Unfortunately, the agenda was not approved immediately after. Senator Ludwig, who had confronted me earlier about his concerns, moved to remove my legislation, The SA Employee Accountability Act, from the agenda. This ended up causing quite a lot of debate from a few senators. Secretary Stoll took an especially hard line against it, calling the piece "dishonest." According to her, "we should not even be considering..(employee infraction-based fines)..at all. It seems my attempt to force some small bit of productivity on the University Student Court had an entirely unexpected effect, and ended up terrifying certain members of the executive branch. This legislation would have deducted a $100 fine out of the budget stipend for each time a SA official failed to clock in the mandatory 10 hours per week. This would seem to be an instance in which only those who usually fail to meet the requirements would take umbrage, although I'll let SA observers be the judge of that.

Although I doubt it, this brush with budgetary consequences might push some SA officials into actually completing their hours. The alternative is ridiculous. Let's take a look at the Assistant Chief Justice's current salary. I have not seen this man one time in my half year in SA, with the exception of at the recent retreat. He makes a total of $541 a month, under an assumption he works ten office hours a week. That in itself is an outrage, because even if he did, he would be making an average of $13.50 an hour. Let us, for the point of the argument, assume he works closer to 5 hours a week. that makes his pay $27 per hour. Now, I understand the concept of salary pay, people like the SA President are basically on the clock 24/7, and an hourly pay plan wouldn't do that justice, but when the Court is allocated $30,000 a year from student fees, and they handled a total of two cases last year, one has to start looking for answers, and after that, bylaw and budget changes.

Soon after, my Strategic Planning Committee bill passed, giving Senator Campbell a chance of chairmanship. This committee will help define SA's role in campus affairs, etc. I was pleased to momentarily see a non-hostile Senator Cambpell, only to change back into the antagonistic one I have become accustomed to, when the biggest event of the night occurred.

Although the cat was somewhat out of the bag since I asked for Post presence at the meeting, the motion to refer Senator Krause to SORC was received with some initial shock. I read it as surprise that this old skeleton had been dragged out of the closet, after months had passed and a new administration had taken over. Senator Krause was in charge of collecting fundraising money last year as Public Relations Director, and under her watch, the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund was given around $150 of what was reportedly over $1500 collected. I explained to the senate that as the official in charge of the money collection, she could best answer questions on where the money went. I reminded them that they were not passing judgement by affirming the referral to SORC, just doing their part to ensure that answers are found. I have no doubt in my mind, given the evidence I've seen, that Krause absconded with some of the money, however SORC will leave no piece of evidence unturned in their search for the truth. SORC's referral to the senate will be unbiased and timely, it is scheduled to be delivered at the next senate meeting in early September. During that meeting, SORC will make their recommendation to the senate. The senate will then vote on which action to take, impeachment, or otherwise. If the senate moves for impeachment, those proceedings will take place during the next senate meeting, most likely in closed session, which I see as an unfair guard against popular knowledge.

Some may wonder why I bothered to find these battles today. Why waste time attempting to fix past wrongs when the present gives a unique chance for progress? I do this for the future of the SA, for as long as these tarnishes on our reputation are allowed to languish, we shall never escape them.

Until next time,

-Red Menace out.