Rules exist for a reason. When rules are allegedly broken, individuals must be held accountable. It is not always easy, but it is the right thing to do.
As President Pro-Tempore of the ASUI Senate, I am responsible for enforcing the ASUI governing documents. Usually these governing documents are easy to follow and enforce. Sometimes the process can be more difficult, which was the case with the recent articles of impeachment filed in the ASUI Senate. The rules can be confusing and have multiple interpretations.
The Argonaut has published three articles on the impeachment process, and has done a good job of covering the facts. However, some articles have missed key points along the way and I feel it is my responsibility to clarify.
In the recent editorial piece, “Leave the drama out,” the author stated that the cause for impeachment was the fact that the senator had campaigned throughout the days that voting occurred. While this was an element of the causes for impeachment, the full list of allegations included defacing opponents’ campaign materials, posting written materials within 100 visible feet of polling stations, influencing voters, campaigning verbally and distributing written materials in and around university computer labs.
All of these acts are prohibited by the ASUI Rules and Regulations. When students repeatedly brought concerns about this campaigning behavior to their student representatives, it left senators a choice: Look the other way or hold the senator involved responsible. A few of us determined that we owed it to the students who contacted us to start the investigation process.
“Leave the drama out” also stated rules and regulations had been violated in crafting the impeachment papers because the articles did not name specific offenses. The article also reported the senator named in the articles of impeachment “should have been informed in a memo from the accusing senator of the accusations against him,” but was not.
Neither of these statements are true. The articles of impeachment listed specific sections of the rules and regulations that were violated, sections which correspond directly to the allegations listed above. These articles were confirmed with the ASUI attorney general to be appropriate in format and content.
In addition, the senator accused was sent a specific memo with dates and locations of alleged misconduct and the rules that were violated in each instance.
There were also a few inaccuracies in the article, “ASUI Senate heats up.” The article states that the senator in question had no fine presented to him, but the ASUI elections coordinator provided the information for a fine to his student account Nov. 30. There is no way to check whether that fine has been paid yet without accessing the senator’s student account information.
In addition, “ASUI Senate heats up” cites the ASUI rules and regulations as allowing impeachment “only after a reprimand.” While this is an interpretation taken by the accused senator, the rule itself is ambiguous as to whether impeachment is “still” allowed after a reprimand has been submitted or “only” allowed after a reprimand has been submitted. The vote in senate on proceeding to a hearing was a 5-5 tie, reflecting the confusion and differences in interpretation.
The rules can be difficult to follow. It is clear from this process that the rules can have several interpretations, which makes agreeing on one path difficult.
More difficult still is enforcing the rules on your peers. However, it is ASUI’s responsibility to hold its members responsible when the rules are allegedly broken. Our election rules embody ethical ideals, ideals of clean campaigning and fair, legitimate elections. When students come to us with concerns, we must follow through. It is the right thing to do.