2008 Woodie Awards
The year that student representation died
Jessica Cavalieri
Issue date: 4/25/07 Section: Opinion
Noah House, Vice President for ASISU Idaho Falls, stated, "If it wasn't so ridiculous, it would be absolutely hilarious that we have student senators questioning what some of the primary pieces of the project (Reed Gym Options) are. I thought the Senate would have sent this to referendum. I am surprised that they didn't" (Bengal 1/31/07).
In what could very well be the best decision President Sargent made all year, he exercised his right to veto any Senate decision and told the student Senate that because they sent Option 3 to a student referendum, they should do the same for Option 2. It is quite sad and pathetic that President Sargent actually needed to exercise his veto power. This veto, and the negative publicity some Senators received for being so asinine, caused the student Senate to finally send it to a student referendum, where, again, students voted down a fee increase.
We can all agree that a Supreme Court should remain unbiased, fair, and neutral. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case for the ASISU Supreme Court this year. Two Supreme Court Justices, Joelle Brown and Kyrsten Hansen, actively campaigned for the Brown/Wheat ticket. One of the Justices, Joelle Brown, Jennifer Brown's sister (yes, Jennifer Brown did help appoint her own sister to the Supreme Court), campaigned for Brown/Wheat and the Orange Party. All of this despite the by-law which states that "Supreme Court Justices must act in a manner that is professional and impartial in matters pertaining to ASISU" (Section 11 Clause 3 C) and "ASISU Supreme Court Justices must be impartial and unbiased in any matter being discussed by the Senate or being brought before the court" (Section 11 Clause 1).
Anyone familiar with ASISU would tell you that a significant majority of cases that come before the Supreme Court involve either the elections and/or the Executive Branch. Joelle Brown and Kyrsten Hansen, by blatantly breaking at least two by-laws, placed themselves in a position where they should have been impeached (the Senate voted not to impeach either of them, votes were 9-6).
In what could very well be the best decision President Sargent made all year, he exercised his right to veto any Senate decision and told the student Senate that because they sent Option 3 to a student referendum, they should do the same for Option 2. It is quite sad and pathetic that President Sargent actually needed to exercise his veto power. This veto, and the negative publicity some Senators received for being so asinine, caused the student Senate to finally send it to a student referendum, where, again, students voted down a fee increase.
We can all agree that a Supreme Court should remain unbiased, fair, and neutral. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case for the ASISU Supreme Court this year. Two Supreme Court Justices, Joelle Brown and Kyrsten Hansen, actively campaigned for the Brown/Wheat ticket. One of the Justices, Joelle Brown, Jennifer Brown's sister (yes, Jennifer Brown did help appoint her own sister to the Supreme Court), campaigned for Brown/Wheat and the Orange Party. All of this despite the by-law which states that "Supreme Court Justices must act in a manner that is professional and impartial in matters pertaining to ASISU" (Section 11 Clause 3 C) and "ASISU Supreme Court Justices must be impartial and unbiased in any matter being discussed by the Senate or being brought before the court" (Section 11 Clause 1).
Anyone familiar with ASISU would tell you that a significant majority of cases that come before the Supreme Court involve either the elections and/or the Executive Branch. Joelle Brown and Kyrsten Hansen, by blatantly breaking at least two by-laws, placed themselves in a position where they should have been impeached (the Senate voted not to impeach either of them, votes were 9-6).
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 24
Rebecca
posted 4/25/07 @ 12:58 AM EST
This is an excellent article.
Michele
posted 4/25/07 @ 10:34 AM EST
It's too bad the student body would rather watch their rising fees go to who knows where (something called upkeep, or misc, or 'other') than take control of it and put the fee rise towards something like Reed Gym. (Continued…)
Sammy
posted 4/25/07 @ 11:11 AM EST
I think the Peforming Arts Center and Rendevous Building are both nice.
Brooke
posted 4/25/07 @ 12:20 PM EST
This article finally tells the truth about student government. Student Leaders should start listening to students instead of making decisions that will simply benefit their popularity. (Continued…)
Rachel
posted 4/25/07 @ 2:44 PM EST
Bravo! Finally someone who actually does their homework! Nicely written article. Thanks for voicing my opinion as well!
Melissa Cisneros
posted 4/25/07 @ 5:06 PM EST
Bravo to Jessica Cavalieri and The Bengal newspaper. Finally they printed something worth reading this year. Sargent, Brown, and Wheat are birds of the same feather, don't trust them. (Continued…)
lucy
posted 4/25/07 @ 7:05 PM EST
I could not have said it better myself. You speak for the majority of students here at ISU
Mike J
posted 4/25/07 @ 7:18 PM EST
I am a current student here at ISU and have been upset, along with many others, at how the student government is being run this year. People were really hoping for a change next year, but obviously it will be "business as usual". (Continued…)
Freddy
posted 4/27/07 @ 1:55 AM EST
You could not be more right! I totally agree! I just am so glad an outgoing senior had the courage to print this in the last issue of the Bengal. Very good, BRAVO!
Marry
posted 4/27/07 @ 2:12 AM EST
This is a great article. Namely because it causes even more divisiveness' at ISU. I think we should oppose other students at all costs. There is no amount of dissent that can lead to a totally disconnected student body. (Continued…)
Post a Comment