During last Thursday’s Senate meeting, Speaker of the Senate Lance McCaskey, a junior majoring in economics, and Senate Chief of Staff Michael Cervino introduced a 34-page bill to create separate standing rules for the Senate. The Crimson White sat down with McCaskey to discuss why he and Cervino felt the bill was necessary, and to also discuss some of the changes that were made.
Q: Why did you and Senator Cervino feel it was necessary to create this separate governing document?
A: Right, so Cervino is actually the Chief of Staff to the Senate so he’s appointed. The reason we found it, not necessarily necessary but like a good way for us to move, is, given the precedent of almost every other legislative body in the federal and state levels.
I’m from Texas, and the Senate in Texas and the House in Texas both have documents like this. The federal houses both have documents like this. The Alabama Senate and House both have documents like this. We found that the precedent was there for our own kind of rules and documents that we have sole jurisdiction over- which is important for the Senate to keep itself accountable.
Going back and looking at the Code of Laws and realizing the original intent of the Code of Laws was to be a structural document, to say “These are the positions, these are their powers,” not necessarily to say, “Here’s how the Senate should run a meeting,” and that’s kind of what it became for the Senate, was a procedural document especially given Title VI is probably the longest section in the Code of Laws –– and that’s only Senate, like, rules and regulations and procedural kind of things. So moving that to its own document that the Senate is in charge of, because right now, as you know, the Code of Laws is amendable by all three branches, so having our own document in the Senate that dictates the procedures that we’re going to use, what sections of Roberts Rules of Order we’re going to find most substantial for our meetings: kind of moving that way just to have a document that keeps us most accountable for ourselves.
Q: Last Tuesday, President Roth announced to the FYC that her administration would do their best to amend the Constitution without the convention since the convention did not pass on the [Homecoming] ballot. So, is this bill keeping with her efforts to do that or was something that you and Chief of Staff Cervino did separately?
A: It’s not necessarily a joint effort from Exec. I know that they were leading the charge towards the convention and they really wanted to see a convention happen. The Code of laws, it’s important to note, are not- would not have been touched by a convention. So, it’s important that the Code of Laws be updated because right now there’s a lot of redundancies within the Code of Laws. There are different sections that contradict each other, so a big focus that I personally as a Senator wanted to look at…was the Code of Laws, cleaning them up, making them shorter, making them clearer and I think this is the probably the best way for the Senate to go about that right now for us.
As far as the convention goes, there were concerns when the convention was coming around about if the Senate should put a lot of effort into cleaning up the Code of Laws if they’re just going to be scrapped for a new constitution. Unfortunately, that resolution didn’t pass the student body so now it’s really time for, in my opinion, just as a senator, for us to focus on what we can do as a Senate to make things more productive moving forward and I think this is a great first step for the body.
Q: When you were writing this piece of legislation, is there one item in particular that you looked at that you knew you wanted to amend or move to the separate document or was it really just looking at it and saying, “OK, we need to change all of this and move it to the separate document in order to have the Code of Laws function the way they should?”
A: The original thing we looked at was the section on proxies in the Code of Laws because Roberts Rules of Order does not mention proxies in any way. Proxies is something the SGA Senate here has adopted as its own kind of special rule. So, looking back at that, trying to figure out how we would like to utilize the proxies in this senate, this the 21st –– we realized that there were a lot of things in the Code of Laws that supersede the Roberts Rules of Orders that we use and that are typically used by legislative bodies and there’s, for instance, like, the House of Representatives in the United States has its own governing rules like, packet that dictates what sections of Roberts Rules will be used and what sections supersede Roberts Rules. So, looking at that and realizing first off, proxies are something that we do that’s not necessarily conventional that needs to be, like, stipulated in terms of Roberts Rules. Looking at different things like that, the committee system is something that is unique to every legislative body. We don’t have the same committees that the SGA at Auburn does. Everyone has their own committee system. So making sure that that is in the proper place and this document would be this place to ensure that that kind of procedural thing that goes along with the committees is followed to the best extent so we can be as effective as we can be.
Q: What was the reasoning behind moving legislation passed by the First Year Council to the Rules Committee when it was? I believe you mentioned this a little during the meeting because, you know, it previously went to the Finance Committee.
A: There are a few changes within the committees themselves. Just getting the different chairs, talking to them when were going through this. The Finance Committee originally had any jurisdiction over act coming from the FYC. The reasoning for that was unclear so it seemed like the best utilization of the Rules Committee would be to have anything coming from a separate body to the Rules Committee just to make sure that all Rules had been followed before we pass it as a body. A couple of different things we went into as well, as far as the finance goes, there was a section in the Oversight Committee where any project in the SGA over $700 would be reviewed by Oversight, but that’s more of a financial duty ’cause it’s mostly looking into not if the project was successful, but if the money was used correctly, moving that to [the Finance Committee] so that they have power over that, and right now, technically, the Rules Committee has jurisdiction over the attendance policy but that’s something that logically should be in [the Oversight Committee] and [the Ethics Committee]. (Inaudible) Those are the main changes to the committees, but as I mentioned in the meeting, nothing that’s in the Code of Laws is being removed, it’s just being put into places that are more logical and being organized in a way that’s more, like, structurally sound for the rest of the Senate.
Q: Finally, can these standing rules be amended by the same process that the Code of Laws is amended in the Senate?
A: Exactly. Anyone who wants to the amend the Senate –– the standing rules and regulations, whatever we end up naming it, just has to pass a bill of law, and that would still be right now under veto by the president. They have the veto power simply because the Constitution gives them that power, but it would only be able to be authored by a Senator. So basically this document would only be amendable by the Senate. So it would be the exact same process. You would just write a bill saying that – you have to clarify, obviously -that it would be for the Senate standing rules and not the Code of Laws, but you could amend any such (inaudible) you want to change any kind of wording or intent. It would be the exact legislative process though.
The bill must be reviewed and discharged from the Rules Committee before further action can occur.
