I find it unfortunate that members of the SGA Senate have decided to escalate the use of rhetoric and political maneuvers in regards to bill B-30-11, which amends a portion of Title XI of the SGA Code of Laws (COL). Additionally, I think choosing to write The Crimson White to express concerns that should have first been discussed in person highlights the lack of communication that certain senators are willing to have with members of the executive branch.

In response to Senator Lauren Hardison’s column yesterday, I’d like to set the record straight and allow students to decide if more clarification is needed.

As Senator Hardison points out, the new SGA Constitution, which I took part in writing, provided for a number of structural changes to the Student Government Association. As a result of these structural changes, there is a necessity to update portions of the COL, including Title XI titled “First Year Council,” which delineates the operating procedures of the SGA First Year Council.

This summer, I recognized that as Fall 2011 approached, there was a need to rewrite Title XI so the code regarding FYC did not conflict with the stipulations of the SGA Constitution. This was an immediate need. Without amending Title XI, FYC would be unable to function this school year.

Upon realizing this need, the Office of the Attorney General completed a review of Title XI and created a proposal reflecting the opinions of the executive branch. Once this proposal was complete, I, as the SGA attorney general, requested the opportunity to meet with Senator Will Pylant’s Rules Committee to formally submit the proposal.

At the beginning of this semester, I, along with the Director of FYC and former members of FYC, attended a Rules Committee meeting held to discuss the proposal submitted by my office. It was my hope that such a meeting would establish a precedent of healthy bi-branch communication regarding changes to the COL. During this meeting, portions of the proposal were removed, portions were rewritten, and all was done in a healthy form of open, civil communication.

At the conclusion of the meeting, we came to a consensus on a legislative package that both the legislative and executive branches were excited about passing. I was confident that future bills altering the COL would be handled in such a manner.

Unfortunately, discussion regarding Senate Bill B-30-11 was not handled in an open form of bi-branch communication. In fact, there was no communication at all. This bill was not discussed during my meeting with the Senate Rules Committee. The executive branch was blindsided by the Senate’s effort to pass Bill B-30-11, which alters a chapter of COL Title XI.

Although it was incorrectly cited by its author in yesterday’s column, B-30-11, as originally written, gave the speaker of the Senate and speaker of FYC the authority to call special sessions of FYC.

I was disappointed that B-30-11 was passed without some form of bi-branch communication, especially in the wake of a meeting that was held specifically to discuss my proposal regarding similar changes to FYC.

Upon my recommendation, the SGA President chose to veto B-30-11 for the following reasons:

(1) We believe that allowing the speaker of the Senate to call a special session of FYC violates FYC’s independence as a separate chamber in the legislative branch.

(2) In writing the Constitution, it was the intention of the framers and I that FYC model the SGA Senate in its proceedings. The speaker of the Senate cannot call a special session of Senate, and we believe that FYC should be designed accordingly.

(3) B-30-11 conflicts with the legislative proposal I submitted to the Senate Rules Committee in the aforementioned bi-branch meeting. B-30-11 would remove from the proposal Chapter 1100.4 which reads, “First Year Council shall reflect the diverse nature of the student body.”

It is for these reasons that we chose to veto B-30-11. However, these reasons alone seem enough to warrant B-30-11 not worthy for passage into law.

It was for these same reasons that we chose to veto B-30-11 again last week when it was amended and passed by the Senate.

It seems that the effort to pass B-30-11 is more an attempted flex of posturing and political power than one made on sound policy.

It is my hope that Senators Hardison and Pylant will not choose to revisit B-30-11.