Senate biffs on impeachment

The height of bureaucratic folly is on parade this week as the Student Senate hears the case to formally admonish Senator Eric Schmidt for asking a direct question at a Senate meeting last month. 

On Nov. 11, when an Awareness Through Performance member spoke to Senate seeking its endorsement of a student fee hike to support Academic Initiatives, Schmidt plainly asked the speaker, "Do you feel it is right for a government body to endorse one way or another on a referendum?" 

Advocates for increased funding to Academic Initiatives flew into hysterics. Senior Chuck Thiel, the author of the legislation calling for the Senate's endorsement, filed a petition to impeach Schmidt on the grounds that Schmidt was not taking into respectful consideration "all student issues," as delineated in Senate by-laws. Two students at the meeting individually sent letters to Schmidt complaining about his direct question. The Legislative Affairs Committee, which heard the case, used these letters to gauge the ethereal sentiment of "disrespect," but they are not public record. They were only referenced by Senator Lynn Lodahl - who sits on the committee and had personal knowledge of the letters - and should not have been presented in discussion if not made public.

Three people with hurt feelings apparently merits giving Schmidt a formal time-out: the Legislative Affairs Committee drafted a resolution on Nov. 29 calling on Senate to formally "admonish" Schmidt for "degrading the respect and reputation of the Student Senate."

"Admonish" because "censure" was too strong a word. At least they were considering his feelings.

In discussion on the resolution, the committee noted the hazy wording in the by-laws and that there is no precedent for impeachment, but acted anyway. No one had qualms about dismissing the charges leveled against Schmidt, yet they found him guilty of violating a different by-law over the course of their investigation. It would have been prudent to take no action other than expressing their not guilty verdict, and bring to Senate's attention the by-laws' inadequacies.

The Racquet stands by Schmidt's assertion that if a governing body is to remain open to all views, it has no business officially endorsing a referendum. Moreover, if a student lobbies for a cause, he rightly stands in the crossfire of any questions or criticisms lobbed in his direction.  

At this point, the issue of Schmidt's culpability is irrelevant, but highlighted are Senate's shortcomings and ineffectiveness. The Senate by-laws adopted last year have so many shades of gray between right and wrong, sneezing incorrectly could find a senator in some hue of wrongdoing. Per Senate by-law 4.205: "Behavior that degrades the respect and reputation of the Student Senate will not be tolerated."

Not only are degradation of respect and reputation impossible to quantify, the limp threat of no-tolerance is weak and, apparently, unenforced. 

If two written letters are (potentially, maybe, perhaps) grounds to quantify discontent, then consider this a whopping, open disapproval of not only the Legislative Affairs Committee, but also the students who found grounds to impeach a senator over hurt feelings. The Racquet has lost respect for the Student Senate and holds its reputation in lower esteem for wasting its constituents' time. We expect swift admonishment of the Legislative Affairs Committee for bringing such an inane resolution to the docket. Schmidt saved Senate from violating its own by-law to "remain open to all views and respectfully consider all student issues," so a call of no confidence in the whole body will be unnecessary.

Ironically, part of the argument against Schmidt cited his silence during discussion as a failure to "make any attempt to speak or share his opinion on the issue at hand," an act "discourteous to the authors and sponsors of the resolution." After the Legislative Affairs meeting Nov. 29, when pressed by The Racquet, the committee 1) refused to cite an example of an impeachable offense on the grounds that the new by-laws have no precedence, and 2) did not explain what Schmidt did to warrant admonishment, deferring to the discussion that would occur at the weekly Senate meeting.

What a bold, shining example of a failure to make any attempt to speak or share an opinion on the issue at hand. If Schmidt were objectively guilty, pointing to the source of his guilt would have taken no effort.

The committee's inability to stand by its findings is gutless and hypocritical. It highlights the trivial, aimless, unguided process that steers student government on this campus.