Log In | Register
I am the former Senior Justice on my University's Student Judiciary Council. Recently our newly elected SGA President was arrested, and likely will face impeachment tomorrow night at the first Senate meeting. Now this would not be a bad thing, but he is popular and his supporters are trying to spread that his offense does not justify impeachment, when he had an elected official fired when it was not within his perogative to do so as SGA Preseident.
In having the other member dismissed, he created a presedent that implied there was a standard to be maintained while in office, on top of all the constitutional requirements for good behavior etc.
Here are links to the stories which have caused the students to be in such an uproar:
http://www2.nbc13.com/news/2010/aug/20/jacksonville-state-sga-president-arrested-ar-730735/#comment_form
http://media.www.thechanticleeronline.com/media/storage/paper670/news/2010/08/25/News/Full-Story.Sga.President.Tim.Long.Arrested.And.Charged.With.Public.Lewdness-3925160.shtml
I have been called on by concerned members of the student body to write an opinion detailing what the expectations of elected office are for our SGA, and how an Elected or Appointed Officer could be removed from office. I thought that I would share my reasonings and opinions with all of you and see what you had to say on the matter.
Now, I am not going to put my name on here as there is no point, and I shall refer to myself as Publius online, but rest assured the actual opinion to be delivered at the impeachment proceedings will have my name and info. I stand by what I say...but I am leary of doing so here online.
the Opinion:
An Opinion of Former Senior Justice of the Student Judiciary Council:
Publius
On the Matter of Justification, and Procedures, of Impeachment for Student Government Elected or Appointed Officers
It seems that at least once a semester grumblings arise as to the need to impeach, or remove, a member of the Executive Branch, or Student Activities Branch, from their duly elected position, and such deliberations are never to be entered into lightly or unjustly. However, the question does not often arise as to what grounds for removal or impeachment are, neither does the question arise as to how such actions are to be done.
It is in times like these, of questionable stability of the government, that we must turn to our written guide, our SGA Constitution in order to find the answers to the questions that we are faced with. Before we can begin to describe, or understand, what unacceptable behavior is, we need to first know what constitutional behavior is mandated of our elected officials. Let us examine Article II:
“Article II
Declaration of Purpose
1.The purpose of the SGA shall be:To protect and defend the rights and responsibilities of the University to the students and the students to the University.
2.To represent and provide a sound democratic student government, to promote student interests in the decision-making processes of Jacksonville State University, and to foster a spirit of unity among students.
3.To present views and strive towards a better understanding between administration, faculty, and students.
4.To fulfill, to the best of our ability, the wants and needs of the entire student body.
5.To develop, coordinate, and execute activities and services for the benefit of the students.
6.To facilitate due process in an attempt to advance the academic and social standards of the University and awareness of the responsibilities inherent with membership in the University community and provide input for judicial procedures.
7.To provide the students with the means to vote for their representative officials through general elections.
8.To cultivate and maintain leadership among the students.”[1]
There are a total of eight Clauses made in the above quoted section, and to understand why we have a student government, we need to read and understand this section in part, and its entirety. To that end, let us now examine each Clause individually.
Clause 1: This is very self evident. The purpose of the SGA is not to create, maintain, or operate an exclusive club of elected individuals that solely benefit from their rank or office among the students. Nor is it the purpose of the SGA to blindly follow the commands and directives of the Office of Student Life, or to produce mindless programming for the students in an endless barrage of SGA “Activities.” The Purpose of the SGA is to represent the will of the student body to the Faculty, Staff, and Administrative Offices of this University, as well as defend said students from abuses or mistreatment by said individuals. In recent years, the trend of the Senate, and Executive has been to promote the interests of the few over the interests of the many, and such offices have been unwilling, or afraid, to stand firm and implement an actual student agenda in the face of Offices and Faculty which have overstepped their bounds in regards to the Student government. The Student Activities Branch has all but become a position of popularity, and disfuntionality, while the Judiciary is a mockery of the Court of Peers it was intended to be with our governing document.
Clause 2: There are several key phrases in this Clause that must be contemplated, and reflected on. Specifically the phrase “to represent and provide a sound democratic student government..” is a clause that we as students should pay utter and steadfast attention to. This is the section which allows the students, not the faculty or administrators, but the students to decide when their government has run amuck. What is “a sound student government?” It is my opinion that the architects of this document, our founding law, wanted for “sound” to translate into stable. According to dictionary.com sound can be defined as:
–adjective
- free from injury, damage, defect, disease, etc.; in good condition; healthy; robust: a sound heart; a sound mind.
- financially strong, secure, or reliable: a sound business; sound investments.
- competent, sensible, or valid: sound judgment.
- having no defect as to truth, justice, wisdom, or reason: sound advice.
- of substantial or enduring character: sound moral values.
- following in a systematic pattern without any apparent defect in logic: sound reasoning.
- uninterrupted and untroubled; deep: sound sleep.
- vigorous, thorough, or severe: a sound thrashing.
- free from moral defect or weakness; upright, honest, or good; honorable; loyal.
- having no legal defect: a sound title to property.
- theologically correct or orthodox, as doctrines or a theologian.
All of the above listed definitions can be applied to the quoted clause of Article II, but the most important one for our understanding of the constitution would be, “free from moral defect or weakness; upright, honest, or good.” So the authors of our constitution wished for us to have a student government that was free from moral defect or weakness, was upright, honest, and good. I think we can all agree that these are easily understood virtues and as such each one does not need to be defined. After all, we have had in the last 2 years the same Vice-President of Student Activities resign, and then “let-go” for seeming issues of morality, honesty, or integrity. Integrity while in office is essential to providing a sound government.
Clause 3: In recent years there has been a confusion of the roles of elected or appointeded officials for this SGA. The offices which members hold are not at the discretion or pleasure of the Office of Student Life, nor of Dr. Meehan. The Office of Student Life is a response of the administration to the students forming a government as a via media[2] for the Student government to interact with and, for lack of a better term, protect the students from the University Governance and Faculty. It was never intended that the Student’s governing bodies be subject to the approval or acceptance of the Office of Student Life or others. It was also never within the power or rights of said office to control the goings on or actions of the SGA. It has been lax officers and elected officials which have allowed for the student’s government to be taken over by those whom are not a part of it, and why the positions mandated by the constitution are so critically misunderstood and often do not act in the interests of students, or stand firmly resolved for the interests and desires of students.
In other words there has been a breakdown in the lines of communication in that there is no accountability, perceived or otherwise, for elected or appointed officials of the SGA. Some SGA Officers have in the past, and some in the present, thought themselves to be beyond reproach so long as the Office of Student Life was happy and content with the quality of service rendered or level of command of the office that the individual(s) displayed so long as said individual(s) maintained the respect of the students.
This is a dangerous position that we the students find ourselves in as the common mindset of the average student today is such that removing an elected official from office for a perceived, or actual violation, of this section is seen as almost impossible. However, if an individual is acting beyond their constitutional duty, or acts in such a manner as to impair their ability to “present views and strive towards a better understanding between administration, faculty, and students,” in such a way that the students have lost confidence in the individual or views and actions which are in the interests of students, then said individual is in violation of this article, and has abused the public trust of his/her peers.
The students of this university need not expect or find normal abusive or divisive behavior of our officials. Our SGA is supposed to bring harmony and collaboration between students, faculty and administration….not conflict and spite. How can students act cohesively or harmoniously when we do not trust our leaders, and how can said leaders honestly represent a citizenry that is calling for their removal from office? It cannot be done by said individuals
Clause 4: The SGA is charged with acting in the interests of the students, to fulfill their wants and desires when able. It is not the purpose of the SGA to act in the interests of the elected or appointed officials, but to maintain the integrity and the faith of their student peers in the SGA.
Clause 5: “To develop, coordinate, and execute activities and services for the benefit of the students,” with services being the key word. What are services? Certainly student activities are a service for the entire student body, but any position of trust in the governing bodies of the SGA are positions of service. It is implied and understood by this Clause that the services must be positive and beneficial to the students, as to provide deficient, diminished, or abusive service cannot be tolerated if the interests of the students are to be executed and maintained by the members of the SGA governing bodies as examined in the previous clause.
Clause 6: “To facilitate due process in an attempt to advance the academic and social standards of the University,” is the key phrase of this clause. In order to understand this section there needs to be the understanding that the University does have, and does maintain a set of acceptable standards for students which must be observed. Notice that this clause does not say that students, or officers, must be on campus for this clause to be in effect. As found on the JSU website for University Policies, it is incumbent that in order for students to remain in good standing with the University, and not to violate the social standards of the University, students may not break local, state, or federal law to the effect that:
“If a student is involved in misconduct which is a violation of the Code of Conduct, as well as a violation of federal, state, and local law, University disciplinary proceedings may proceed without regard or consideration to the pendency of civil litigation in any court or criminal arrest and prosecution. Proceedings resulting from violations of the Code of Conduct may be instituted prior to, simultaneously with, or following civil or criminal proceedings off campus[3].”
While a student does have the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that does not mean that the act of being found in violation of a university policy, or law of Alabama, is not grounds for University action, or in the case of an SGA elected or appointed officer this would mean that being charged with a crime is just grounds for removal from office, regardless of the outcome of any pending trial outside of University jurisdiction.
The SGA Constitution demands, and the University Policies describe, the understood law of morality, in that immoral or illegal behavior is repugnant and cannot be tolerated in any form or fashion. As the SGA was invented to protect the students and maintain effective and reliable communications between the Students and University Faculty & Administration those in violation of the standards of conduct for the University, whether on-campus or off, must not be allowed to continue in representative or appointed office as to do so would not result in maintaining the confidence or credibility of the student body resting with the SGA. As such the organization, the SGA, would be then incapable of providing its constitutionally mandated service(s).
Clause 7: “To provide the students with the means to vote for their representative officials through general elections,” is a phrase that means the elected officials are put into office through a vote of confidence of their peers. To abuse such trust is to be grounds for expulsion from office.
Clause 8: “To cultivate and maintain leadership among the students.”
I would like to now share a quote on leadership that applies very much to our understanding of what clause 8 is saying, and what is expected of our elected officials of the SGA: “All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith, on his experience of the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war criminals.
Mr. Galbraith was correct in his declaration that to be a leader is to face the anxieties and evils of one’s time and to guide his peers through them without looking toward the interests of self. Self-sacrifice and humility are needed in a leadership position, in our positions of SGA leadership. Trust is key in being able to fulfill the mandate of Clause 8 of Article II. If there is no trust, there can be no student government. If the governing bodies cannot generate the courage the size of a mustard seed to do what is right over what is easy, especially what may be unpopular at the time, then there can be no leadership coming from the divisions of the SGA and as such a new government would have to be formed which would provide the leadership that the students demand from their elected officials.
Thus far we have established what is expected of members of the SGA governing bodies. Now let us examine what methods are constitutionally allotted for their removal.
According to Article IX Section VII: “Any holder of any office created by this Constitution or the Code of Laws may be removed for misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance while in office by the Student Judiciary Council or by such method as provided by statute. The senate shall have appellate jurisdiction as provided in the Code of Laws.”
Now, before we can examine what this section allows, we must understand the definitions of Misfeasance, Malfeasance, and Nonfeasance. According to dictionary.com misfeasance means, “a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action[4],” malfeasance means, “the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used esp. of an act in violation of a public trust)[5],” and nonfeasance means, “the omission of some act that ought to have been performed[6].”
With the aforementioned definitions understood, Article IX Section VII gives the right to remove officers of the SGA to the Student Judiciary Council of the SGA, or by the statuary means of removal from office. Now, this provides an interesting dilemma as the senate has created a statutory means for the removal of Senators and SGA officials in Chapter 306 of the Code of Laws which states the following:
Chapter 306 : Impeachment Proceedings[7]
306.1 The Senate shall have the power to impeach (that is, to bring a charge of
misconduct in office) against any Senator, by 2/3 constitutional majority
vote. A constitutional majority vote shall be defined as a majority vote
of 2/3 of all Senators on the Senate. The Senate shall try all cases of
impeachment against Senators, according to the Rules of Procedure in
306.3.
306.2 The Senate shall have the power to impeach any S.G.A. office-holder. If
a motion to impeach an office-holder shall pass the Senate by
constitutional majority vote, charges shall be presented to the Student
Judiciary Council for their action. The Senate shall appoint one or more
of its members to present the case to the S.J.C. If a Justice shall be
charged, the Justice shall be automatically temporarily suspended, and
the Chief Justice shall appoint an Acting Justice for the sole purpose of
hearing the misconduct case.
306.3 If a Senator should be impeached, the Senate shall appoint one of its
members to prosecute the case. The accused Senator shall be permitted
to defend himself/herself, with or without the aid of another Senator(s).
The Senate shall meet in Special Session to try a misconduct case. Then
the Secretary shall read the charge to the Senate. Then the prosecutor
shall present the case against the accused Senator. Either side may also
utilize testimony from other Senators or other individuals. The members
of the Senate shall have at least 30 minutes to question the accused
Senator and any person(s) who gave testimony. The accused Senator
shall then be dismissed. The Senate shall then deliberate for as long as
they shall think necessary. A two-thirds constitutional majority vote
shall be required to remove the accused Senator from office. The Senate
shall have power to compel testimony by issuing subpoenas. Any person
found in contempt by the Senate shall be liable to prosecution before the
S.J.C.
306.4 Any office-holder found guilty of misconduct and removed from office
by the S.J.C. may appeal his/her case to the Senate. The original
prosecutor and defender shall argue the case before the Senate.
Note that in 306.2 the Senate has proscribed the method for the impeachment of an office holder, but regardless of the statute the Student Judiciary Council remains the only body that can remove an elected officer from their seat/office. While some might understand this to mean that 306.2 is pointless, the statute actually allows for justice to be carried out in such a manner as to allow the student body to learn of the truths of the instance, as well as the SJC to learn the facts of the matter and the opinions of the students before they convene for a vote of removal.
Let’s combine what we know of 306.2 and Article IX Section VII and ask ourselves if they fulfill the goals and expectations of Article II. Would a public trial by the Senate as described in 306.2 further the democratic goals specified in Article II Clause 2? We can without equivocation say yes, an open trial of a public official is a hallmark of democracy, and proves that the position is not above the people. In fact, it is healthy for our body politic to conduct examinations of our elected or appointed officials and those whose actions are weighed against the constitution and found lacking that they should be removed immediately and without delay.
Therefore, it is my opinion as the former most senior member of the Student Judiciary Council, as a student of JSU, as a member of the SGA, and as a scholar of our constitution and code of laws, I recommend that the Senate of the Jacksonville State University Student Government Association impeach Timothy K. Long on the grounds of misfeasance and malfeasance which can be verified via internal and external mass media, and the Jacksonville Police Department. While the crime of public exposure and lewd behavior has yet to be proven in a court of law, JSU Policy, and the SGA Constitution do not require proven guilt for a student to be entered into University or SGA sanction. As Mr. Long does not deny the arrest, I must applaud him, but to have put himself in the situation in the first place has tarnished himself, and his office to the point that statewide and local media have investigated or propagated the incident, and as such the trust of the students cannot be maintained by him, nor can he represent the students to the Administration or Faculty with such a stigma present.
I therefore humbly submit that 306.2 should be utilized by the Senate, either on grounds of commons sense of SGA pride by the members of the Senate themselves, or on my behalf as a student of this University. Regardless of the personal affection that I have for Mr. Long, I have a greater sense of duty and pride to the institution which I have dedicated so much of my time and efforts to, as well as to my peers. Even though we are in Alabama, and even though we are a University, we the students deserve elected officials whom have no police or court record.
As a former member of the SJC I submit this opinion to the minutes of the Senate, and I beg and beseech the individual Senators assembled to observe the law as prescribed in our constitution. Misfeasance and Malfeasance have been conducted against the students of JSU by our SGA President, and our constitution only requires one of the three mentioned acts as being grounds for impeachment and removal from office. I ask the Senate now to remove yourselves from the passion of this instance, and look at the unbiased law. It has been broken, the trust of the students has been lost, and now it is up to our elected officials to do their duty and restore our confidence in a government that equally shares the shame of this act among all of the branches.
You have an uneasy task before you, but the law is clear what must be done now. Impeachment proceedings must begin, and the SJC must remove Mr. Long from the office that he has so damaged by his acts.
Yours in service,
Publius
Associate Justice, Ret.
[1] Quoted from the SGA Constitution online, 8-28-2010, http://www.jsu.edu/studentlife/sga/constitution.html
[2] * Latin: Middle Ground, Middle Way
[3] http://www.jsu.edu/studenthandbook/University_Policies.pdf
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Misfeasance
[5] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malfeasance
[6] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nonfeasance
[7] http://www.jsu.edu/studentlife/sga/Docs/2009_Code_of_Laws.pdf
