SGA presidential race hits controversial snag

The University's Student Government Association (SGA) meeting lasted for nine hours this week, the longest senate session this academic year, due to a two-hour delay because of internal SGA issues involving the status of senator and potential presidential candidate Peter DiSilvio.

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday and it ended at 3:35 a.m. onWednesday.

Issues involving DiSilvio arose after new information surfaced that both he and his running mate, fellow Senator Carlos Cruz, may be out of the race due to DiSilvio's absences at senate meetings. Presidential Ccndidate Kate Legnetti and Brent Weitzberg were apprised of the situation after they participated uncontested in the second round of SGA debates on Monday evening.

According to Legnetti, DiSilvio has not been present at four previous senate meetings, which according to the SGA Constitution, disqualifies him as a potential presidential candidate.

"Brent and I weren't notified to what was happening until Sunday afternoon," Legnetti said. "What happened was, our Constitution states, you could not have more than four absences in a year. If you accrue two absences, then you can be reinstated."

Though DiSilvio was reinstated last fall into senate as the Club Affairs Chair, the SGA Constitution states if an SGA member accumulates more than two absences, the member will be removed from Senate. Additionally, a senate member cannot be reinstated more than once.

"As a presidential ticket, you need to be a participating member of senate, so he is technically no longer on a ticket," Legnetti said on Monday evening.

To get the absence removed, the student would need to consult with the Ethics and Conduct Chair Ashley Kowal, a sophomore, to cancel out any attendance issues. However, rumors among the student body spread that Kowal, a staff member on the Kate and Brent campaign, may have set up DiSilvio and Cruz. Legnetti firmly denied any connection.

"People said I have schemed this because the person in charge of this is the ethics and conduct chair, Ashley, and she's one of our friends," Legnetti said. "She works on our campaign. And the fact that people would insinuate that is really unfair. She's been nothing but fair this year. Pete did not let her know [of his absence] after it became public knowledge."

At the Rules Committee meeting at 6:17 p.m. on Monday, the SGA minutes state that "Peter DiSilvio appealed the decision of the Ethics and Conduct Chair: Decision of the Chair was not to remove an absence." The vote was a tie 3-3-1 and Jared Berry, Rules Committee Chairman voted "no," making the final vote 3-4-1. The meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m..

As of Tuesday night, the gallery overlooking the senate in the Greenhouse was unusually full, primarily with representatives from clubs for the appropriation appeals section of the meeting. But also sitting in the gallery were, at that point, former senator Peter DiSilvio, along with a handful of supporters, including former Senator Elyse Emmerling, a junior drama and history major.

"I believe that the Rules Committee is biased toward Kate and Brent because the chair is involved in their campaign," she said. "I feel like the cards were stacked against Pete… I also feel the appeal was handled incorrectly. I'm very disappointed in the outcome."

Legnetti recused herself, leaving Parliamentarian Pat McDonald, a senior in charge, prior to the passing of a motion (27-9-1) which officially brought the appeal before the senate for review. Consequently, this allowed DiSilvio to come forward to give his side of the story.

According to DiSilvio, his two absences were due to not handing in a monthly report for March and for excusing himself from his own meeting without notifying Kowal 24 hours in advance. What DiSilvio was appealing was that he should have an absence removed, citing the second line in the law pertaining to absences (302.5.) The line states, "Members of the senate must pre-approve said event with the Ethics and Conduct chairperson to view the event."

"I went to the 'Songs of Love' event last week and because it was stated in senate that the event would remove an absence, I thought that that counted as members of the senate getting approval," DiSilvio said. While he acknowledged that this statement was lacking from last week's minutes, he defended himself, saying there are often things that are said and do not make it into the minutes as Stephanie Caruso, a junior film major and the SGA secretary, "is only human."

Additionally, DiSilvio said that while he was aware that he was required to inform Kowal of his desire to use the event to remove an absence, he was not aware he had to do so in advance or that "there was a clock on it."

Kowal then presented her case. She said that continuing to use DiSilvio's interpretation of "members of the senate" as meaning members of the senate as a whole, the next line stating "members of the senate must not be affiliated" would therefore mean that "members of the senate as a whole must not be affiliated with other clubs that are co-sponsoring said event."

Therefore, because IFSC co-sponsored the event she said that "the event would not count to take away an absence."

Regarding the time limit, Kowal said it is the senator's responsibility to know the rules concerning absences, because once the absence is recorded, the appeals process is the only recourse a senator can take, as they are no longer a member of the senate.

"The issue is that I was not notified to take away the absence," Kowal said. She then cited two examples where senators this semester followed such protocol.

The speakers list was then opened and debate ensued within senate as well as with frequent comments from speakers in the gallery. Legnetti stepped in, speaking from the gallery at one point, getting the senators back on track by highlighting that the issue up for debate was not regarding whether the event was approved, but rather regarding whether the involved senator pre-approved the event and notified the Ethics and Conduct chair that he desired an absence removed. The debate then moved on to the integrity of The Ethics and Conduct chair and whether she made allowances for other people and circumstances.