Administration Campus News Student Government UH System

Senate vs. leadership: Constitution, bylaws mandates spark a debate

Jose-Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

On Wednesday, Jan.15 the Student Government Association met for their first session of the Spring semester where they read the new Constitution and bylaw mandates created in collaboration with the UH administration.

The mandates included but were not limited to changes to nominee approvals, impeachment votes, student fee decisions and the reconstruction of some branch-focused responsibilities. 

While some senators were not in support of the updated versions, Speaker of the Senate Tav Cockrell informed the Senate that changes would not be made to the Constitution until it was passed. 

“Having the opportunity as the leaders of the organization to even participate in its restructure was pretty much the best bet that we had,” Cockrell said. “If we don’t get this in time, then we were told that SGA cannot entertain or do any other business until this is completed, and you kind of assume the rest.” 

Student service fee

Previous documents gave the Senate the power to draft, modify and pass modifications to the student service fee. In the update, this clause has been removed. 

The previous clause enabled the Senate to reduce and raise the fee, or in some way affect the composition of the administration, Sen. Juan Garcia Salcedo said.

“This effectively reduces the power that the Senate has to control our own fee, that we pay every semester, whether it be for parking, athletics or other business,” Salcedo said.

However, Arriaga clarified that everything regarding the Student Fee Advisory Committee was removed from the Constitution, as SGA does not control this fee.

“That is a University committee where we nominate students to speak on our behalf,” Arriaga said. “It’s not in Texas legislation that SGA controls the student fee, it is actually the SFAC committee.”

Consent of the Senate in terms of impeachment threshold

The updated version of the Constitution lowered the consent of the Senate in terms of impeachment threshold from two-thirds to a majority. 

“Everything that said three-fourths was put to two-thirds, and anything that said two-thirds was changed to the majority to match the lowering of the threshold in general,” Cockrell said.

Nieto argued that the rule was originally established to prevent a system where leadership could be changed too easily because this would likely result in inconsistency.

Senate’s power from nominating people to University committees

In the previous constitution, if a University committee position was vacant for more than 28 days after the fall semester began, individual senators had the ability to nominate members for these positions. 

However, this clause was updated and now, the President and the Speaker of the Senate can nominate individuals to committees.

“This effectively reduces the power of the Senate to nominate and bring people,” Salcedo said. “Doesn’t that run paradoxically to the demands of Dr. Kittle?”

Historically, before the last constitution, this power was solely held by the Vice President who would spend the whole summer looking for candidates.

Cockrell emphasized that the power of the Senate to individually nominate was removed because the Senate has the power to approve or deny candidates in the first place. 

“It was a double power they did not need,” Cockrell said. “The power came from the executive, the check came from the legislative. It’s that simple.”

Nominee of the Attorney General

During the caucus, Salcedo asked why the new constitution changed the clause where the nominee for Attorney General was considered with the advice and consent of the Senate, but was now changed to the President.

SGA and the administration had a meeting where both parties had non-negotiable conditions so a compromise was made, Arriaga said. 

“The administration wanted us to make all nominations done by the President, although that is not what we wanted,” Arriaga said. “So in this case, all we did was add a check of the President to be in there to give his advice and consent. However, if you realize, nothing has changed other than that.”

Copying mistakes: Preamble, code of ethics

The updated mandate which was sent to the Senate did not include the preamble of the governing document. 

However, when questioned, Arriaga clarified that it was a mistake made while copying on his part and that it would be fixed.

A similar mistake was made when a Texas Higher Education Code was eliminated, which determined SGA’s power to potentially nominate members for the non-voting student representative positions to the Board of Regents

“So interestingly enough, that should not have been deleted,” Cockrell said. “Once again, a problem while copying everything, because we had to fix the entire format.”

Senate’s power to make, and suspend laws

The earlier bylaws gave power to the Senate to make laws, investigate and prepare for their execution.

The Senate’s authority towards motions, suspending and creating rules was also removed, limiting the power of the Senate, and creating a shared governance between the three branches, Nieto said.

However, Cockrell mentioned how the bylaw was unnecessary as these things can still be done through Robert’s Rules of Order

Removal of the multicultural affairs director

The new bylaws removed the multicultural affairs position and were replaced by a rotation director who would solely focus on election initiatives. Senators raised questions about the removal of the multicultural position.

Leadership explained that the removal of the position was because its purpose had already been fulfilled.

“​​I think that it is the duty of your existing officers to always promote diversity, and be multicultural,” Cockrell said. 

Inclusion of anonymous voting

The leadership introduced anonymous voting to address concerns where in the past, members felt pressured when it came to voting.

“In the real government, that procedure does not exist, which I agree it should not because you are elected representatives to the country at a much higher stake,” Cockrell said. “However, this is an institution, and we are students at the end of the day, which means you are more vulnerable.”

However, anonymous voting will not be the first type of voting. It will only go into effect if someone motions for it in the Senate.

The senators argued to remove the clause as it would violate the transparency clause of the organization along with the code of ethics. 

Copying mistakes: Budget controls

Similar to the constitution, copying errors occurred while updating the bylaws. One mistake was when a bylaw stating the Senate’s control over the budget was removed. 

However, it was clarified that it was a mistake made while copying as the document was edited multiple times. It wasn’t a simple process but rather a stressful one, Cockrell said.

Concerns by the Senate towards the mandates

Senators voiced concerns about the new mandates and how they increased executive power. 

“(Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs UH System) Dr. (Paul) Kittle’s letter emphasized safeguarding against power abusers, however, the amended version weakens the system, marginalizing the Senate’s role, increasing executive power,” said Sen. Asif Chowdhury. “The new changes enabled the executive branch to gain more power directly, contradicting his letter.”

Chowdhury gathered signatures from his college’s students, the Graduate College of Social Work, and almost 20% agreed that the senators should review and amend the flaws. 

“To senators who are still pushing to pass, I ask that once the students find the facts on how you are selling out their interest so cheaply, do you believe they will still support you in the upcoming election?” Chowdhury said. 

Salcedo argued that the new mandates are not strong enough to outlive the current governance and will lead to a similar process of changes for the upcoming office. 

Unfair process

While Salcedo agreed that the current Constitution and bylaws should be edited, he emphasized that the process being followed is not correct, but rather unfair.

“We’re part of the shared governance model of this University,” Salcedo said. “We should have equal power with administration.”

The senators expressed their concern with the current leadership as well by stating that President Diego Arriaga, Vice President Austin Craig, and Speaker of the Senate Tav Cockrell, have frequently shown behaviors of incompetence, dishonesty and undermining trust and confidence.

Sen. Jesus Nieto asked the leadership why has the student body not been involved in the process of amendment, and why all the power is being given to the administration and the executives. 

“I understand the underlying issue the speaker is saying is that this is a sponsored organization, however, I was threatened before in the same system,” Nieto said. “I am implying to them to stand up and do what’s right for the students.”

After the Executive, Speaker, Court and Justice Department Reports, the Senate motioned and approved a moderated caucus for 35 minutes in the form of a public forum, where leadership answered questions from the senators, for both mandates.

[email protected]

Leave a Comment