Legality of SGA executive actions called into question
By Emily Turner

Some SGA members say the Administrative Cabinet did not have a quorum for a vote endorsing a letter calling for higher pay for low-wage staff members. Advisers and officers will meet Friday to discuss the constitutionality of the vote.

Student Government Association officers and advisers say they will meet Friday to discuss whether the Administrative Cabinet acted unconstitutionally last week when it endorsed a letter sent to Chancellor Michael Ferrari calling for higher pay for low-wage staff members.

President Chelsea Hudson announced Tuesday that the Administrative Cabinet had voted 3-0 to endorse on SGA’s behalf a letter written by Staff Assembly, with only Treasurer George Peyton abstaining.

But both Peyton and John Billingsley, the vice president of the House of Student Representatives, said they were absent from the vote. According to the SGA bylaws, the Administrative Cabinet must have four members to “pass or approve all business.”

“The House should have been brought up for debate,” said Peyton, adding that he left before the vote. “Administrative Cabinet really wanted SGA’s name on the letter, so they made a vote without the House’s knowledge.”

Billingsley added, “In the meeting this Tuesday, it was discussed and agreed upon that the number for Administrative Cabinet’s quorum was four members. At the time of the vote four members were not present, and therefore the vote should have never taken place.”

Parliamentarian Brian Casebolt said “an abstention was not committed.”

“The individual who Hudson stated cast an abstention vote was not even present,” he said.

Vice President of Programming Council Brad Thompson, a member of the Administrative cabinet, defended the vote. The other committee members, President Chelsea Hudson and Secretary CiAnn Ardoin, could not be reached for comment.

“Rules are important, but we are talking about people’s livelihood here,” said Thompson, who is also SGA president-elect.

But Billingsley said the House was shut out of a controversial decision.

“The power of the student representatives was taken away by our president and the Administrative Cabinet,” Billingsley said. “They robbed the House of power over a very controversial issue.”

Tuesday night at the SGA meeting Hudson defended the Administrative Cabinet’s vote by reading Article IV, Section 1 of the SGA constitution. It states, “The Administrative Cabinet shall have the following executive powers and duties: To act in an administrative and advisory capacity in coordinating executive functions.”

Billingsley said Hudson’s interpretation of the constitution was extremely liberal.

“There are certain rules and procedures that are understood even though they may not be defined in any document,” Billingsley said. “Our normal operating procedures have been overturned and the role of the House was reduced greatly, if possibly, made null.”

SGA adviser James Parker said he would not comment until he speaks with the officers and other advisers Friday.

e.l.turner@tcu.edu