Senate adjourns early, faces procedural problems

Alexandra Nicolas

Student Senate adjourned early Wednesday after a disagreement between Senators over parliamentary procedure ended in the attempted ejection of Dylan Slagle, senior political science major.

After a report from the Senate Constitution Committee on the proper uses of Robert’s Rules of Order and discussion over the removal of a number of Senate resolutions, Slagle was repeatedly charged with speaking out of order, and was asked to leave by Senate President Hector Amaya, a request he adamantly refused, resulting in the meetings adjournment.

Afterward, Slagle said he hopes the events will help change the way Senate operates in the future.

“If I had to do it all over again I wouldn’t have chosen to have made it that brash,” he said. “What I really wanted to accomplish was to show everybody just how easy it is on a small procedural error, for a meeting to collapse.”

The Senate’s procedural workings, and the technicality of resolution submission were both subjects that led to the eventual adjournment and discussion of Slagle being removed from Senate entirely; a proposal Amaya does not support.

“I don’t think it’s right for someone to be kicked off for voicing their opinion,” he said.

Despite the disagreement between Amaya and Slagle, both said the discourse was not personal.

“It was a good thing for a student government to see that and to see the reality of the government, because stuff like that does happen,” he said

Other members of the Senate hope the events will help spur changes within the organization.

“I personally respect what he’s doing and understand completely,” said Matt Day, junior political science major. “Senate has become a worthless organization, our most significant piece of legislation last year was a resolution to move the ashtrays away from the doors.”

Senate Vice President David Reed hopes a greater understanding of procedure will improve things.

“Whatever the hell just happened there, that’s where the clarification needed to be,” he said. “I honestly think it was a statement on how ineffective things are right now. That could be indicative of the fact that this is our third meeting or it could be indicative of the fact that we don’t know how to follow our own rules.”