Three former FUSA senators, who were removed after missing a Senate training meeting on Saturday, are speaking out against the way they were removed.
Seniors Chris Martino, Ryan Leeds and Thomas Callaghan believe that the current attendance policy leaves no room for error or discussion and that they were removed due to a miscommunication between VP of Senate Casey Butterly, Senate Advisor Steve Winkel, and themselves.
The senate’s current policy on attendance is that if a senator has two unexcused absences from meetings that have been designated as official, they are to be removed from their position.
According to Winkel, Martino, Leeds and Callaghan missed a training session on Saturday that the Senate determined to be an official meeting where attendance would count. They did not attend and were not excused from the meeting, Winkel said. According to the official senate attendance records, this yielded a second unexcused absence for Leeds and Callaghan, and the third unexcused absence for Martino.
However, Martino and Leeds said they were excused from the training on Saturday. “There was a clerical error between Casey and myself,” Martino said.
Leeds said, “We were told that we were excused by Butterly, but then he never told anyone else that we were excused.” Callaghan declined comment for this story.
Butterly agreed there was a miscommunication. “I had called them on Friday to speak with them,” he said. “I mentioned the training Saturday. They mentioned to me that one of their housemates was coaching a crew team and they were going to go watch him in the meet. So, I did understand that they were going but did not make it clear. I didn’t specifically say that it was excused.”
Butterly also noted that there is a specific policy on how to obtain an excused absence, and it is done on a request basis. “They submit an excuse, and you can accept it or not,” he said. “If they thought they were excused, it’s a little more understandable that they didn’t come.”
Winkel said, “the issue was raised of whether the absence was excused or unexcused. We look at the sufficiency of the excuse. After Casey and I consulted on the matter, we agreed that it was an unexcused absence.” To get an outside opinion, Winkel also consulted with a member of the Senate Executive Board.
There was a question as to whether the Senate actually voted on this matter. Winkel clarified that he used the removal as an exercise. He asked Senate if they would consider missing the training as an unexcused absence, although the decision had been made. At Saturday’s training, the Senate agreed under the circumstances that it should have been unexcused.
During the Sunday FUSA Senate meeting, Winkel announced that seven students have been dismissed from the senate since the beginning of the year. Some students missed meetings because they weren’t interested in being involved, while others simply missed two meetings with inexcusable reasons, he added.
Part of the confusion is due to the way attendance was handled in the past. In previous years, a three absence rule was in effect, with a warning and discussion held between a senate official, such as the VP of senate, and the truant senator when the second unexcused absence occurred
When asked what might improve the circumstances of situations like this in the future, Martino said there is “definitely the need for discussion before a senator is kicked out, but the old attendance policy would be effective if enforced. Three strikes and your out is the norm, and a warning after the second offense, or somewhere in the middle, would work best.”
The former senators will have the chance to have the situation resolved. They are allowed to address the Senate during a special session on Sunday, Oct. 27, to discuss with the senators their side of the story and allow the senators to vote for or against their reinstating. In addition, they may also appeal to the Student Court under the regular appeal guidelines that the Constitution states.
Concerns were raised by Leeds and Martino that going in front of the senate to argue their case is “like pleading for our jobs.” Winkel and Butterly disagreed. Butterly said, “I don’t forsee it as being a hostile thing – we think the Senate will talk about it and have a discussion based on the facts. This is not an interrogation.”
Leave a Reply