Student Government Association v. Deaton

Facts of the case:

On September 18, 2013 the SGA Executive Cabinet met to conduct a regular meeting. At this meeting, Dr. Michael Reagle was present to discuss a proposed university policy change. In short, this policy would result in the removal of the ‘Anti-discrimination’ Clause (hereinafter referred to as the ‘policy’) in the Registered Student Organization (RSO) contract, thus allowing RSO’s more latitude in selecting their members. This policy was set to be brought before the Student Senate at their next meeting for consideration.

The Executive Cabinet discussed the idea of not informing student senators to prevent potential confusion among the senators about the policy. Ethics Administrator Michael Deaton was present at this meeting for the policy discussion. Deaton expressed his objections to not informing the senate body, but the Executive Cabinet was not persuaded. The Executive Cabinet decided against making the cabinet aware of the policy prior to the Student Senate meeting. This decision was reached by an informal vote and was unanimous amongst the Executive Cabinet members. At no point during the discussion of the policy or the vote did the Executive Cabinet go into Executive Session. Therefore, all knowledge discussed is considered public and reflected in the minutes.

After the Executive Cabinet meeting, Deaton wrote a memorandum that is dated September 19, 2013, and addressed to student senators. This memorandum stated that Dr. Reagle would be present at the meeting to discuss the policy. It also loosely summarized the policy in bold print and encouraged discussion. This memorandum was printed on official Ethics Administrator letterhead and identified Deaton as the Ethics Administrator three different times. This memorandum was sent to the Student Senate via email. Deaton also sent an email to the Executive Cabinet giving them notice of the memorandum and it being sent to the Student Senate on September 20, 2013. In the email to the Executive Cabinet, Deaton stated, “I have deemed it unethical on behalf of the Cabinet not to inform members of the Student Senate prior to their meeting on Tuesday. Per the Constitution I have determined this memorandum to be appropriate remedy for this issue.” Deaton never received a complaint, formed a committee of inquiry, or investigated.

On October 1, 2013, Chief of Staff Andrew Beasley filed this complaint with the Student Court, alleging that this decision violated the SGA Constitution. Article X, Section D, Sub-section 1b gives this Court original jurisdiction over interpretations of the SGA Constitution. Article X, Section D, sub-section 2 gives this Court original jurisdiction and judicial review over the constitutionality of any action of the Ethics Administrator.

In his complaint, Beasley asserts that Deaton exceeded his authority under the SGA Constitution when he acted without first being asked to do so, acted without first investigating, acted without recommending appropriate action, and acted without receiving a complaint.

Questions:

Was Michael Deaton acting as Ethics Administrator when he sent the memorandum and email?

Did Michael Deaton truly deem the act of the Executive Cabinet to keep senators uniformed about the policy to be unethical?

Did Michael Deaton violate the SGA Constitution by failing to act as an independent body?

Did Michael Deaton violate the bylaws when he deemed the Executive Cabinet to keep senators uninformed about the policy to be unethical without first receiving a complaint?

Did Michael Deaton conduct a proper investigation into the Executive Cabinets actions before deeming it unethical?

Did Michael Deaton violate the bylaws when he determined a remedy for what he deemed an unethical act?

Did Michael Deaton exceed his constitutional authority as Ethics Administrator when he executed the remedy?

Answer:

The Court answered the first question with a 5-0-1 vote that Deaton was indeed acting as the Ethics Administrator when he sent the memorandum and email. The letterhead identified himself as such 3 separate times as well as the testimony of Deaton confirming this fact.

Second, in a 5-0-1 decision, the Court determined that Deaton did, in fact, truly deem the act of the Executive Cabinet to be unethical.

Third, In a 0-5-1 decision, the Court found that Deaton did not violate the SGA Constitution by failing to act as an independent body. The Court did not agree with Beasley’s interpretation of the “independent body clause” of the Constitution. Beasley seemed to believe it meant that the Ethics Administrator must act without bias, when the Court determined it to mean that the Ethics Administrator was separate from the other branches of SGA.

Fourth, in a 4-1-1 decision, the Court determined that Deaton did violate the bylaws when he deemed the actions of the Executive Cabinet to be unethical without first receiving a complaint.

Fifth, in a 0-4-2 decision, the Court concluded that Deaton did not conduct a proper investigation into the actions of the Executive Cabinet. Deaton never created a Committee of Inquiry which is required by the SGA Constitution.

Sixth, in a 4-1-1 decision, the Court determined that Michael Deaton violated the SGA Constitution when he determined a remedy for what he deemed an unethical act. The Court notes that the memorandum by itself is not necessarily unconstitutional seeing as the information contained within it is public; However, the purpose of the memorandum when the email to the Executive Cabinet is added to the equation, makes it clear that the memorandum was intended to remedy what he deemed an unethical act.

Seventh, in a 4-1-1 decision, the Court determined that Deaton did exceed his constitutional authority when he executed the remedy.