Student Occupational Science Association v. Student Senate
Facts of the Case:
On Tuesday, February 9, 2010, Elizabeth Miller, President of the Student Occupational Science Association (SOSA) applied for Student Senate Registered Student Organization (RSO) funding, requesting monies totaling $4,335.90 to attend an International Conference being held in Canada. The money requested would provide for 12 members to attend the conference. Money for those individuals presenting research at the conference would be provided by the Occupational Therapy/Science Department. The application met all of the qualifications for RSO funding requests. A special appropriations committee ranked all applications properly filed with the Appropriations co-chairs Chelsea Atwater and Elizabeth Horn. SOSA was ranked 12 out of 38 organizations.
On Tuesday, February 23, 2010, Student Senate met to review RSO funding applications and appropriate $34,699.51 between 38 organizations as ranked by the Special Appropriations Committee. When SOSA’s funding request was brought to the floor, the Student Senate engaged in an arduous discussion and made several amendments. Following a motion to approve and a second, Executive Vice President DaJuane Harris called for the “yeas” and “nays”. It was the opinion of EVP Harris as Chair of the Student Senate that the majority voted nay and SOSA’s funding request was denied. Some Senators expressed their opinion to EVP Harris that more time was needed to call for “division,” before gaveling a ruling and EVP Harris agreed to do so.
On February 25, 2010, Elizabeth Miller filed a request for a Student Court hearing with Chief Justice David Anderson, appealing the decision of the Student Senate citing Student Bylaws Article VI, Section G, I which states:
“If a member of the Association, as defined in Article I Section A of the Student Government Constitution, b believes the Student Senate did not operate with a neutral viewpoint or failed to follow the provisions of appropriations set forth by the Student Senate Bylaws, they may appeal the Student Senate’s decision to the Student Court.”
Question:
Did the senate operate biasedly or fail to operate neutrally when they amended the RSO funding request from SOSA and then moved to deny the request because more division was necessary?
Answer:
In a 5-3 vote, the Student Court ruled that the Student Senate did not operate in a biased fashion or failed to follow RSO funding procedures outlined in the Student Senate bylaws. The Court came to these decisions based on the complainant not meeting the burden of proof of a preponderance of the evidence. However, the Student Court notes that this ruling was due to a lack of evidence from both the Complainant (SOSA) and Respondent (Senate). As such, the Student Court ruled that the Student Senate must amend their RSO procedures to add necessary things such as recordings of the meetings and accurate/updated minutes.