Yurt v. Committee of Inquiry

Facts of the case:

A complaint was filed with the SGA Ethics Administrator, Phillip Migyanko, on February 21, 2012 by Student Senator Yurt. The complainant alleged that the respondent, Student Senator Jensen, had made several derogatory and inflammatory remarks toward specific groups on campus and was also in violation of the Senate Rules from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. On March 21, 2012, the Committee of Inquiry found Student Senator Jensen not guilty of the charges. On March 27, 2012, Yurt appealed the decision of the Committee of Inquiry due to irregularities within the Inquiry proceeding, the Senate Rules from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised and a punishment inconsistent with the crime.

Question:

Did the Committee of Inquiry have irregularities in their proceedings and was the lack of punishment a result of that irregularity?

Did Jensen violate the Constitution based on Robert’s Rules of Order?

Answer:

In a 5-2 ruling, the Student Court upheld the decision of the Committee of Inquiry. The Court noted that there was an irregularity in the proceeding when Senator Chrisman notified the Student Senate of the investigation when it was supposed to be confidential; However, this did not jeopardize the integrity of the decision by the Committee of Inquiry. The Court additionally ruled that Jensen did not violate the Constitution. The rule addressed directly pertains to attacking another member or discussing an issue that is not currently on the table. Jensen’s comments were never directly toward another member but rather the issue as a whole. As such, the punishment was consistent with the offense.