Inconsistencies among AS leaders

Members of the AS Senate and Executive Board  disagree over constitutional interpretations

Amy Inkrott / News Editor / The USD Vista

In the days following the Feb. 21 Associated Students (AS) Senate meeting, a debate began over the position of Student Organizations Chair, Charles Young. Referencing his actions regarding the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition, members of the AS Executive Board sought to remove Young from the senate. Other senators disagreed, prompting a large dispute over the rules and constitution of AS.

At the Feb. 28 senate meeting, Vice President Christopher Hermes delivered a statement from the AS Executive Board. Hermes explained the Executive Board’s decision to place Charles Young under Executive Review for his behavior the previous week regarding the ANSWER Coalition. Some members of the coalition viewed Young’s presentation on the organization as bigoted and a personal attack on the students and faculty involved.

“It was evident that members of the community no longer felt comfortable and safe around this individual,” Hermes said. “It is very unfortunate that this decision had to be made. We want to make it very clear that the manner in which (Young) conducted himself is not reflective of who we are as an organization and has negatively impacted students, faculty, and administrators alike at USD.”

This decision was made in accordance with Article V of the AS Review Process Bylaws. According to these laws, the AS Executive Board can remove any member of AS for “performing an act that makes his/her continued presence in Associated Students counterproductive to its mission.”

However, Alcalá Vistas senator Rowan Parmenter disagreed with this decision. Parmenter disregarded the board’s decision as a violation of the bylaws. He rebuked AS President Natasha Salgado for the perceived failure to adhere to procedure.

“Our president has shown complete disdain for our constitution throughout this whole process,” Parmenter said. “She has knowingly and willingly violated our constitution by holding such a vote without all members of the executive board. This body still has not sworn in an Athletics Chair and was therefore not present at this meeting. As such, the vote to remove (Young) is null and void. I want to stress the precedence that this is causing. If there is a dissenting voice, should the president just be able to kick that person out of senate? This is taking the student’s voice completely away from senate and endangering our process.”

These comments prompted a motion for the reinstatement of Young’s voting privileges within the senate. After a vote with a slim margin, the motion passed and Young resumed his duties as Student Orgs Chair. Other members of the senate were unhappy with this result. 

During the meeting’s final business, Senator Carolina Moreno Armenta further emphasized the hurt felt by members of the ANSWER Coalition and the value of student voices as she motioned to recall Young’s position. This prompted a discussion among senators and members of the public about Young’s interactions with the ANSWER Coalition.

After a brief recess, the senate proceeded to vote on whether to  hold a recall election for Young. This vote required two-thirds of the senate’s approval before being sent to the Alcalá Vistas residents. With 13 yeas and eight nays, the motion failed to reach a two-thirds majority. A member of the ANSWER Coalition then stood asking how they could remove Young without the recall vote. Students promised to form a petition of Alcalá Vistas residents in order to prompt an election to remove Young from office. 

“We are ready,” the member said. “And we continue to be ready until Charlie Young is gone. I will be here every dead hours until he is gone. We’re not going anywhere. The only person that will be going somewhere is Charlie and it’s out of this room. We will not leave here until that occurs.”

The students’ petition was spread via social media on Tuesday, March 12. The AS bylines require 20 percent of  Vistas residents’ signatures to prompt a recall election. A second petition was formed for non-Vistas residents supporting both the ANSWER Coalition and Young’s removal. 

However, the discussion surrounding Young’s future with AS did not end with the senate meeting. The next day, AS President Natasha Salgado and Speaker of the Senate Alexander Plummer issued a joint statement to the senate. The statement reaffirmed the argument of the vice president at the previous day’s meeting. 

“The removal of Charles Young was under the due process of Article V of the Performance Review Bylaws, which states that ‘every member of the Executive Board must be physically present’ in order to vote to affirm or deny the decision of the AS President to remove an individual from office,” Salgado and Plummer wrote. “In order to affirm the president’s decision, a majority vote is required. Every Executive Board member was present at this meeting. We understand that there was concern yesterday about a vacant seat on the Executive Board being counted as a member, but it would be an invalid argument since there is no member in that role. This differs from someone that holds an Executive Board position not being present for this meeting.”

The USD Vista followed up with Plummer after Spring Break. Although he could not name the individual who instigated Young’s removal, Plummer further explained the board’s reasoning.

“(Young) failed to act in harmony with an organization that is trying to become a student organization on campus,” Plummer said. “He did not respond to (ANSWER)… Instead he let the conversation that occurred be a one-way conversation. That was seen as not acting in a spirit of harmony with the organization.”

Plummer explained that the board’s decision stands and Young’s votes from the Feb. 28 meeting would not be counted. 

The USD Vista also reached out to Salgado, but did not receive a response until eight days later. Due to the time constraints surrounding publication, The USD Vista was unable to schedule an interview.  

Both Young and Parmenter continue to disagree, emphasizing the absence of an Athletics Chair. 

“As I have clearly stated before, and as the senate agreed via their vote to appeal the decision of the chair at Thursday’s meeting, all members of the executive board must be physically present to hold a performance review meeting,” Young said. “Our constitution differentiates between when only ‘sworn in’ members must be present, such as the constitution, and when ‘members’ regardless of their status as sworn in, must be present. I resolutely reject the joint statement’s validity, and, as one of this body’s few remaining duly elected senators, will be retaining my office as Alcalá Vistas Residential Senator and Chair of the Student Organizations Committee.”

The issue of Young’s removal continues to be a contentious debate as both groups employ their own interpretations of the AS constitution and procedures. 

“The senate may vote to ratify the decision of the AS President,” Plummer said. “Those are the words that are laid out in the constitution. However, I’m being completely transparent here, we are connecting the dots ourselves between what is stated in the constitution and… what it says in the bylaws for the Immediate Removal by the AS Executive Board.” 

AS has yet to determine the process by which to resolve this dispute, and will continue to discuss the presence of Charles Young as the Student Orgs Chair.