Archive for April, 2010

Senate Meeting Minutes: April 5, 2010

April 5, 2010 Leave a comment

Florida International University • Student Government Association • Modesto A. Maidique Campus


April 5, 2010

I. Welcome & Call to Order at 4:09pm

II. Roll Call

a. Adam Johnson (Tardy)

b. Alejandro Garcia

c. Alex Alonso (Excused)

d. Alex Lastra (Excused)

e. Altanese Phenelus

f. Angela Parra (Absent)

g. Angeline Gonzalez (Ex. Tardy)

h. Christina Mellon

i. Cristina Loreto

j. Daniel Ybanez (Tardy)

k. Daniela Gonzalez

l. Dillon Arango (Absent)

m. Edward Proenza

n. Erica Lovett (Excused)

o. Ernesto Rubi (Excused)

p. Haidar Hachem

q. Hector Mujica (Excused)

r. Helena Ramirez

s. Janice Rubio (Absent)

t. Katrina Fumagali

u. Loren Fraute (Tardy)

v. Maribel Chaluja (Excused)

w. Muhammad Saleem

x. Sandra Perez (Absent)

y. Taylor Prochnow

z. Vignesh Doraiswamy

aa. William Jose Velez

bb. Robert Yengibaryan

III. Approval of Minutes

Move to approve March 29 meeting minutes [Loreto] (Passes)

IV. Senate Speaker Report

a. Reports are due along with surveys

b. 100 surveys per college

c. 2 reports per semester

d. Binders

V. Senator Pro-Tempore Report

a. No Report

VI. Comptroller Report

a. Health Fee Open forum on Wednesday in the GC Ballrooms; at 10am and at 2pm

VII. Chief Justice Report

a. Previous grievance explanation

VIII. Finance Committee Report

a. No Report

IX. Senator Reports

a. Meeting with Dean on Friday (Loreto)

b. Postpones Town Hall meeting to April 8; Cram Jam on April 19; sent surveys today (Velez)

c. Jeopardy tomorrow at 3:30pm in GL 100; professors versus students; April 7 is the Sweetwater Cultural evening; MYD has been postponed (Doraiswamy)

d. April 9 is the RHA banquet; RHA applications have been extended; April 12-16 is RHA voting (Proenza)

e. Collecting surveys (Garcia)

f. Working on reports and surveys (Ramirez)

g. Doing more surveys (D. Gonzalez)

h. Working on surveys (Fraute & Saleem)

X. Committee Reports

a. No Report (ORC)

b. No meeting last week; meeting with Chief Justice(IAC)

c. Waiting for surveys and templates from senators (SAC)

d. Working on Finance Code(RLJC)

XI. Old Business

a. To Reform the Structure of the Governing Councils of the Student Government Council – Modesto A. Maidique Campus

Move to postpone until next week [Velez] (Passes)

b. Clinical Volunteer Program Appropriation

Move to vote by acclamation [Doraiswamy] (Passes)

i. Adam Johnson –Yes

ii. Alejandro Garcia – Yes

iii. Altanese Phenelus-Yes

iv. Angeline Gonzalez – Yes

v. Christina Mellon – Yes

vi. Cristina Loreto-Yes

vii. Daniel Ybanez – Yes

viii. Edward Proenza- Yes

ix. Haidar Hachem – Yes

x. Helena Ramirez – Yes

xi. Katrina Fumagali- Yes

xii. Loren Fraute – Yes

xiii. Taylor Prochonow – Yes

xiv. Vignesh Doraiswamy – Yes

xv. William Velez- Yes

xvi. Muhammad Saleem – Yes

Passes 16-0-0 (Passes)

XII. Announcements

a. Health Fee Presentation – David Dial

XIII. Adjournment at 5:04pm


Mujica v. Student Elections Board: Decision

April 2, 2010 Leave a comment

April 2, 2010

Mujica vs. Elections Board

Constitutional Question– did the elections board enact unconstitutional guidelines?

The case heard by the Judicial Branch in regards to grievance filed on March 18th, 2010 constituted the following:

Were the supplemental guidelines enacted by the elections board in violation of individuals’ and organizations’ right to free speech?

“i. Each candidate is only allowed to campaign for him/herself and therefore not  verbally endorse any other candidate during campaign week.

ii. Candidates should notify those campaigning for them that they are not allowed to campaign for more than one candidate simultaneously. This will prohibit someone to wear a specific candidate’s shirt and yet pass out another candidate’s flyer, among other situations”

Court decision

In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled that the elections board did indeed violate individuals’ right to free speech and free assembly as granted under the US constitution. The reasoning of the court was that by restricting a candidate’s endorsement of any other candidates during campaign week, the board’s supplemental guidelines prohibits a student’s innate ability to voice his/her opinions as granted by the first Amendment.  According to section 4, subsection C of the current constitution, “the Supreme Court must negate and remove existing Student Government Statutes, Appropriations, Law, Joint Resolution, Executive Order, and/or Senatorial policy that conflicts with any Federal, state, local law and/or ordinance or University regulation.”

The second clause of the supplemental guidelines is an attempt to prohibit an individual’s right to free assembly.  The guidelines, by threat of sanction, prohibit how volunteers may behave while representing their respective candidates.  Whom deserves to be sanctioned, however, is ambiguous.  Because volunteers are under no jurisdiction of SGA, it seems to follow that candidates would be the ones penalized. The court felt that because those working on a candidate’s campaign are specifically volunteers, it is unsound to sanction candidate’s based on actions over which they have no control.