Monday, Nov. 4, Jacob Dean, senior in political science and pro tempore, proposed to override the veto placed on the amendment to Chapter 702.3 in the SGA Code of Laws.
Dean wanted to overturn the veto and uphold the initial bill, which is to move the SGA president from the Elections Board and put the elections director in the position to vote when there is a tie.
He urged senators to stay true to their previous vote from last time.
"SGA is supposed to be the igniter of all students," Dean said. "How can we ignite the students when a biased seven [members], with the SGA president on the board, can essentially sway an entire election."
Rob Garcia, senator for the college of business, disagreed with Dean's opinion to override the veto.
He said he found the spirit of the bill to be right, but thought the implications of the bill were too great.
Garcia pointed out guests Fred Kam, former E-Board advisor from 2005-2011, and Kurt Sasser, E-Board advisor and former SGA President from 2010-2011, that spoke during the open floor.
"We had two members of the division administrators come and affirm the need to keep the president on the board," Garcia said. "What that tells me is that they are affirming that they trust the SGA president to veto and furthermore that tells me that taking the president off the board really impacts the degree to which they can trust it."
Richmond Gunter, senator for the college of business, said he was very conflicted when the initial bill was being debated.
Gunter said he believes the previous discussion on supporting fairness, transparency and making the process more open, was emotional and was what drove some senators to switch their vote.
However, he believes those that switched their vote, had a just reason to.
"These are your fellow students that serve on E board," Gunter said. "If I or anyone in this room is sitting on E-Board, I have confidence in you as an individual and a mature adult that you're not going to let one person, just because of their title, sway your opinion on what you truly think is right."
David Adams, senator of the graduate school, questioned if senators were really paying attention to what they were voting on every week.
He also asked the rhetorical question of whether they were voting for organizational efficiency for the division of student affairs or if they were voting for more accountability and trust in fellow students.
"If it's the former I think we are doing the wrong thing," Adams said. "If it's the latter then I think we should uphold the amendment."
The veto was upheld.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
