Hello valued readers!
If you're tuning in it's likely because you have an e-mail notification set up to let you know when I post. I can't imagine too many of you remained loyal during a 90-day (or more?) hiatus. I actually have 3500 words of what I planned would be a 15,000 word post to be published last month. But alas my aims were too high and it never was given the priority that you all so greatly deserve.
I am in the process of writing a series of papers right now, but I've been interrupted by a bit of an e-mail crusade to keep our Student Association government honest. I blew quite a bit of time on these e-mails and it occurs to me that you all should gain whatever small benefit you can from reading them as well.
We begin with the initial address from the SA:
Gerrie [Name redacted] has resigned from her position as president-elect of the PTS Student Association. Because of the timing of her resignation and the fact that the elected officers had not yet taken office, this presented a dilemma. The student handbook does not provide for vacancies of this nature. While the handbook does assert that a vacancy of the presidential office be filled by the vice president, the resignation occurred prior to the accession of new officers. This left some ambiguity about whether the runner-up in the election, Allen [Name redacted], should take over or whether the Vice President-elect, Meredith [Name redacted], became President-elect. When Gerrie's intent to resign was made known, Allen was approached about the position and expressed his willingness to accept. At the same time, the other officers-elect- Meredith [Name redacted], Katelyn [Name redacted], and Doodle [Name redacted] - had begun discussing plans for the coming year and were operating with the understanding that Meredith would fill the role.
Because of ambiguity regarding proper procedure, the sensitivity of the situation, and its inconvenient timing, a group including Meredith, Katelyn, Doodle, Allen, Dean Ed, and Dr. Hainsworth met on Thursday afternoon. After much consideration, this group proposed that Allen and Meredith share the duties of President pending the approval of the representatives of official student groups of the Student Association next year.
This situation has presented us with a unique opportunity. We plan to evaluate the current system of leadership, look at the models other seminaries use, look at the issues with the current campus community and the issues faced by individuals and, over the course of next year, consider some amendments to the SA structure. We are really excited about the prospect of bringing up all of the concerns of the student body and finding ways that everyone can have a voice on campus in a supportive environment. As the new group of officers we are really excited about working together and sharing our vision for this campus. Please reply to this e-mail with any questions or concerns that you have either about the decisions that have been made so far or the ideas you have to shape the future of SA and campus community.
Please occasionally check your PTS e-mail over the summer if you're interested in having input into the orientation process. After finals an e-mail will be sent out seeking your input on the orientation process.
Meredith [Name redacted]
Allen [Name redacted]
Doodle [Name redacted]
Katelyn [Name redacted]
Well it turns out that the Student Handbook does provide for such vacancies and absolutely does not provide for that group of people to take any action in this situation. So I wrote back to the whole student body:
I would like to express strong objection to this decision.
For our student government to retain legitimacy it must be willing to uphold the laws it has established within the Constitution of the Student Association of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I contend that our Constitution provides more than adequate language for the resolution of this situation and the decision [of the elected officers] stands in clear opposition to the Constitution.
Sec. 3.01 states: "Each officer's term is for twelve months beginning the day after graduation" This clearly establishes the date at which elected officers assume the roles of outgoing officers. The resignation of the president-elect on any date prior to the transition to the presidency should be interpreted as a withdrawal from the election process, it is not a resignation of a seated officer. This is not a debatable point.
Sec 3.01 also states that the SA is required to consist "of four officers: President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer." This decision does not meet with that requirement. Will the co-presidents be appointing a vice-president? Appointments are given as the duty of the "President" not one or both of the co-presidents.
Sec. 9.02b is not vague. It is very clear that it does not apply to officers-elect. There was no vacancy in the office of the President. James, to my knowledge, was in that position for the duration of his term. I see no ambiguity in that. Misunderstanding, perhaps, but not ambiguity. A misconception must be corrected. It must certainly not be allowed to change the process.
This should have been an issue for the duly appointed election committee to consider and should not be under the purview of the other elected officers. In the election of this year's secretary, the withdrawal of a candidate did not merit a new election and certainly did not require input from other elected officers. Instead the position was awarded to the remaining candidate with the highest vote total. To treat the withdrawal from the presidential race differently than withdrawal from the secretarial race is biased, improper, and strongly opposed to the spirit of the election process.
On a different level, I assert this is bad policy. To have a shared authority is to have no authority at all. If the constitution were to be amended to include allowances for shared executive board positions it would also have to be amended to tell the SA how to handle situations where the two individuals disagree strongly on an action that they have both been constitutionally empowered to do. Also, accountability is lost. Failures of the office of the president could be blamed on the other individual(s) holding the office. If one co-president resigns, would we have to elect another? Would the remaining president appoint a new co-president, would the outgoing one be given that power? If two presidents are permissible, why not three? In fact, why not allow all nominated candidates for a certain office to serve in that office? Why have elections if not to make these decisions?
In summary:
1 – there needs to be universal execution of constitutional laws
2 – there needs to be a singular President
3 – there needs to be a Vice-President
If the principle consideration of this decision was accounting for all person's feelings then I would like to assert mine also. If Carrie [Name redacted] had withdrawn sooner in the election cycle, it is entirely possible I would have been elected to the executive committee. If Gerrie's withdrawal is treated differently, as it is in this decision, then I have been treated unjustly.
Any student who has been upset by this process must simply become informed as to the rules and become willing to submit to the established governing bodies. It would be better to throw out the whole election than to subvert the voters’ intent by having those who most benefit restructuring the organization after the election. I see no issue with the SA structure. All that remains is that it be properly implemented.
Thank you for your attention.
J Grant Sutphin
M.Div Student
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
To understand that last part you need to know that I ran for Secretary and finished third. The other two candidates tied and a run-off election was scheduled, then cancelled when one candidate withdrew.
Throughout the day today several students have written concurrent opinions (and some dissenting), though each with their own slight bias or suggestion that is not based in the constitution. Even though I know grammatei (legal scholars) are often grouped with Pharisees as personae non gratae (Rhett can clarify my sorry attempt at pluralization), I couldn't resist the opportunity to further respond to suggestions that this vacancy was an invitation to "discussion" and "creativity" :
Fellow students,
After a day of hearing perspectives on this decision it is important to point out that the election process is employed for the express purpose of ENDING a debate, not initiating one. In democratic order we raise an issue, discuss it, we vote, and in accordance with the pre-established rules concerning that vote, we move forward. If we do not move forward in accordance with those rules, the system is corrupted and loses its validity.
Our Constitution is not verbose. In my experience a constitution never is. One should not expect an enumerated procedure to fill a post-election, pre-transition vacancy. However, if we were to create one, I imagine it would not be to allow the other pre-transition officers to enjoin an unannounced, closed-door session to determine what elements of the Constitution they will employ or ignore based upon the testimony of individuals who have simply misunderstood the stated rules. It would also not be to call for a second election to be held without proper notice or sufficient time for all members of the SA to have a voice. They say democracy is the worst form of government besides all the other ones and what we have here is a great example. Allowing the presidency to fall to Allen may be a terrible solution but it is the ONLY solution that is unbiased and acceptable within the pre-established rules of the election process. (Heb 5:8) Meredith must assume the office for which she was nominated and elected. (According to our Constitution Sec 3.03, if we do not have a Vice President, we do not have a Parliamentarian, and we can expect boondoggles like this to continue happening.)
We do not think with the rulebooks. We avoid our thinking by using them. They save us from hurtful agenda-driven debates and overly compromised solutions that don’t solve anything. I welcome creativity. There should be 30 committee meetings in the Fall that are all about creativity, there should be an End Of The Year Award (power to the people) given to the most creative one of us, but there must not be any retroactive creativity in the execution of a duly sanctioned election.
As far as setting a precedent I imagine that is tough to do with a governing body that is different every year in a community that is completely different every 3-5 years. If there is something in the minutes about a situation like this I would like to see it published. Barring that, I believe the precedent was set when the Constitution was ratified. Point me to a section that establishes the powers of the officers-elect to determine the scope of their offices and I will relent.
1 – If you take issue with the withdrawal of an elected officer, your issue is with that person.
2 – If you take issue with the lack of stated procedures, write some and submit them for the next election. (Though you will undoubtedly be given argument by me when the submitted procedures are redundant or in contrast with the established Constitution. Certainly, I wouldn’t recommend attempting to account specifically for every possible scenario, the cost to publish the Student Handbook would become prohibitive.)
3 – If you take issue with my interpretation of our Constitution, please show me my error.
Let us resolve this issue with deference. Our Constitution called for this election and we must allow that document to see it through. Let us uphold our Constitution.
So, loyal readers, there I give you my first venture into the world of campus-wide e-mail. Is my language inappropriate? Is it too legalistic? Do I belong in Law School? Do I certainly NOT belong in Law School? Have a failed to be pastoral? All these questions abound in my mind, and because of them I can group this post with others about the adventures of a Seminarian.
Check back during the summer, this show isn't over yet.
<><
If you're tuning in it's likely because you have an e-mail notification set up to let you know when I post. I can't imagine too many of you remained loyal during a 90-day (or more?) hiatus. I actually have 3500 words of what I planned would be a 15,000 word post to be published last month. But alas my aims were too high and it never was given the priority that you all so greatly deserve.
I am in the process of writing a series of papers right now, but I've been interrupted by a bit of an e-mail crusade to keep our Student Association government honest. I blew quite a bit of time on these e-mails and it occurs to me that you all should gain whatever small benefit you can from reading them as well.
We begin with the initial address from the SA:
Gerrie [Name redacted] has resigned from her position as president-elect of the PTS Student Association. Because of the timing of her resignation and the fact that the elected officers had not yet taken office, this presented a dilemma. The student handbook does not provide for vacancies of this nature. While the handbook does assert that a vacancy of the presidential office be filled by the vice president, the resignation occurred prior to the accession of new officers. This left some ambiguity about whether the runner-up in the election, Allen [Name redacted], should take over or whether the Vice President-elect, Meredith [Name redacted], became President-elect. When Gerrie's intent to resign was made known, Allen was approached about the position and expressed his willingness to accept. At the same time, the other officers-elect- Meredith [Name redacted], Katelyn [Name redacted], and Doodle [Name redacted] - had begun discussing plans for the coming year and were operating with the understanding that Meredith would fill the role.
Because of ambiguity regarding proper procedure, the sensitivity of the situation, and its inconvenient timing, a group including Meredith, Katelyn, Doodle, Allen, Dean Ed, and Dr. Hainsworth met on Thursday afternoon. After much consideration, this group proposed that Allen and Meredith share the duties of President pending the approval of the representatives of official student groups of the Student Association next year.
This situation has presented us with a unique opportunity. We plan to evaluate the current system of leadership, look at the models other seminaries use, look at the issues with the current campus community and the issues faced by individuals and, over the course of next year, consider some amendments to the SA structure. We are really excited about the prospect of bringing up all of the concerns of the student body and finding ways that everyone can have a voice on campus in a supportive environment. As the new group of officers we are really excited about working together and sharing our vision for this campus. Please reply to this e-mail with any questions or concerns that you have either about the decisions that have been made so far or the ideas you have to shape the future of SA and campus community.
Please occasionally check your PTS e-mail over the summer if you're interested in having input into the orientation process. After finals an e-mail will be sent out seeking your input on the orientation process.
Meredith [Name redacted]
Allen [Name redacted]
Doodle [Name redacted]
Katelyn [Name redacted]
Well it turns out that the Student Handbook does provide for such vacancies and absolutely does not provide for that group of people to take any action in this situation. So I wrote back to the whole student body:
I would like to express strong objection to this decision.
For our student government to retain legitimacy it must be willing to uphold the laws it has established within the Constitution of the Student Association of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I contend that our Constitution provides more than adequate language for the resolution of this situation and the decision [of the elected officers] stands in clear opposition to the Constitution.
Sec. 3.01 states: "Each officer's term is for twelve months beginning the day after graduation" This clearly establishes the date at which elected officers assume the roles of outgoing officers. The resignation of the president-elect on any date prior to the transition to the presidency should be interpreted as a withdrawal from the election process, it is not a resignation of a seated officer. This is not a debatable point.
Sec 3.01 also states that the SA is required to consist "of four officers: President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer." This decision does not meet with that requirement. Will the co-presidents be appointing a vice-president? Appointments are given as the duty of the "President" not one or both of the co-presidents.
Sec. 9.02b is not vague. It is very clear that it does not apply to officers-elect. There was no vacancy in the office of the President. James, to my knowledge, was in that position for the duration of his term. I see no ambiguity in that. Misunderstanding, perhaps, but not ambiguity. A misconception must be corrected. It must certainly not be allowed to change the process.
This should have been an issue for the duly appointed election committee to consider and should not be under the purview of the other elected officers. In the election of this year's secretary, the withdrawal of a candidate did not merit a new election and certainly did not require input from other elected officers. Instead the position was awarded to the remaining candidate with the highest vote total. To treat the withdrawal from the presidential race differently than withdrawal from the secretarial race is biased, improper, and strongly opposed to the spirit of the election process.
On a different level, I assert this is bad policy. To have a shared authority is to have no authority at all. If the constitution were to be amended to include allowances for shared executive board positions it would also have to be amended to tell the SA how to handle situations where the two individuals disagree strongly on an action that they have both been constitutionally empowered to do. Also, accountability is lost. Failures of the office of the president could be blamed on the other individual(s) holding the office. If one co-president resigns, would we have to elect another? Would the remaining president appoint a new co-president, would the outgoing one be given that power? If two presidents are permissible, why not three? In fact, why not allow all nominated candidates for a certain office to serve in that office? Why have elections if not to make these decisions?
In summary:
1 – there needs to be universal execution of constitutional laws
2 – there needs to be a singular President
3 – there needs to be a Vice-President
If the principle consideration of this decision was accounting for all person's feelings then I would like to assert mine also. If Carrie [Name redacted] had withdrawn sooner in the election cycle, it is entirely possible I would have been elected to the executive committee. If Gerrie's withdrawal is treated differently, as it is in this decision, then I have been treated unjustly.
Any student who has been upset by this process must simply become informed as to the rules and become willing to submit to the established governing bodies. It would be better to throw out the whole election than to subvert the voters’ intent by having those who most benefit restructuring the organization after the election. I see no issue with the SA structure. All that remains is that it be properly implemented.
Thank you for your attention.
J Grant Sutphin
M.Div Student
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
To understand that last part you need to know that I ran for Secretary and finished third. The other two candidates tied and a run-off election was scheduled, then cancelled when one candidate withdrew.
Throughout the day today several students have written concurrent opinions (and some dissenting), though each with their own slight bias or suggestion that is not based in the constitution. Even though I know grammatei (legal scholars) are often grouped with Pharisees as personae non gratae (Rhett can clarify my sorry attempt at pluralization), I couldn't resist the opportunity to further respond to suggestions that this vacancy was an invitation to "discussion" and "creativity" :
Fellow students,
After a day of hearing perspectives on this decision it is important to point out that the election process is employed for the express purpose of ENDING a debate, not initiating one. In democratic order we raise an issue, discuss it, we vote, and in accordance with the pre-established rules concerning that vote, we move forward. If we do not move forward in accordance with those rules, the system is corrupted and loses its validity.
Our Constitution is not verbose. In my experience a constitution never is. One should not expect an enumerated procedure to fill a post-election, pre-transition vacancy. However, if we were to create one, I imagine it would not be to allow the other pre-transition officers to enjoin an unannounced, closed-door session to determine what elements of the Constitution they will employ or ignore based upon the testimony of individuals who have simply misunderstood the stated rules. It would also not be to call for a second election to be held without proper notice or sufficient time for all members of the SA to have a voice. They say democracy is the worst form of government besides all the other ones and what we have here is a great example. Allowing the presidency to fall to Allen may be a terrible solution but it is the ONLY solution that is unbiased and acceptable within the pre-established rules of the election process. (Heb 5:8) Meredith must assume the office for which she was nominated and elected. (According to our Constitution Sec 3.03, if we do not have a Vice President, we do not have a Parliamentarian, and we can expect boondoggles like this to continue happening.)
We do not think with the rulebooks. We avoid our thinking by using them. They save us from hurtful agenda-driven debates and overly compromised solutions that don’t solve anything. I welcome creativity. There should be 30 committee meetings in the Fall that are all about creativity, there should be an End Of The Year Award (power to the people) given to the most creative one of us, but there must not be any retroactive creativity in the execution of a duly sanctioned election.
As far as setting a precedent I imagine that is tough to do with a governing body that is different every year in a community that is completely different every 3-5 years. If there is something in the minutes about a situation like this I would like to see it published. Barring that, I believe the precedent was set when the Constitution was ratified. Point me to a section that establishes the powers of the officers-elect to determine the scope of their offices and I will relent.
1 – If you take issue with the withdrawal of an elected officer, your issue is with that person.
2 – If you take issue with the lack of stated procedures, write some and submit them for the next election. (Though you will undoubtedly be given argument by me when the submitted procedures are redundant or in contrast with the established Constitution. Certainly, I wouldn’t recommend attempting to account specifically for every possible scenario, the cost to publish the Student Handbook would become prohibitive.)
3 – If you take issue with my interpretation of our Constitution, please show me my error.
Let us resolve this issue with deference. Our Constitution called for this election and we must allow that document to see it through. Let us uphold our Constitution.
So, loyal readers, there I give you my first venture into the world of campus-wide e-mail. Is my language inappropriate? Is it too legalistic? Do I belong in Law School? Do I certainly NOT belong in Law School? Have a failed to be pastoral? All these questions abound in my mind, and because of them I can group this post with others about the adventures of a Seminarian.
Check back during the summer, this show isn't over yet.
<><
1 Comments:
Personae non gratae is correct (Persona is 1st declension, gratus is 1/2).
If you're tuning in it's likely because you have an e-mail notification set up to let you know when I post.
Or are using an RSS reader. Everyone should have one. I use Sage for Firefox.
And on your main point: I think one legal distinction you could make is that the president-elect withdrew before taking office. Since she had the option of withdrawing after taking office instead (and thus having the VP succeed her), you can argue that this was not her intent. Since she was the choice of the people, in the absence of a clear regulation, her executive will should be considered.
Co-presidents are a problem, in general, insofar as they permit a tie within the executive. Disputes between the two are going to happen, and the most transparent way to resolve them is to have an actual president and vice president.
And not to pile on, but I think "Each officer's term is for twelve months beginning the day after graduation" is bad phrasing. It means you could have overlapping sets officers some years and gaps in others. (Assuming that graduation is not always the same calendar day each year).
Post a Comment
<< Home