Brief asks Constitutional Council to throw out case
Student Government has asked the Constitutional Council to throw out the organizational challenge that calls for the immediate assembly of a codified house of delegates.
The respondent’s brief filed late Sunday night and made available to the public Monday afternoon argues that the challenge does not have constitutional standing. It also says SG and Student Body President Chase Mizzell had already agreed to and planned on implementing the house of delegates prior to the challenge being filed.
The full text of the organizational challenge filed by Josh Snead on behalf of the South Carolina eSports Club, was also made public Monday. It charges the executive branch of SG with failing to carry out the codes and, thus, denying the right of representation in the house of delegates.
SG is petitioning to drop those charges because they call into question enforcement of codes, not enactment, which would not violate student organizations’ constitutional rights, according to SG Attorney General Devon Thurman.
SG and Snead “disagree on what action is required by the student body president” in regards to assembling the house of delegates, according to the respondent’s brief.
SG had been discussing the feasibility of implementing the legislative body during the summer and up until Snead filed the challenge, according to Thurman. When he did so on Sept. 3, SG “froze any effort to develop the body” until the case was resolved, Thurman said.
Snead said that may, too, be unconstitutional.
“They claim that they could not answer our question based on the fact they were required — or decided — to freeze action on the house of delegates,” Snead said. “But because it’s signed and passed by Student Government and the president of university, it must be carried out until the challenge is over.”
This is also stated in constitutional code 501.16.“A challenge pertaining to a current code will not render the code ineffective during the review process. The code will remain as [stated] until further action is taken,” the code reads.
While the codes establishing the house of delegates were discovered in March, Mizzell and his staff prioritized appointing cabinet and committee members that had codified deadlines before working on implementing the house of delegates, Thurman said.
The codes establishing the house of delegates do not specify when or how often the body should meet, and those details would most likely be put in the body’s rules of procedure, she said. The meeting time, place and frequency of student senate is in section 200 of SG’s constitutional codes.
SG’s response to the challenge also included a Sept. 2 correspondence between Thurman and Mizzell indicating they had begun to develop plans for interest meetings regarding the house of delegates.
Snead requested the house’s assembly to Mizzell in person and in a formal email request, both on Friday, Aug. 30. When Snead had not received an email in response to his formal request by Sept. 3, the Tuesday following Labor Day weekend, he filed the organizational challenge.
Snead was not aware of the discussion between Mizzell and Thurman until he received SG’s response to his challenge early Monday.
“There has been no formal communication of any intent of Student Government to comply with my request until I got a copy of this brief at 1 a.m. Monday,” Snead said. “Until then, I received absolutely no communication from anyone in Student Government. There was no response to my formal request — not even casual conversation with any member of Student Government.”
But even with the knowledge of this correspondence, he said he does not believe SG was addressing the issue at hand.
“It doesn’t actually fulfill the request I submitted. My request was to have the body meet within 30 days. What that email says is a discussion of the merits of the idea,” Snead said. “I don’t feel that the discussion answers the question I presented to Student Government formally. It would’ve been nice to be (copied) or included on the discussion prior to their submission of the brief.”
Whether Snead’s challenge is dismissed or taken to a formal hearing, the outcome will likely be the same: Student Government will proceed with efforts to gauge interest in and assemble a house of delegates, Mizzell said. A similar body was proposed during his presidential campaign. And, before the discovery of the 700 codes, he had been working on creating a presidential advisory council consisting of delegates from student organizations, though it would not encompass all 400 groups.
“There would be permanent members as well as rotating spots,” Mizzell said. “That would ensure the consistent major players would have a voice as well as some of the smaller organizations.”
This may also be an alternative if student organizations indicate they would not want to participate in a house of delegates, Mizzell said.
However, SG may not need to continue engaging this challenge in order to proceed with a representation system for student organizations. Snead said he will drop the challenge if Mizzell issues a formal response to him and his club stating that SG will assemble the house of delegates within 30 business days, which is what the challenge seeks. Snead has also submitted a letter to the Constitutional Council stating this.
“It would’ve been so much easier and saved everyone a whole lot of time if they had submitted a formal response,” Snead said. “All we want is a formal response instead of waiting for Student Government to stop sitting on its hands and do something they haven’t done for seven years now.”