COMMITTEE REPORT
Report No. CC-11
GOVERNMENT BILL 93
Chairman Zach Adams submitted the following report regarding Government Bill 93, "AN ACT TO CREATE AN OFFICE OF STUDENT TICKET ADMINISTRATOR", on Monday, January 24th 2005, on behalf of the Campus Community Committee, and pursuant to its Tuesday, January 18th 2005 recommendations:
As provided by Senate Rule, the committee requests that the Senate President place Government Bill 93, on the calendar for second reading.
There were seven (7) Members (Adams, Langley, McCarthy, Moye, Sevits, Stephenson, Wilburn) present.
There was one (1) Member (Sarah Thornton) absent.
A quorum was present.
The following officials were also present: Chichwak, Cleary, Fabricius, Heard, Ortega, Quick, Small, Toms, Watts
To officially establish the position of Student Ticket Administrator, previously an informal position in Student Senate.
Ticket Administrator has been an informal position in Student Government appointed by the Campus Community Committee chair and confirmed by a mojority vote by the committee.
The Student Ticket Administrator is charged with the execution of all student ticket policies, distribution of ticket vouchers, campout events, and serves as the liaison between Student Government and athletics on all ticket issues.
Adams: So now we will look at GB 93, so basically this puts in writing what we have been using in the past and there is one small change. And that is that the senate actually approves our committee appointment of ticket administrator by a majority vote.
Langley: Who is the author of that?
Cleary: I am.
Langley: To make it official, does it have to have the majority of the senate?
Adams: Without this legislation I could appoint him myself and the committee would vote to approve the appointment, but this legislation would say we would make the appointment and senate would approve it.
Langley: I think it falls under us but the senate doesn’t really need to vote on it. We can handle it in-house and that is our job of our committee. The student senate trusts us to make that decision.
Cleary: I would argue that this is one of the most visible things that we do, and the senate should have the ability to vote on who the ticket administrator is. One it gives us latitude if the campus community committee is off center with what the rest of the senate is doing and secondly what it does is it provides us with a vote and a check.
Sevits: This is the second time tonight that we are removing some of our ability and moving that to the senate.
Adams: Point of information, it does not put the power in the Senate’s hands.
Cleary: The only power the Senate gains out of this could theoretically be never appointing a ticket administrator and then the blame would fall to the senate. The committee has the charge of appointing.
Sevits: But we are competent to.
Langley: This type of thing is bogging down the Senate.
Ortega: I’m sorry but you were not called on (Sen. Sevits), you were not called on (Sen. Langley), Patrick has the floor, next is Erich.
Sevits: Patrick is not a member of this committee.
Langley: You are not the Chair! You (Sen. Ortega) are out of line.
Ortega: I’m getting kind of pissed off because I’ve had my hand raised.
Langley: Well you’re out of line.
Adams: Whoa! So some people think the Senate should confirm the appointment and some people don’t. Why don’t we vote on the legislation and if we have an amendment why don’t we bring that amendment to the Senate?
Langley: Why not do that right now? That’s what bogs down the Senate, the committee is not doing the work.
Fabricius: There is one major office that we don’t confirm and that is the part of the standing committee chair. If we’re not confirming those people, the most powerful people of the Student Senate. If we can’t determine if are doing their job properly why should we determine their subordinates?
Cleary: This check also important because we’ve created a position that has traditionally been a senator and this would allow for a non-senator to be appointed to the position. A vote would provide them with the support to do their job properly.
Adams: I think that is a good point. If the senate doesn’t approve the appointment of a chair, the senate shouldn’t have to approve the appointment of ticket administrator.
Cleary: Well we approve the inspector generals.
Fabricius: We should get rid of that position, it’s pointless.
Cleary: I’m not denying it but if we are going to appoint an inspector general who is going to report to a committee, they are approved by the senate.
Fabricius: I think we need to look more generally, if we want to lock in the system we have it is a good bill and I fully support it.
Adams: I think it is a really really silly thing with the Senate approving the appointment.
Langley: It could.
Sevits: They don’t need to approve it though.
Adams: I move to strike “subject to the majority vote of Senate” from GB 93.
Seconded, ayes have it. Line was struck.
Adams: I move to report for consideration by the Senate of GB 93.
Sevits: I second that.
Ayes have it.
Adams: We have just reported favorably GB 93.
*** Secretary’s Note ***
GB 93, although mentioned as being “reported favorably” by the committee to the Senate by Sen. Adams after the bill was voted upon, the vote was not to approve favorably but to only report the bill for consideration to the Senate. It should not be construed in any fashion that the bill was supported by a vote reporting it as “favorable” to the Senate.
*** Secretary’s Note ***
Fabricius: I feel the bill should have been voted down, it’s just more statues.
Adams: That is an opinion.
Sevits: I move to re-open discussion on the previous motion.
(Motion was not acknowledged)
We made no reccommendation for or against GB 93, only a recommendation to consider the bill in Senate.
The Campus Community Committee made the following amendments to GB 93:
on line 9 by Striking ", subject to the majority vote of the Senate"
and on line 15 by Strinking ", subject to Senate confirmation, ".