The Student Association Senate Finance Committee has released a report into the transfer of funds by Executive Vice President Morgan Corr and has recommended that the senate take action against Corr, but they did not recommend impeachment.
Corr, who is also running for SA President this week, transferred a total of $2000 to three student organizations in February and less than a month later received an endorsement for the SA’s top post from one of the organizations.
A report by Jeff Goodman, the vice president of judicial and legislative affairs, last week recommended that Corr be impeached and removed from office for not getting finance committee approval before transferring the money. The finance committee recommended a lesser sanction, and said the senate should take actions up to and including censure.
Senior Michelle Tanney, chair of the finance committee and a Corr supporter for SA President, said that the finance committee could not come to a unanimous agreement on an appropriate sanction for Corr. She said half the committee wanted censure and the other half of the committee wanted a lesser action. She said a compromise was to put the decision before the entire senate for the full body to decide.
Tanney also said that the finance committee has a plan to offer legislation that would freeze the remaining amount of money in Corr’s budget for the rest of the year and put that money back into the SA’s general fund. This would prevent Corr from spending any more money this year and the action would have to be approved by a majority of senators.
For censure to occur, two-thirds of senators must vote in favor of it and then the body has acted. There is no formal procedure for what happens after a censure, Tanney described it as a “slap on the wrist.”
The senate has no meeting this week and will be reconvening next week after the first round of SA elections, which ware set to take place this Wednesday and Thursday. Stay tuned to the SA Blog and gwhatchet.com for continuing SA Election coverage.
Check out the Finance Committee Report on EVP Morgan Corr’s alleged actions.
While I imagine that the comments of an anonymous blogger mean little – if anything – in the overall scheme of things, I commend the Report by the Finance Committee in large measure. Despite being personally tied to the target of the investigation, the Committee issued a unanimous report that closely examined most of the issues involved with Mr. Corr’s illegal transfer of money to three student organizations. My quarrel with the report is two areas, however, that mitigate its overall worth. First, the Report fails to seriously address the motivation behind Mr. Corr’s illegal transfer. Second, the recommendation of punishment is undermined by the very text of the Report itself.
The most serious allegation is that Mr. Corr transferred money from his budget to that of the International Affairs Society with the purpose of securing their endorsement for his candidacy for SA President. While I won’t speculate on the reasons why the Committee turned a blind eye to those allegations, they apparently did. “…the Committee finds no evidence to support a link of any sort between the funding transfer and the political support…” (Report S-06-01 at 7). The Committee has failed to account for the disturbing timeline of the illegal transfer, offered by Mr. Corr at the conclusion of the very meeting where IAS Presidential endorsements were announced. Perhaps the Committee doesn’t believe the preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation, but the fact remains that the evidence is still present. The Committee’s failure to find “any evidence” is a gross error that questions the validity of the entire Report.
The Report extensively and eloquently details the actions of Mr. Corr, how those actions violate the text and spirit of several laws, and has agreed that Mr. Corr’s illegal transfers deserve a public reprimand. Nevertheless, the Committee’s recommendations and one of its findings are belied by the severity of his actions. The Committee found:
–Mr. Corr violated Bylaw 409, Section 4(f); Bylaw 401, Section 4(b); Bylaw 409, Section 3(a); and Bylaw 409, Section 4(g).
–Mr. Corr harmed the student body by denying information to Finance Committee used to make cosponsorship determinations.
–Mr. Corr harmed the student body by permitting his personal connections to govern funding decisions.
–Mr. Corr harmed the student body by undermining the very foundation of the entire funding system, to the point where students can now reasonably question if high ranking members of the Student Association can be trusted with thousands of dollars. (The Committee, in seeking to reclaim Mr. Corr’s funds, apparently doesn’t think so.)
Despite all of the Committee findings above, they fail to conclude that Mr. Corr’s actions rise to “misuse of Student Body Funds.” (Report at 6). I start to wonder what on Earth a person has to do for the Finance Committee to conclude that actions “rise to the level…of misuse of Student Body Funds.” Buy a root beer keg, perhaps?
Reasonable people can disagree about the sanctions to be imposed upon Mr. Corr. And I know the members of the Finance Committee are reasonable people, placed in a difficult situation between fidelity to their Oath of Office and their loyalty to the Senate Chairman. But for the Finance Committee to repudiate the mere idea that Mr. Corr’s misconduct rises to the level of removal from office is an abdication of its responsibility to protect Student Body Funds.
And it severely reduces the importance that should be attached to their recommendations.
Question: Say Corr wins the election. Can he still be impeached for his actions in the IAF dollars-for-votes scandal?
One has to wonder whether EVP Corr would be as care free with the SA’s money next year as President. Considering that he has recieved the endorsements of both the IAS and the MSA one also has to wonder whether they were influenced by the money that he gave them. Even if that isn’t the case he still should have done it through official channels. I am not associated with the SA so I don’t know the entire story but this thing stinks to high heaven. There has to be more to this then EVP Corr giving money to student organizations without the authorization of the finance committee. Perhaps the committee would not have approved the transfer especially since its during election season, or maybe someone on the finance committee would try to block it because they are running for something themselves on a different slate that Corr’s. I really don’t know and speculation is pointless however it is clear that he did something that violated SA’s policies and he should be punished for it and I think the best punishment is for him to lose the upcoming election. Censuring him or Impeaching him is a pathetic idea because he has a month left in office, but denying him what he really wants would be a bigger blow and would ensure that he couldn’t do this sort of thing again. I was going to vote for him before this but now I am going to vote for someone else, I don’t know who yet but right now at least 3 of the candidates look more credible than Corr does.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, and I’ll say it till I die – Corr’s transfer of 1000 had nothing to do with the IAS endorsement. As the chairman, I would hope I would know something about it. We have provided evidence to all those concerned and reporting on the issue that clearly and definitively shows that we not only sought to ensure the transaction was legit, but also that no endorsement should be expected as a quid pro quo. Corr would have to argue his case just like every other SA prez candidate. And like the CRs, CDs, and Daily Colonial, we decided he was the best candidate.
I refer you all to the Daily Colonial editorial of the day:
“Goodman allows his audience to infer that because Chang is on the IAS E-board, Corr transferred funds to ensure their endorsements for SA President and EVP. The simple fact is that, were the IAS going to be biased in their endorsements, the chances of the IAS endorsing anyone except Corr and Chang were unlikely – if only because of Chang’s leadership within IAS. It seems foolish to think that Corr would spend $1000 to persuade an organization already in both his and his running mate’s corner.”
So, me thinks perhaps this has more to do with politics than ethics, eh?
where is asher, traversty, abanto, rotella? how come they aren’t calling foul? Is this not worse than Omar’s sequoia? you guys are pathetic hypocrites, holding others to a double standard while you hide and defend your own like cowards! shame on you!
Ghost of Timmy….
well, I wouldn’t call it the “dollars-for-votes” scandal just yet. I don’t think we know that.
Technically, yes, impeachment/removal proceedings can be started against any person, elected or appointed, in the Student Association, at any time…as long as one-third of the Senate membership signs a petition for his/her removal.
However, politically, I cannot imagine how one-third of Senators would sign such a petition if Mr. Corr was announced as the winner of the election early Friday morning.
/begin wild speculation\
I think there’s a open question about what would happen if Mr. Corr was announced as the winner but the Student Association Senate impeachmed, removed, and disqualifed Mr. Corr from the future ability to hold an office of honor or trust under the Student Association. Presumably, the EVP-elect would take the Oath as President when the time came but I wonder if that’s ever happened… (and I wonder who’s responsibilites he would fulfill during the pre-inauguration period…evp-elect? pres-elect? both?)
\end wild speculation/
This is the way I see it…
“Say Corr wins the election. Can he still be impeached for his actions in the IAF dollars-for-votes scandal?”
The issue here is not “dollars-for-votes” by misappropriation, there is no way to substantiate that claim and we should all give Corr and Baker the beneift of the doubt.
A few points to consider: for Corr to be impeached he there needs to be a petition signed by (2/3) of the senate members, then a trial by the SA Judiciary. In my opinion the offense is impeachable, but unlikely that the petition will get the required (2/3). The Senate can still impeach Corr once he is elected, however this will be unlikely. A much harsher penalty would be for them to freeze Corr’s executive budget for the 2006-2007 school year effectively denying his ability to get things done.
As to who would take control if EVP Corr is impeached is clear: “Vacancies in the office of the Executive Vice President shall be temporarily filled by the Chairman Pro Tempore of the Senate. The President shall make a nomination for a new Executive Vice President within two (2) weeks of the time that said vacancy occurs. Said nominee shall assume office upon approval by the Senate.” This would effectively elevate Chris Rotella, Chairperson Pro Tempore and Chairperson of the Senate Rules Committee to EVP until an official replacement is found. Again, it is so late in the year that this seems unlikely and a waste of time.
Anonymous Parliamentarian, long time no see.
You’re wrong on the procedures for removal.
“A petition bearing the signatures at one-third of the Senate membership shall initiate removal proceedings against any person nominated, elected or appointed by or to office in, the Student Association” Article VI, Section 3(a) of the SA Constitution
“Any official of the Student Association may be removed from their positions by a two-thirds vote from the Senate.” Article VI, Section 3(c)
Thus, impeachment proceedings are started with 1/3 of the Senate, not 2/3, and the trial is before the Senate, with the Chief Judge presiding, not before the SA Court.
Also, I don’t even think you can assert with a straight face that freezing his EVP budget is “a much harsher penalty” than impeachment/removal. A penalty that requires 1/2 of the Senate for its approval is much more serious than a penalty that requires 2/3 Senate approval.
How can you assert that Mr. Corr’s remaining in office without the ability to spend money from his budget is more harsh than Mr. Corr….not being in office (and thus not having a budget, a title, authority, power, or “the ability to get anything done” in the SA)
I think that Morgan intentionally violated important financial bylaws for his own gain.
It is hard to believe he did not know what he was doing. I hope voters do the right thing and do not reward him for his misconduct.
Opposing Ferrets, good see there are those of us out there who care about procedures. I would hope you agree that the By-Laws need more than some revisions, but a complete overhaul.
I will concede that I overlooked the by-laws in my haste to post. However, let me clarify between EVP Corr and potential President elect Corr.
As harsh as impeachment would be to the EVP it would be an impeachment specific to that office and not the office of President should he be elected. He has not violated the position of President since he has not been given that office and I would argue he cannot be impeached from the office.
With that said, if Corr is elected President, I hope it would be left up to the newly elected senate to freeze his budget and not the current. Where I am unclear about the bylaws is whether Corr could be impeached as President for something he did as EVP. This act may seem practical yet implausible. I have not looked into this enough and would like to see further discussion on the topic.
Anyways I will say the following: impeachment is harsher for the EVP then freezing his budget, you cannot impeach him as president for these actions should he be elected, if he is elected president the best thing to do would be to freeze his executive budget, since as of now I do not believe he can be impeached as President for the actions he did as EVP.
I apologize for confusing procedure, ‘Opposing Ferrets’ is correct.
Anonymous Parliamentarian, I wholeheartedly agree that the Bylaws need complete and total revision. And I, too, am glad to see a fellow parliamentarian on these boards.
I largely agree with your last post.
Mr. Corr, should he be elected President, cannot be impeached from his position as “President-elect of the Student Association” for any action that took place prior to the certification of his election as President. Likewise, Mr. Corr could not be impeached from his position as “President of the Student Association” for any action that took place prior to the administration of his Oath of Office as President.
However, Mr. Corr could be impeached from his position as “Executive Vice President of the Student Association” for any “failure to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of office” from the time he took the Oath until he resigns, dies, or his term is over.
If impeachment was launched against Pres-elect Corr, as President-elect, or President Corr, as President, for actions taken in February of 2006, I submit that the Chief Judge would be compelled to dismiss the proceedings as untimely, if a motion was made to that effect.
Politically, I think it would be nearly impossible to gain the signatures on a petition of impeachment for Mr. Corr, should he win office this week. If it happens, well…I’ll have many more thoughts on how Mr. Corr could solve those problems.
Even If Mr. Corr wins election as President, I submit the outgoing Senate still has the authority to freeze the EVP budget (or anyone else’s budget) for any reason. The Senate-elect has very limited responsibilites. The then-lame duck Senate would still retain all authority over Student Body Funds – whether they be awarded to the Executive Vice President or to the President-elect.
morgan sucks, a real greek would have been at anchor bowl, he only joined sigma chi for the votes. I hate this school.
then transfer