The Student Court ruled on the judicial charges filed against the SGA late Thursday afternoon.
Though the SGA was found guilty on all charges, it appears that the real culprit was the SGA Constitution, which the judges said needs to be revised.
The SGA answered to the Student Court about the questionable allocation of $10,000 in a summer 606 meeting.
David Lane filed charges that the SGA had violated four sections in Title V and one section in Title II of the SGA Constitution.
The charges included were not having membership on the Summer 606 Committee, not voting according to guidelines, they were also responsible for appropriating more money than they should have during the summer, approving a request without required written approval from SGA and violation of SGA rules.
It was said that SGA President Jennifer Berry failed to give written approval of the allocated money prior to the 606 meeting and the senate never met and approved the money, which is necessary for any amount given over $2,250.
The SGA was also charge with misrepresentation at the meeting.
According to Title V, which was rewritten last year by Chris Zeigler, there are to be three SGA representatives and two Student Affairs representatives at the summer 606 meetings.
There were two SGA representatives and three Student Affairs representatives who voted.
The vote was to allocate $10,000 dollars to the Office of Student Affairs.
The money in question was meant to fund a concert and lecture by James McBride to be held Wednesday, Oct. 2. James McBride is the author of The Color of Water: A Black Man’s Tribute to His White Mother.
The co-sponsors of the concert include: the SGA 606 Fund, the Office of Housing and Residence life, the Residence Hall Association, the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Public and Allied Health, the Office of Multicultural Affairs, the Black Affairs Association, the African and African-American Studies Program, University Productions, Sherrod Library and the Women’s Resource Center.
Jarrod Suits, the attorney general who represented SGA in the hearing, argued that the SGA was not at fault, but the responsibility fell on the 606 commission, which was comprised of SGA and Student Affairs representatives.
He also reminded the court that the SGA and the Student Affairs employees work in the interest of the students, the only difference being that the Student Affairs employees are trained professionals.
This was to downplay any inclination was that the student affairs had some sort of conflict of interest, and by the end of the court hearing, any suspicion the judges might have had was eradicated when it came to light that the vote for the money in question was unanimous among SGA and Student Affairs.
In closing arguments, Lane made it clear that he was not trying to hurt the SGA by the charges he filed, he wanted them to realize that “the laws must be upheld.”
He also explained that there are provisions for summoning the SGA senate in the summer, which he deemed they could have done if they were upholding the constitution.
In Suits’s closing argument he stressed that the fault lies in the legislation.
He reminded them that “Jennifer went above and beyond her call of duty,” referring to her setting the 606 meeting date earlier to give some students a chance to receive funding that would have otherwise been too late to receive.
He ended his closing argument with a quote from Lane in a previous court case, “(SGA) should not be held accountable for the failure of the legislature to create laws that are not confusing.”
And with that, he left it in the hands of the Student Court to decide.
According to Suits, it appeared the legislation for the summer 606 meetings were “faulty and confusing” This too, was the sentiment of the Student Court ruling.

Author