Last Thursday night, the Student Senate confirmed 20 of the 23 judicial appointments it considered. Over the course of a meeting that went on for well over three hours, senators confirmed five of six Judicial Board Regular Member appointments. Seven of eight people who were appointed to both Judicial Board alternate and Student Judicial Advisor positions were also confirmed and current chair of the Judicial Board, Suba Ganesan ’06, was confirmed as the Vice Chair for the 2005 term.
Early in the meeting, Grand Marshal Michael Dillon and Ganesan disagreed over the presentation of all the appointments at one time. Dillon criticized the selection committee charged with choosing who to appoint to judicial positions for waiting until the deadline to provide the Senate with their appointments for confirmation.
Ganesan responded that she did not feel it was appropriate for the GM to tell her how to do her job since she has not told him how to do his.
During the meeting, the Senate asked many appointees about their experiences and what they hoped to take from serving on the Judicial Board. Some senators voiced concerns over the nominees possibly serving in multiple branches of student government at once, such as simultaneous service on the J-Board and Senate. This, however, did not prevent the nominees from being confirmed, as the appointees made it clear that they intended to serve on only the J-Board.
Though earlier in the meeting, the Senate voted to confirm one appointee that was not present, they did not follow this precedent later in the meeting. The two people who were appointed but not confirmed had already served in the positions for which they were appointed but they were not present. With one of these appointees, they also seemed concerned about his participation in such a high number of other activities. One appointment was tabled, then reconsidered, and finally rejected whereas the other two appointments were tabled.
Ganesan said, “I found it rather contradictory that they confirmed some students who were there and tabled others,” and that those who were not present “had legitimate excuses to not be there.” She did say that she found the Senate’s actions understandable and said that the current plan is for the Senate to reexamine the unconfirmed appointments at this Thursday’s meeting with the two individuals present.
The appointments to the Judicial Board are decided by a Selection Committee, consisting of students, staff, and administrators, which interviews applicants and chooses those who they feel are best qualified. The next step in the process is for the Senate confirm the appointments as a check on the committee.
G. Matthew Ezovski ’05, chair-designate of the Judicial Board, who was recently confirmed in abstentia since he is on co-op this semester was not present at the meeting but was informed of the results. Ezovski said, “I was surprised at the Senate’s need to ask questions that are much more in the realm of the Selection Committee.” He also said he “was very surprised by their decision to not approve” one of the appointments, but he said that he was not terribly surprised about the other two appointments being tabled.
In a later interview, Dillon said that he was not surprised by the Senate’s actions and said, “I was a little unhappy that it was suggested that the Senate should blindly trust the Selection Committee.”
