Apgar, who is also currently serving as the acting director of greek life, told the Senate that he did not believe the appointments were truly in the best interest of students and that, “We shouldn’t be appointing people because they’re good guys or girls.”

Apgar told the Senate he was there to ask them to reconsider some of their appointments since he felt that some of them may not have been people he saw as being outspoken enough, or they may have an agenda. He suggested that they switch the status of two appointments—make Mark Stenpeck ’07 a regular member and change Matt Carlen ’05 to the status of an alternate.

The issue divided the Senate significantly. Some asked what qualified Apgar to question the Senate and why the administration seemed to be telling the group how to operate, while others conceded the confirmations may have been rushed and not done correctly. The tone of questioning at one point reached the level of contention where the line of questioning was stopped. At another point during the meeting, some senators tried to close the meeting, but that motion failed.

Apgar told the Senate that he was not there to push his will upon them, but rather that as it’s his job to look out for potential lawsuits and other issues that can arise, and that “I was told to come here to express my concerns.” He continued, “I didn’t realize administration shouldn’t have a voice in student decisions.”

Senators also debated over both Stenpeck and Carlen, some alluding to the fact that Carlen was present at the meeting, and dressed in a suit, but Stenpeck was not. In a subsequent interview, Stenpeck pointed out that he was told that it was unnecessary for him to come to the meeting. Senate Historian Jodi Faith Sherman said she felt Stenpeck came across as anti-greek at the meeting in December and that that concerned her. Apgar responded that Stenpeck was actually considering a fraternity bid. On the other hand, concern was raised over the fact that Carlen was now scheduled to graduate in May, prior to the end of the one-year appointment.

Stenpeck was the only student appointed to the review board, as an alternate or regular member, that had served on the board last year. A variety of other concerns were expressed over the appointments—including the fact that three of them were greek, all were male, and three were white. Some felt the appointments were not as diverse as they should have been.

In the midst of the debate, a motion was made to nullify all four appointments to the board and that motion was then split into four separate nullification motions—one for each of the two regular and alternate members. Both Stenpeck and Carlen’s appointments were nullified while the appointments of Hansel Baez ’05 as a regular member and of Bob Fishel ’07 as an alternate member were left standing. As a result of these votes and by the bylaws of the Review Board, Fishel automatically became a regular member of the board.

According to Carlen, he does not expect to be reappointed since he will now be graduating in May. He said that while Apgar said he was worried about the process with which the appointments were made, it didn’t seem as if the remedy to this would have been taking Apgar’s suggestion of swapping his and Stenpeck’s appointments. In the end, he expressed that he would have liked to have served as a regular member of the Board but he also said that all things considered, “It’s a good step that they want to rethink [the appointments].”

Stenpeck said in an interview that he was surprised that he was appointed as an alternate as opposed to a regular member, saying “I do believe that there should be a passing of the torch with the Review Board.” He felt his experience would have made him a better fit as a regular member.

Apgar agreed, saying in a separate interview, “experience is great,” since at times returning student members are the only members of the entire board with previous experience. He stated that after he made his recommendations to the GM, Dillon said that he wanted to consider others as well. He asked Dillon to send him a list of the people he was considering, but said that he never received such a list. Instead, Apgar just received notification of the Senate’s confirmed appointments. According to Apgar, “The bottom line is that Mike [Dillon] just doesn’t have good communication with me.”

The bylaws for the Review Board state that “The Grand Marshal shall annually appoint the regular and alternate student members for one-year terms, upon recommendation of the Review Board Chair (if already appointed) and Senior Judicial Administrator.”

Dillon said that when he interviewed the candidates for the Review Board, his major concern with Stenpeck was that he had no experience with any other group other than the Review Board—that he was not on a sports team or part of any club. According to the GM, “When I’m looking for a student to fill a position where student input is important, I’m going to appoint someone who can represent all of the students and not someone who is merely a student.”

He also said that the Senate’s tone was probably a result of some of the members “misreading” Apgar’s intentions and that the nominations themselves were not a rush job, but that the communication gap may have been a result of end of the semester pressures. He stated that even if he had given the tentative list to Apgar to review, that he didn’t think he would have changed much at that point anyway.