Senate, E-Board members clash with J-Board over RUGP case

A Student Senate meeting that was aptly predicted as a “death match between the different boards of government” by Grand Marshal Tiburon Benavides ’21, ’27G, turned into a tense and wide-ranging debate over the Judicial Board Case 1122. This was after J-Board voted unanimously on September 25 at 6 pm to initiate further proceedings on the year-long-dormant matter.

Case 1122 was filed in October 2024, stemming from alleged procedural violations by E-Board throughout late 2023 and 2024. The E-Board had “secretly” passed amendments to the RUGP without the proper notification to the officers of the Union and without holding working sessions for members of the Union in December 2023. These actions came to light during an E-Board meeting in April 2024. A similar issue arose in October 2024 when proposed changes to the RUGP were voted on without allowing members to suggest revisions or adequately notifying Union officers within the required 24-hour period. These changes were also not clearly identifiable in the public record of the RUGP at the time. Following this incident, then-Student Life Committee Chair Ria Massoni ’24, ’25G and a second anonymous party filed a formal complaint with J-Board, alleging that E-Board’s actions violated both its own bylaws and the Rensselaer Union Constitution. A separate, subsequently withdrawn case was put forth by former Vice Grand Marshal Tim Miles ’25, which was settled and resulted in certain changes being made to the RUGP. However, no concessions were made or communicated regarding Case 1122.

Their ruling, centered on whether the Rensselaer Union Guidelines and Policies is a constitutional document or a bylaw, has reopened questions about the limits of J-Board authority, inter-board communication, and the definition of student rights in governance. The RUGP is a document that details the policies and proceedings of the Student Union, in matters of budgeting and finance, clubs and organizations, and general operations. It is maintained by the E-Board along with the Director of the Union and Union administrative staff. According to E-Board bylaws, the Grand Marshal may also defer revisions to the RUGP to the Senate within 48 hours of making the change. Massoni's case argued that with the RUGP being partially codified in the E-Board's bylaws, it is a bylaw of E-Board in itself, and would have required the changes made to pass through the Senate. J-Board has the power intervene in order to mediate any conflict in deferral or incorporation.

J-Board members Conner Wallace ’27 and Steven Feldman ’25, ’25G explained that the board has clarified its stance from the prior case. They ruled that the RUGP is constitutional, not a bylaw, and therefore falls under the Union Constitution rather than E-Board’s internal procedures. The verdict specified that the RUGP is not intended solely to regulate facility use, budgeting, or club operations, but serves as a broader guiding document for how the Union operates.

As part of its ruling, the J-Board issued sanctions requiring the E-Board to define the RUGP as something other than a bylaw; establish a clear process for “working sessions” and public announcements when the RUGP is changed; meet with the student body to explain such changes; provide a reasonable notification period of three weeks during which any Union member could “impede” decisions, a clause meant to reinforce student rights. To justify the sanctions, the board cited Article II of the Union’s Constitution, which states that the Union is a medium by which students express their opinion. They also noted a historical lack of student appeals in E-Board decisions as a motivation for increasing transparency and accountability.

The discussion was centered around the prevailing skepticism toward the verdict, raising questions about procedure, precedent, and constitutionality. Vice Chair of Policy Griffin Oliver ’27, said that while he respects the J-Board’s authority to interpret the Constitution, its recent ruling on Case 1122 violates its own procedural bylaws. In a constitutional civil case, J-Board can only declare something constitutional or not and make non-binding recommendations. However, requiring sanctions and implying enforced requirements in their verdict to the rest of student government crosses over into legislation, which their Civil Procedures bylaw explicitly prohibits. Last year, the Senate passed the Civil Procedures bylaw which limits J-Board’s authority in constitutional cases to declarations and non-binding recommendations. Oliver also cited the recently passed J-Board Civil Sanctions and Damages Act, a guideline for J-Board to apply sanctions in civil cases, conceding that J-Board members have appeared to misunderstand the extent of authority the Act granted them.

The meeting also revealed widespread confusion over the origins and procedural integrity of Case 1122 itself. According to Wallace, J-Board reopened the case because prior sanctions were not met. However, several senators questioned how the J-Board could determine non-compliance when it had no record of the original sanctions. He acknowledged that the sanctions had been communicated to the J-Board Chair at the time but were not made public, as the board’s bylaws then did not require publication. Feldman added that the decision to reopen the case was based on the board’s right to further proceedings, not necessarily to rehear the case in full.

J-Board’s poor communication throughout the process was also thoroughly criticized. President of the Union Isabele Lieber ’25, ’26G said she was notified of the case reopening only through a Discord message, not through an official written notice. She explained that she was not even sure what the case was about and if it was truly necessary to send in additional materials when it was re-opened. When she later met with the J-Board Chair Sanjit Rajagopalan ’26, she described the discussion as evasive. J-Board later admitted to “insufficient communication,” attributing the issue to a lack of a clear procedural framework for notifications.

Oliver argued that the ruling relied on a selective reading of the Constitution, Wallace conflating the E-Board’s responsibility to “manage the business affairs of the Union” with exclusive operational jurisdiction, which he said was never the intent. E-Board Parliamentarian Matteo Cereola ’26, the temporary Parliamentarian for this Senate meeting, noted that complying with the J-Board’s sanctions under Robert’s Rules of Order would be “impossible,” given how E-Board meetings are structured. Wallace said the ruling was meant to protect student rights and ensure transparency, not to restrict Senate powers. Feldman emphasized that the board’s intent was “not to legislate,” but to “make recommendations based on constitutional interpretation.”

Oliver referenced the E-Board v. Radio Rensselaer Review Board case for allowing the Senate to pass operational policy, arguing that J-Board’s new interpretation overturns 40 years of precedent. He warned that if the ruling stands, it could render all operational policies unconstitutional, severely limiting how the Union’s governing bodies can function.

By the end of the meeting, members of E-Board and Senate discussed appealing the verdict to the Review Board. Class of 2026 Senator Edward Piontek confirmed that to initiate an appeal, the Senate must notify both the J-Board Chair and Faculty Senate Chair by November 5. Meanwhile, E-Board Vice President for Special Rules and Projects Gavin Finn ’28 plans to hold a working session on November 12 from 2 to 4 pm in the Ellsworth Room in the Union to discuss procedural improvements and responses to the J-Board’s sanctions affecting the RUGP.

Several members agreed that while J-Board’s intentions may have been rooted in student rights, its execution blurred the separation of powers that defines the Union’s governance. Miles referenced a quote he gave to a previous Chair of J-Board: “The job of the judge is not to make or give law, but to interpret the law.”

This Senate meeting took place on Tuesday, October 28, 2025. The Senate meets every Tuesday at 6 pm in the Shelnutt Gallery.