by KELLI FONTENOT
Published Feb. 4, 2009 in The Current Sauce
After weeks of deliberation, the NSU Supreme Court voted Tuesday that the lowering of executive board scholarships was unconstitutional.
A section of the Student Government Association constitution - Article 4, section 4, letter B - was deemed invalid and will remain as such until students have the opportunity to vote on the status of the executive board scholarships in the spring.
NSU Supreme Court Chief Justice Kyle Domangue and Justice Austin Jesmore headed up the hearing. Jesmore explained that the bylaw clearly violates Article 9, Section 1, part D of the constitution, which states that a two-thirds vote is required for all bills except those concerning the media board and the executive board scholarship.
The exceptions require a student body vote.
SGA Treasurer Lauren Michel, a member of the executive board, said she has been in support of the bill since it was introduced even though it reduced her scholarship by approximately $1,000.
The SGA budget is about $14,000 each semester - and more than $9,000 was appropriated for the executive board's scholarships, Michel said.
"When I realized that, I said, 'We've got to make a decision. Do we want to be a body that only governs and does not have any programming and does not use the students' money to help them - we use it only for ourselves? Or do we want to lower our scholarships, put a little more money in the budget and allow for more student-oriented things?'"
In order to allocate that money elsewhere in ways that might be more helpful to the student body, the executive board opted to sacrifice a portion of their scholarships. SGA President Cody Bourque, SGA Vice President Mark Daniels and Michel all voluntarily reduced their scholarships this semester.
Michel said the money may be funneled into various activities and student giveaways.
"We're not partial or impartial, but for us to have jurisdiction over this thing, we found a discrepancy with the whole thing," Chief Justice Domangue said.
Domangue explained that the way the vote was handled was unconstitutional - but added that depending on the way readers interpret the constitution, the scholarship changes themselves may be unconstitutional.
During the meeting, Daniels pointed out that he and the rest of the executive board voluntarily lowered their scholarships.
"This has not been implemented because it has not been voted on by the students," Daniels said. "And this will be put up for students in the spring. But, to be put on the ballot, it must be passed through the senate first."
After much deliberation, the justices called for a vote and made their decision in private.
Just before the close of the meeting, Domangue asked if there were any additional comments.
"When I gather enough good stuff together, I'll come back and appeal it to you," Daniels responded.
