' I (

------ · I

, Undergraduate Stu .. dent Government Stony Brook University SAC Suite 262

Supreme Court ,._

Stony Brook. NY I 1794-2800

IN THE

~upreme QCourt of tue mnbergrabuate ~tubent ~obernment . -

Tms DOCUMENT SHALL SERVE AS THE OFFICIAL GUIDELINES FOR THE CREATION AND SUBMISSION OF A BRIEF

IN THEJSUPREME COURT OF THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT. ALL BRIEFS SHALL CONFORM TO

THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN TIDS DOCUMENT. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT

GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT CONSIDER THOSE BRIEFS CONSIDERED TO NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE UNTIL THEY COME

INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BELOW.

Author(s) of Brief: ~l'-:--t»:>-:-=-L.:....,u.o __ ~-~----,-+----------------------'--­Organization(s): --:-'L.t::..!....oo"--"'U.'----=.----=--·-----------::-:--:--:--::-:----:-;~~-:;;------Current Semester: --""~'I"DY:....;' ~"-'-f---=-2o~IS=----------,----Date of Submission: _ _,J."-W/t,_,\,...:.1,.-:-,-"'-J ...... _____ _

1. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE BRIEF, PRECEDING THEt"BRIEF COVER SHEET."

2. LIST THE QUESTIONS THE BRIEF SEEKS THE SURPEME COURT TO ANSWER.

3. DRAFT A BACKGROUND OF THE CASE, A LIST OF ARUGMENTS IN ADVOCACY OF YOUR STANCE, A

SUMMARY OF YOUR ARGUMENTS, AND THE EXACT JUDICIAL REMEDY YOU ARE SEEKING.

4. ATTACH ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE TO THE BRIEF DIRECTLY AFTER YOUR SUMMARY OF YOUR

ARGUMENTS.

1. YOU MAY USE ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU BELIEVE ruRTHERS YOUR ARGUMENTS. DOCUMENTS

THAT ARE OFTEN CONSIDERED DURING DELIBERATIONS OF THE SURPEME COURT ARE:

1. THE USG CONSTITUTION, BYLAWS, LAWS , A~ OTHER OFFICIAL FORMS ISSUED BY THE

EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND ITS AGENCIES;

2. THE SUNY GUIDELINES FOR THE STUDENT ACTIVITY FEE;

3. THE CONSTITUTION/LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/NEW YORK STATE;

AND

4. 'REI:EVENT COURT DECISIONS MADE BY SUPERIOR COURTS SUCH AS THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR STATE SUPREME COURTS.

5. ALL BRIEFS MUST BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE USG OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR, TIMESTAMPED AT

THE MOMENT OF DELIVERY AND LEFT SEALED/UNT AMPERED UNTIL REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT.

-- ---- ·-··---- - ----f I

I, La.o L~ (~ ,HEREBY AFFIRMTHATI1HAVEREADTHEGUIDELINESLISTED

. ABOVE Al'-.TD I HAVES MITTED INFORMATION THAT IS TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE TRUE AND CORRECT.

) .

I .

QUESTION PRESENTED

ISSUE I WHETHER OR NOT NO CONFIDENCE OPTION VIOLATED THE RULES OF BEING A CANDIDATE ON THE 2015 STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT (USG) ELECTION BALLOT?

ISSUE II WHETHER OR NOT NO CONFIDENCE VOTES SHOULD BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE INITIAL 2015 STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ELECTION BALLOT THEREBY AMENDING THE ELECTION RESULT OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT (EVP)?

- 1 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS Questions Presented ............................................................................. 1

Table of Contents ................................................................................ 2

Opinions Below .................................................................................. 3

Statues Involved ................................................................................. 3

Finding of Facts .................................................................................. 3

Arguments ........................................................................................ 4 . ( .

I. WHETHER OR NOT NO CONFIDENCE OPTION VIOLATED THE RULES OF BEJNG A CANDIDATE ON THE 2015 STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ELECTION BALLOT? ............................................. 4

A) THE USG CODE REQUIRES INTENT OF CANDIDACY TO BE INITIALLY ANNOUNCEMENT BY 4PM ON THE FIRST FRIDAY AFTER INFORMATION SESSION

B) NO CONFIDENCE DID NOT FIT THE CANDIDACY REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN THE USG CODE

C) THE INITIAL ACTION OF HAVING NO CONFIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE USG SENATE BEFORE PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT

D) THE ELECTIONSBOARD DID NOT EDUCATE STUDENTS ON WHAT NO CONFIDENCE IS BEFORE VOTING

II. WHETHER OR NOT NO CONFIDENCE VOTES SHOULD BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE INITIAL 2015 STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ELECTION BALLOT THEREBY AMENDING THE ELECTION RESULT OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT (EVP)? ............... 6

A) THE INITIAL ELECTION BALLOT RESULT WAS ENOUGH TO DETERMINE THE POSITION FOR EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT THEREBY MAKING RUN-OFF RESULTS INVALID

Conclusion ........................................................................................... 7

- 2-

OPINIONS BELOW

DWSE STAlE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK (THE RECORD)

...::LASSIFIEDS IN BUFFALO, NY

ISSUE I

On May 8th, 2013, Browse State University of New York (The Record) conclusively said that "According to

Chief Justice Edward Bryant, the motion of no confidence was not passed because the Judicial Council found it

unconstitutional and in contradiction to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, and thus, declared the motion null and void. "

COLUMBUS STATE UNIVERSITY

ISSUE I

During the Undergraduate Student Election, the process of No-Confidence was initially approved by the Senate and then proceeded forward.

STATUTES INVOLVED

Stony Brook University USG Code, Title 7 -Election Laws, Chapter 1: subsection 1.5 -Intent of Candidacy

and subsection 1.6- Petition Process.

FINDING OF FACTS

The 2015 Stony Brook University Undergraduate Student Government Election took place on the week of

April 27-May pt. Due to numbers of No-Confidence votes on the ballot, either candidates for Executive Vice

President received a Majority vote or 50% of the ballot. The EVP Candidate, Luo Luo Fang received 975 votes

while the other EVP Candidate, Krisly Zamor received 953 votes, with a No-Confidence vote of 305.

Therefore, the Electionboards proceeded the election to a run-off and the resulting votes were Krisly Zamor

with 768 votes and Luo Luo Fang with 757 votes without No-Confidence option.

This is the first time No-Confidence has appeared on the USG Election ballot and while it does bring good

intentions to voice student opinions, one questions whether or not the no-confidence option actually followed

proper procedures in order to be placed on the ballot by Electionsboard and how it altered the election results

for the Executive Vice President position. - 3 -

ISSUE I

I. WHETHER OR NOT NO CONFIDENCE OPTION VIOLATED THE RULES OF BEING A CANDIDATE ON THE 2015 STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ELECTION BALLOT?

A) THE USG CODE REQUIRES INTENT OF CANDIDACY TO BE INITIALLY ANNOUNCEMENT BY 4PM ON THE FIRST FRIDAY AFTER INFORMATION SESSION

The No-Confidence option should not have been a candidate for the 2015 Stony Brook

University Undergraduate Student Government Election because it did not fully comply with USG

campaign laws. According to the Undergraduate Student Government Code, Title 7 -

Election Laws, Chapter 1: subsection 1.5 states the requirements for one to show interest in the

Intent of Candidacy. It specifically stated that, "The Intent of Candidacy deadline shall be 4:00pm

on the first Fljday following the Information Session" (USG Code 1.5.1). The information session

for the 2015 election was 2/25-3/27. The elections board did not inform the candidates and

students until4/25 through an email. The No-Confidence option was seen as a candidate on the

election ballot but it did not follow the proper procedure of Elections board declaring a candidate.

"A potential candidate must declare the position for which they intend to run before the deadline,

or they shall be ineligible to run" (USG Code 1.5.2). Therefore, the No-Confidence option should

not have been placed on ballot by Electionsboard due to the violation to proper timely manners.

B) NO CONFIDENCE DID NOT FIT THE CANDIDACY REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN THE USG CODE

The No-Confidence option did not physically fit the candidacy requirements to run. As stated

in subsection 1. 6 - Petition Process, proper candidates should be able to petition, collect

signatures, signatures have to be validated but at the same place, candidates are subjected to

several restrictions of the campaign laws in order to be placed on the ballot. Therefore, the

- 4-

No-Confidence option did not physically hold the proper candidacy requirement to be placed on

the ballot.

C) THE INITIAL ACTION OF HAVING NO CONFIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE USG SENATE BEFORE PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT

Previously mentioned were two cases where the no-confidence option was placed on the ballot

ONLY within discretion of the USG Senate. The Senate has to make a motion to have a

no-confidence option with a second from the floor in order to validate the No-Confidence option

on the ballot. The Electionsboard did not properly inform the senate before placing the option on

the election poll and treated as a candidate solely in their discretion. Therefore, the No-Confidence

option should not have an effect on this election.

D) THE ELECTIONSBOARD DID NOT EDUCATE STUDENTS ON WHAT NO CONFIDENCE IS BEFORE VOTING

No-Confidence started as a Facebook page created by a SBU student. People who have

Facebook and have active friends who are part of that group can be informed of what

No-Confidence means. However, there are numerous exceptions to other thousands of students

who did not even know what No-Confidence meant before they started voting. Even the

candidates were not fully informed of this option due to ill timely managed declaration of such

option then how can stUdents truly understand the power of No-Confidence. Elections board held

information sessions regarding the general election processes and they let students meet the

Executive Boards. But they did not hold another information session to help students understand

what they called another candidate, No-Confidence, really means. The Statesman also did not

publish their articles about No-Confidence ahead of time to increase awareness of such an option.

In fact, they published the article on elections day. Therefore, without the proper guidance of the

Electionsboard to fully comply with procedures of introducing this candidate, almost two days

- 5-

before the election, students were not fully informed of what this candidate can really do.

ISSUE II

II. WHETHER OR NOT NO CONFIDENCE VOTES SHOULD BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE INITIAL 2015 STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATESTUDENTGOVERNMENTELECTIONBALLOT THEREBY AMENDING THE ELECTION RESULT OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT (EVP)?

A) THE INITIAL ELECTION BALLOT RESULT WAS ENOUGH TO DETERMINE THE POSITION FOR EXECUTNE VICE PRESIDENT THEREBY MAKING RUN-OFF RESULTS

INVALID

The initial election result were released on May 1 sr, 2015 with a run-off between the two EVP

Candidates. For the first election, EVP Candidate Luo Luo Fang received 975 votes while the other EVP

Candidate, Krisly Zamor received 953 votes, and with a No-Confidence votes of 305. The run-off results

proven to have less voter turnouts as the candidate Krisly Zamor won with 768 votes while candidate Luo

Luo Fang had 757 votes with the difference of 11 votes . Not only did No-Confidence proven to solely

extend the election process, less people also voted for the run-off, amending the decision from the initial

election. No-Confidence should not have been placed on the ballot for the foregoing reasons stated in

ISSUE I, therefore, votes for No-Confidence should be subtracted from the initial election which had

much larger voter turnouts compared to the run-off. With the difference of 22 votes between two

candidates previously, the EVP Candidate Luo Luo Fang should have won with 50.57%, which is majority,

without the No-Confidence option. Therefore, the run-off for the Executive Vice President position should

be invalidated.

-6-

CONCLUSION

ISSUE I

Based on the foregoing reasons, the no confidence option violated the rules of being a candidate on the 2015 Stony Brook University Undergraduate Student Government Election ballot. The USG code requires intent of candidacy to be initially announcement by 4pm on the first Friday after information session. However, the Electionsboard did not announce the placement of No-Confidence until two days before the election. No confidence did not fit the candidacy requirements as stated in the USG code because it did not possess a physical aspect of what is defmed as a proper running candidate~Even so, many schools have this option but ONLY under the circumstance of being it being motioned to the senate, approved and seconded from the senate floor. Nevertheless, Electionsboard did not consult the senate before placing this candidate on the

ballot. Finally, th_e Electionsboard did not educate students on what no confidence means before voting. This can cause students to vote improperly since no events such as information sessions were held to discuss this candidate before progressing with the election. Therefore, we respectfully ask the court to reverse the decision made by the run-off election and rule that NO CONFIDENCE OPTION VIOLATED THE RULES OF BEING A CANDIDATE ON THE 2015 STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ELECTION BALLOT.

ISSUE II

Based on the foregoing reasons, no confidence votes should be subtracted from the initial2015 Stony

Brook University Undergraduate Student Government Election ballot thereby amending the election result

of the executive vice president (EVP). The initial election ballot result was enough to determine the

position for Executive Vice President thereby making run-off results invalid. Not only did the second

election have less votes, it also restricted students' votes by the failure to properly announce the run-off to

University students. Since the previous issues argue that the No-Confidence should not be considered as a

candidate, it is then reasonable to subtract those votes from the EVP votes thereby the candidate, Luo Luo

Fang, should have won with a majority of 50.57% in the initial election. Therefore, we respectfully ask the

court to reverse the de~ision made by the run - off election and rule that NO CONFIDENCE VOTES

·SHOULD BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE INITIAL 2015 STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE

STUDENT GOVERNMENT ELECTION BALLOT THEREBY AMENDING THE ELECTION RESULT OF THE

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT (EVP).

- 7-

'h u 0 I Mo.v"!·to lnbox ~ - MOfti'~~'

Fwd: SOLAR Clarification t!i l•bo>< ~

J.an\es Alrusl ' ia.•nes. ~lra$si@stonybmok edu> ~~

to Joi·•r•. Jaoon. m<t T>~yh)t, 1-Jalil;m, flry;~r~, ,1\,shlrrf, Palii,k, llitn l ~ • . S;~r.•, .1\J,.,;,prlr;r, S t~ r>j\• 111, M;,xlln•llbn. Je,;ng, S1P.V't11 Cllnslm~. Jnw:~pl1, Finoj;>, V.->lli;•l'l'"-11 lvhr.h;;,,l, l(~·•i•·•. M1ch<WI<t, Cmtlm .. L,-d'" , • .

F'rom Elll¢1i(>f1$ 6oatd

---For.v.arde.tllne$~~ga ··-··-Ft<oiW Elli<:liOil$ 6<:>-~rd <.>llldklilsh'Wd.@¥jltlybtMko'>S,.!lt9' Dat~o : Sat, Apr 25, 2015 nl 1:13PM

~ Ll'.il

Apr 25 ..._

Subi\ll:t : SOLAR Cl;uifr,;;tion To: tfHM.gh~n.to\•n&lfiJston;.'I:HCYJk i!!-du, !nalik.a.rr h-sr®b10£);·b:ook_edu, a.;1sh>-r tr.;:.rrr;!r ',tl.:.:!.::~ook.etlu, rCYuart guitkYJ)I:.In!lvbrook edn, ~ chilnd3Ri1.!iJori ybr'oL•Y. edu. An1oe;neue Acosta <alr!oitre-Ue.:Jt:asu~.@sl.on\4JJO>:)k e4H>, -~.!f!tlieJie.c st}fJri?@r :s torryt.:!look.i:'du 1 Sl l~l!iaii:McK@!tlb~@)alt~f'l)'br.cok edu 1

Cc:: Cola LK ·tto1e. lea@!O.lf.!Cl~·L:rot.:.k edu">. Jan1.a1- A.1ra$si ~james ~llrasS!ftt)s t onvbr(:.ok l:zt.iu}>, Thcmu11s Kirnbaue:r <:llwmas. k.irnh:imen&~llltr•, il<dok edLJ")·

Th;.n!< ytlY ;.11 for b~ing ps1ien1 wilh 1111'1 a~ I fig~re<l ou1 ll'le lQ:ftiSli($ ~~~hanging lh~ form;.L on SOLAR Th~> m:un"' will af'P(Iar wilh 111e p~t1\' ;~ffiliali<>n n~xl lo it. and y<lu die~ iar' a plalfQrm $lall';.ll\~nl , The11> will b.~>~ no ronfi<J~n~;; (lpli011 on eve:ry po$lri<>n Plaase .shata with your patty rrwmbat~ .

!.. Chr.k hd·m to HqfJly ,Bq,ply.Jq 1,1!!. or F._,)t'!'Y~J((1

Uslo~(}~JGI:I P!b.1.rl\m Pn.'k#~

p,..,~.,l ~Y Googlc· .LBs.t s~l!oun1 sewr:}• : ~;) rtU,Ule!. &flO

~

\\'1.'\~TR.S

PtiMid.~nt .. Cole Lee ;(I Nttl vote: B Ht s..; ·~··o) '(Hi:.:'

'1:-:Tll tr~ e .•. ,., Z· · fT£'f· :1:~ ·1 ., • r .· 7""~ -·,., .., t"ll> ' · • · • · , r 4 AJ.J.~~r MlOf ~ .;L o. <Ill ~ u •. e. 'L'>D> • . )"-!' . .J J· ·'D} .... • .. k ·'·· ... z.. 0 !J.l ~.? ( l t.~: {) 7. l f~\' ~-~_:., ~~ .. ~: ( 'J

'I: ''T.I! II c· . 1 . i'if,..,u ... B ,A, ..... .,.. · ... .tT t•i.l. '""""''""'"" '1'.11 1 .;:'flt . ~ li) ) ~ .•.•• '• f.,"'''"''· , .r Oii · .ow:mun tau""""'"' ~ f.O r,.t.~ !11!},0\l)ef ~- D..... ,,,_.~~., • . ~' .. • _.,.._._., .. , ,, >::! :.-:."··)~. -~l..o"·-'-Ll \'(Htt: 7 _

't ''T.I! o.f· C'\ru~l: ..,n· t L[ili', ~ f. ~., ........ r 11:r•e~~ f -Jl.·o· ...... L ···ctr.a. · 71:~ 'iTt ld~N) 1~J.·!'h'"''· ?. k ·:•.:"ph -;::;-,··,•.,'; ,., rr .. ·,· ell '·"····,·li' 7~.! \ r · ~- UE". . l!I.IC ;a ..... JL ;" ~ l.l.u ~... l1.d1:. -. ....... A ( .,.., _ ...- _ '~~ ... • ... ... 1-.. .,. ................. ---·-J. ............... .,._ .. -.~- ..• --.. .... ~- • - , ... -,. "'" ..... -.

YP of Cfub-s and. 011g~ ~ ChmeJo Obiue:rQ (Total n 1t>t:. 3{12 55 . 69%) .Ek\ :111 ;.,

'\'P of _Jlrndau.ic .Affab.-s .~ DmtieUe AJ)J ~: TDt.al ··1:ote: 1.5'! .. 51.39%) rr ~~'t.':tt~:~. 8 .. i· '? 6 !.'1Z

:=t

~S. 86'l_ ~;

f ·'I

The .:!0 l5 nmo.ff eletlion :resuH.~ are also :po:s:ted oo mf' USG suite doo.L Con:gratt~~tatroo.s. 1.0 all tlile ~~rrilmers1

2015 USGELECTIONRRSULTS

\VIl\":'\US

R'moff el«tion \\~H be 01 t'Ol';Jlt)· n~\- b!llle1: ~nd ruu..s. :t'h;im no"I'Jn,. ~IO'tt~y 5/4 .. 20 l, 5 to ·no'Otl, FrLd.l!y 5 S 2CH S.

Pr.mdmt- rvno~ffl!x:bl;OCU, C.ok l.:~~ (Tn~~l 'l ;;(otc'' u .!IS ... :j()'h.) ~td J;~:l]:t:;.5. Aba54i n()fi'.'i~ V!:-'1'1'("' 9~ i. -H~ tt)

VP- nlOO:ffbctw«n LtlC Lu~ f;~ng tT'n~:l ! ·;.·ol;r .Y, .;,•···' ;l;'l;," ' i' '1'' ''t"· • ., .. , j•)' ·1·-;''ii} .(lm~ .rl.H~~y &-!ilU'tOf { cJII:;~~ YDtr:""' 9i}. --~ 'l~''fl}

Tr~.aw:a~r- T~)'lor BQ!ur,,(l.;:ft (TtDt ;-11 -.·>~;:;"..r· J l Kt• .~

'j ~. If, ~

) \ ~

VP of Stud~nt Life--muoffboh'rc'tn N;:~•JJ~n Bl;:~ZQ'Ifli Brcr•l.'ll. CT'cyt;j~ YQtr 922. -U ;:~ndi fiqr:v Klcib ~:Tot c1~ v 1.1t~· :SJ l ·)r~i'%}

VP of Coumluoi·r;ad:.Otn - nmoff 'b<hli..('Cil ].(1~1.1 t'f.t~, {Total n:Jie ~+L -t Ji'(,;) i:i'nd Br·()r;ly flooper (f'.qt;oL ~.-Qot.e· 8 89. -ill"~}

'\·p of Club:$ ~nd Org~ - mnof'fb(t;;l"(le'U Cllmr.JQ Obll!J~Q (T C)t~11 ··.:Q:t:•• 6 6 }'. 3 fJ'' <J) :an<l 13~;.- rnl ~lL·chd { T C'•l;,'l2 '.:ore· (()~I. n~.-1))

\'P of .-\<ad(}JIIi(' .-\ffail':$- :nmoii~tr~,·c-c-n John ~[de i'f>DtJ1 ·:qtt:'· $B -n ~.,) >i'lnd! O;:u;11cU~ Ah cT•'Il~l ;:.oi.r-· 939 -t..::~·~,) . .

Seoi:o;r Cht'$$ S~;~luJ~•f.nr ·- Dr(lzcn .B;:m::ana (J'>)t.:i'l ',Y•t«· . H 5-4·t~o)

J'u:nioif Cl~:s.s Seuator-J,:~:ttathan f{Qdngn>J:z (f·o~Jl JH. 5-S*<,)

"----

' ~ 11 1 . . ;1 1\·. ~ \, ~ ll ,:::-:

(

FjMPO'JN'ER l'~OURS[ElF­TAKE PAR:T U..fl DEMOCR:A/C.Y,

T' IMELIHE

Eleetion,s Board \•~'erttl;e~tion I l

.... ,., .... --.. .. , ., .. ~ ............. ~ .... -•. ,., .. .. .. ... "- .... , ... Ol ......... " .. .. ., ,. ,.. .. .. .. .. ... , ... ., ...... ,. r 1.1\i'fdr:~~da .... -..;.n~ 1hn.;.; Fr1d""'·"· <,;.·~~ 1 l j ~

I' CgJmp~ign Begins .,~ f< " ;: ... • ;! ;,. ·""' il'" : ... "., ... "';f' ...... '" ;_;· ~ ~ 0:: "' » ~- -· ~- "' ~. ·<'"' !>: - - - . .

·Elections : ~· , .. "'00:· ~., ... • "' "'"' • "'!' I< .. ,, " ..... -~ "'~ """ ...... ,, ._ .. , .... ,. ~ "' .. -~ l

R·-· Off :_ <~,.t;n-.. ...

THE STATESMAN NEWS ARTS&ENTERTAINMENT OPINIONS SPORTS MULTIMEDIA ABOUT Search Q.

NEWS

Student starts ''Vote No Confidence in SBU USG" BY RAC HEL SIFORD I APRIL 27. 2015

~~

"'""'~ !;!Mw ... t::l.totM ..... o-...

ny USG: No Confidence

An Honest Oninion

(9 !J:..f~,WtU «1 \~·~Jk/ti(tEDT !k __ .. ,.,. __ .: •. t

<?!lir;.~u-.· . .,.'!"t • ,., .. --~ - -· .• , ... ' ...... , .. ...... •:-"" >..i~l~

'l'r, ,u-I'N"P• ·t• •·~~-,,..,...,..,,w. ~~~r"~'" Yftt'NI) ol".{l~<r¢!J.o(:( t"··~ <:>~ 11\.j) .,."" , .., ,,., ~"ftl,..<t~•"'~•..,.• h .. , •t (o l~\yi~J.O~Ol U\t ... \a'.~t;IJt,~:W

'n:~ -.-.; ... 1 ~ ~{tl'>IQt!OO th...,.da.-..ltM! cunf_d.~•tht boo•

~~;."!!~~~~ ~!' ~~~(~;J,.p.:{'l ff 'M-Ini rJW u,Oo'ltl"' ,..ut"~;l>f "" - ~ ..... ~"~'· \~--~· - ... . ~.,··~~-'I' ~<v«">" .... ~.~r •. Jr.., !n f, ,<>ltNQ-f''!'ltlfltlf'-Cfll•,..:~<jl'ftll"'-il<p\..orrq..~.,_..._., ~.,!, ,Of .

'Jew ..,.,.,...,u \i1ttO!.H:tL~. 1l'"l¢'l<llyu.oJt.• ' t4r:f~.?..,1t'l' l)"fhrntlok1 <!~ff~H'f6-.r•_oHt~O U~ti, ... lt rc-. - .. t •u•~ 'iO{.(;'I;'•!lflKf.lo• ,..,., • .~.,~1'·"· ~·~·~"' r.1 .

99 v 463 {t{I>P.Q ~'ol:l "!J ·"t•·t:td

'"""·-~'"'" .. ,. ..... , ,, r. • .;,.~, .. , ... .~- .• ,,

LATEST STORIES

IE!rl\"'-"'~ ... --------'--::

1~··--- -IJ' ~""'---.~

..

Seawolves earn series win in Binghamton to end regular season

Letter to the Editor: After SBU· hosted debate, Atheist and Christian team up to "defend free speech"

SBU places fourth on Princeton Review's top "green" colleges list

Her Campus Guide helps to give girls the best college experience

rmnL Student Spotlight: Becky Hong the fashion guru

Lackmann monopoly leaves ' students hungry

.......... ,tl ... ,., ~=-~· .·. .. . .. ~----... --...... ~":t'~.--.. .. -~~~-- --. -~---·---. ......... -~-......,--.,..-,- - .. . ~ l News Sports Opinion _ Arts More• Classifieds Houslr1~

USG se·ns m~·oti -on •no cornfid!en ~ce•

By Katie And-erson On ['vlay a, 2013 8+1 I rweet : [iliiii I ~u I 8

C·o rre ·cti ~o n;:

In Hg.hC' or ne~ll inforrnauon learned foHow:it"Jg t~Je pu.,~Hsi~lng or O~e original version or tl~is story .. Tne R(!H::ord ~vould Uke to ln rorrn students t.Jf s-orn e corrections:

Accor:ding Co Chfet Justice EdYvard Bf}'a.nt) a~e· rnoUon or no conridence ~·vas not passe·d .because· t11e JudicjaJ co~uncn tound it unconstitutional and h~ contrad}ctlon to RoL1ert's Rule·s ot Ord-er

Ne·VL'iY Revised) and tlHJS_, .declared t/Je rnoHon null anct voh1.

AJso,, tlu; tnotiOl'1 ~1rm not .be renroved fronr tn-e tnh1ut.es before President Sara Garrinkb~ .sjgne.d off on 01-e.rn. Tt~e n1e-rno issued lJ_V Bry·ant· llil~y 1 stated tJ~at .after, the .tnH~ute.s go auouglJ a

proor.r.ea-ding pr-ocess by Garfmk·.te, vice president C~uistina Gennann anri se.cn~tary Cindy Scjo,;tn o and are· at.Jpto-ve d D y tn e se f1 ate,_, a ll'~'Vrit or injunction -~1tHi be issued .strikH?g OJ e, rn otion

~

H .. VOJV\.~f V':l: ,.'lUIIVUUtt~IUI:!I_.It - '.H lUlt'f 111.1 Ut.:'..J.U ~'-•HU~ •. I)'' Ul, ·:Hift~(~:, p~U hHEJ

D. 09/0'l/09: COLS meetin.rrw uoml.nat~ faculty tf.l se'.lrch ~ontminH•

C. OJ /1 9/Hl, COl~'> passt'!H'csoluJinn on COI.SDean S<::<rth. [.\ppell tli> 0 J

D. 02/03/:IU, <J2/Hl.2Q 1.0:¥1 h~ group of COtS f;Ho11ty nwo>twilh lJL f<l<Js,on i.1nd Dr.l..vvi to <lis<"n .• .• COLS n•solutinn on n.,an Sil;,rrh.

L Or. Davit! Lanoue announced as Dean of COl.S

IX. University Special DMignation

A. O'l/01/10 : fh•. Lt'l'l iU!UraH!<l_jH'<l)H"WIIo <l<!Si['.lJat•.~ CSO as HSG Ac·l s inslilti!.il>n IJ<lS hc'C<Il suhr:ttitti;d In BOR (J11 t'<'S-JlOltS<' !t> <.lln:<:l <)H".~tinn) at Facu'lty Sc~na!.l'!lllCCtlttg, 'f>~~lc forn' ah.,<HI.y :!ppt1iUI<:tl.

IJ. llZ/13/HI: Or, M.•1snut ;mrwunnHI OZ/1.6/I 'l rueetrug l'o lli5cuss sped;~! designMion status, r\n1;11l stat!'S "No fonn<!.l ~·~qtu•st h ;•s b"'~·n rn;.de 1o the HOR tn plan:• this on t.hf' hoard ,l!WJJd<~."

C. 03/11/lO; Dl'. l.~vl ;uLBIHilH:es fatuity Senate will a•;stlltlc'l't~l>JWU>i.l!ility for spcc!al deslguat.lon t·ouversathm.

X. Request for Univon;ity Systcllt Mediation

A. 02/2!;/10 ' Vir.•· Ch;ua:ellm·Sus:ui HedJsl uH•[ wilh Ch<1in ,'\,;M· m!dy. St·ual'" E:>a:cculiw Couunlllee, and lkaut<.

D. 03/01/lO:f.a.!.ulty Senate Exf's...C!llllDJil:t.t:!! D)l'l'tlng rema.du

C. tl:ljl!;/1 0 : lk Stl'VIi.'U Pot·ldtnwets with Or. Mc><"On. Df'. Pm·tth •. !Ht'~ twl mcd wHil any faculty groups.

XI. Ha.o;ic;: Studiet< unrvt1rl

fl. OCI/lO lllf>Vttl h·orn (;I)I,S In !'l't1VOC!i ·llHirr•.

!l. ru:an "fCO!.S notlfl(~d al!t•r the nwv~.

XII. StHHII •• vows,,, hole! \10({1 ur Nlllfitlt•11C{J 01" no I'Onfidelt('('

t-\. 04if')fr/ I' 0 : St~ nah! Hnthud·.r.p.fi ;t; vot~ uf tnaftdt-·ntT or Jl t} fHn fltl(' llC{' i:n 1 1 n~~hh~ nt rn(-~(·nu :\1141 PfH\'U.'i:f J,cvL

l'lillfJ.:t!l.A.IldJ:.rlJiY-~h~ \\'!:JU.i!U.i1!LIVJ11l1\!:\.·

II. 04/l :ljHJ : 1\,\tH' Chapu•r I<H'IIlH lu ccr ;w Cotu <llM u$s IIW!'t' I''' '''·~ of • ()Uil<l.l·nn: <,. no ronfhh•urt?. Tho• gual iN w olft•r :m "l'l""'ltlllit,v ftll " (ac uhy I o '" at'•.• thdt ' th ""Hhl,; :trwn1 th!~ i ~llp<wt anl \'<!lt•.

C. 1/'l.O/ 10 ro,l!tl4/Zt/l 0 V<>t\~ to lHI hdtlln IWO t<)qtilltl~ (llw ~~ hwoh Sd\(u)l <>fll-tw;lc Uhrili"Y <Ill th•' [\1\·c•r!' ;u"k o·:trupns an<l tlw Sdtwnb Uht·;u·y Qlltltt' ~l:t!<1 •·nmp 11s) . l'k~>t' l'XI'I'I' l~t·· yont· dghtl.<l volt• ..

.,

,,