At a hastily scheduled emergency meeting of the Student Association Congress, tensions quickly rose when representatives debated an omnibus resolution that, if passed, would significantly amend the Management Policies, one of the body’s governing documents.

Though the Congress typically meets on a predetermined schedule, any 10 representatives are allowed by the Management Policies to call an emergency session.

Leading the effort was Saul Hakim, an off-campus representative and a senior double-majoring in political science and Judaic studies. His legislation was the only new business discussed, and he said calling the meeting was necessary to address “major constitutional issues that need to be resolved immediately before our next meeting.”

The resolution’s four components were overhauling Congress’ absence policy, which Hakim said would bolster representatives’ due process; requiring the speaker and parliamentarian to complete an online course on Robert’s Rules of Order; allowing the chairs of special committees to retain voting power; and clarifying the guidelines and line of succession for the parliamentarian position.

After Hakim introduced the legislation, a motion to limit discussion to 30 minutes was agreed to with 17 votes in favor, one against and two abstentions. Each speaker was allowed three minutes.

One critic, Lotus Taylor, a Hillside Community representative and a junior majoring in sociology, opposed the motion to limit discussion.

“I think restricting the discussion further shows that the process in which this legislation was introduced, as well as the manner in which it was communicated, is meant to be rushed and placed the current voting body and congressional members in a position where they have to make a hasty decision,” said Taylor, who is also the secretary of the SUNY Student Assembly.

The discussion began with a question from Kristina Donders, the speaker of Congress and a junior double-majoring in mathematics and political science, to Hakim about if Lauren Wilner, the chair of the Internal Affairs Committee which oversees absences, was consulted before the legislation was introduced. Hakim said that he had reached out to several committee chairs and members, which prompted an extensive email from Wilner, after which the two spent “quite a while hashing it out.”

The discussion continued with Taylor’s remarks. She prefaced them, saying, “Let me be extremely clear: My disagreement is not personal.”

“I have felt throughout the entirety of this academic year that members of the governing body, as in the Congress, have not consistently been concerned with the needs and wants of the entirety of the student population,” Taylor said.

“The legislation that we have passed or reviewed thus far, with Saul Hakim as the primary author, has included the same 17 people, or small majorities ranging between 15 to three people, particularly on issues that, in my opinion, are targeted or focused on a select population or Saul individually,” she added.

In response, Leila Telim, an off-campus representative and a junior majoring in philosophy, politics and law, said, “It is totally an ad hominem attack to come at us and say that we sign onto a piece of legislation because somebody told us to. I personally do not appreciate being told that I am just a puppet in someone else’s larger plan.”

“The 17 members on this legislation reference a group of students who share similar values and priorities, and the vast majority of us represent the same constituency of OC3 leading to coordination,” Hakim told Pipe Dream as a joint response from several representatives. “While we don’t always agree on every detail, we often align generally on issues that impact our community and campus governance.”

“Beyond that, the members who called this meeting and sponsored the legislation represent a diverse group spanning four different living communities and class years,” he added. “Our votes now and always, are based on our shared principles and the needs of the students we represent, and our alignment reflects the needs and voices of our constituents.”

Later disagreement centered around the emergency nature of the meeting — that it was announced with just one day’s notice during a busy academic week. Representatives also clashed over the rhetoric employed during the meeting.

“Civility, respect, dialogue — that is the core of what we are supposed to be doing here, and for someone who is so well-versed and who is such a leader in her own right, frankly, I’m disappointed,” Hakim said to Taylor during the discussion period.

“You have no right to say whether or not you are disappointed in me,” Taylor responded.

“I didn’t personally attack anyone,” Taylor wrote in a statement to Pipe Dream. “My wording and verbiage characterized their actions as corrupt, not them as people. I feel they were unable to see past my tone and directness towards the body.”

On her criticism of the legislation, Taylor added: “To clarify — I support most clauses of the legislation.The clause I am in opposition of is the one in regards to special privileges being given to any congressional member who chooses to chair a special committee.”

“It effectively gets them out of having to complete their regular commitments from being a congress member AND maintain voting rights — which in my opinion is unbalanced,” she continued.

The clause allowing the chairs of special committees to retain their voting rights was a consistent point of contention. Nick Ginsberg, the chair of the Financial Committee and a junior double-majoring in political science and sociology, said chairs of standing committees lack voting power because they are nominated and confirmed internally. Special committees chairs, however, are nominated and empowered by a vote of the entire Congress, which the student population votes on, he said.

The proposed changes come after Hakim was elected to co-chair a newly formed Special Committee on Select Issues. Afterward, Donders filed a Judicial Board grievance regarding Hakim’s privileges as chair, which was reported by the Judicial Board during Tuesday night’s meeting and cited by several members of Congress.

“Regarding the Judicial Board grievance, I am respecting the ongoing process and will not be making any comments while it is under review,” Donders wrote to Pipe Dream.

The Judicial Board declined to comment further on the nature of the grievance.

“At our last meeting, everyone in the room clearly saw that there was a very visible dispute over procedure, over the vacancy and the parliamentarian seat,” Hakim said to Pipe Dream in response to concerns about his resolution trying to stop the grievance. “This was just one component of a very necessary piece of legislation.”

After discussion, Donders urged representatives to avoid an immediate vote to allow for further debate and conversations with their constituents.

At the meeting’s conclusion, Hakim’s legislation was tabled to the next SA Congress meeting, which will be held on March 18.

Editor’s Note: Joseph Brugellis, the vice chief justice of the Judicial Board, is an assistant news editor. He had no part in the writing or editing of this article. 

Lauren Wilner, the chair of the Internal Affairs Committee, is an opinion columnist. She had no part in the writing or editing of this article.