Letter to the editor

Nick DiGiorgio

My opinions are not representative of Student Government Association or executive board in any regard.

Acting within the confines of my personal experience, I felt that Parliamentarian Wainwright had crossed the line of professionalism when he signed his letter to the editor in last week’s paper with his title as parliamentarian of student government.

His association with the organization should have in no way been correlated with his personal opinions on last week’s motion to amend the constitution.

Last week, Parliamentarian Wainwright had motioned to amend the requirements for Student Government Association president and vice president.

His motion was to require only one of the two individuals on each ticket to have previous experience on Student Government Association. His logic was that this would allow other natural leaders within the university community to aspire to Student Government Association president or vice president.

My issue with this amendment is a fundamental belief that institutional knowledge is obtained through years of experience. While a potential candidate may learn Robert’s Rules in a matter of hours, understanding the networking of administration and Student Government Association takes years of experience.

I can speak from my personal experience as I have served as Student Government Association vice president. If I had not served three years on student government, I would not have the understanding of committee structure, administrative personnel or individual senator relations within Student Government Association to accurately delegate committee responsibilities.

It is equally critical for the president to have a paralleled amount of experience. The vice president and president must work in unison to lead a student government, and a student body as a whole.

The Student Government Association had voted, and the majority had disagreed with Parliamentarian Wainwright’s opinion of changing the requirements for president and vice president. For this reason, the motion failed.

In any real world experience, if you publicly raise notions both libelous and slanderous in nature concerning an organization you work for, your employment will be terminated.

I hold Parliamentarian Wainwright directly liable for his actions and have no remorse for my second to motion for his impeachment. I stand by my decision.

In years past, when senators acted in an unprofessional manner, they were removed from the quorum.

I believe that, if the vote for impeachment had been a silent vote, the outcome would have been different (in regard to his impeachment).

I think it speaks to great lengths that almost half the quorum favored his impeachment.

I do not question the value that Parliamentarian Wainwright adds to Student Government Association. As a senator, he has offered unique perspective that other senators could not deliver.

What I urge senators and students alike to raise question to is the senator’s professional conduct and not his value to the organization.

Parliamentarian Wainwright directly abused his title with a controversial opinion.

I believe the methodology used to assert Parliamentarian Wainwright’s repeated proposal for his amendment was unprofessional.

I took this as a personal attack on Student Government Association due to his signing of his title within Student Government Association on the letter. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I will never silence criticism.

In fact, I promote debate. I do not, however, condone lack of professionalism and blatant ignorance for institutional procedure.

Again, my opinions are in no way representative of Student Government Association or executive board.