Resources & Information for EKU Faculty, Staff, and Students
The Eastern Kentucky University Student Government Association advocates for students’ interest and wellbeing while facilitating a collegiate environment of professional and interpersonal growth.
Since the establishment of the Student Government Association nearly seventy years ago we have been striving towards our goal of representing our fellow peers, and promoting student self-governance.
The Student Senate awards funds to Registered Student Organizations once a year at the beginning of the fall semester. Applications are made available several weeks before each funding session. Mandatory Informational Meetings will be held prior to the main appropriations meeting. For more information on Organizational Funding, please contact the Student Government at student.government@eku.edu.
In cooperation with EKU IT, the Student Senate awards grants from a portion of the revenue generated by the Student Technology Fee. Applications are made available each year in the fall. This program is open to all areas of the University community. For more information, please contact the Student Government at student.government@eku.edu.
The Advisory Board exists to share information between SGA’s various advisors and officers, provide advice to the Executive Board, approve proposed changes to SGA’s bylaws, and serve as an appeals board for SGA grievances.
The Advisory Board is a standing University Committee, the membership of which is stipulated by the SGA Constitution.
The Student Government Association at Eastern Kentucky University is composed of four student-led branches with responsibilities to the campus community. All branches are composed entirely of EKU students.
Our organization serves as an instrument for changing campus policy and instituting effective programs. The cooperation of our four branches ensures that we are a cohesive Association, which serves the student body to the best of its ability.
Check out all of SGA’s branches to see what they do, who they are, and to learn more about the leaders who serve you!
Chaired by the Executive Vice President, the Student Senate is the legislative branch of SGA. Meetings are held on a weekly basis in Powell 108. The Student Senate ensures that the students of Eastern Kentucky University have a voice in all campus affairs. Student Senators voice student concerns and pursue solutions to those concerns by working with the Faculty Senate, the University administration, and other bodies on campus.
Standing Committees of the Student Senate
Student Rights and Academic Affairs Committee (SRAA)
Registered Student Organizations Committee (RSO)
Information & Technology Committee (IT)
Safety and Facilities Affairs Committee (SFA)
Senate Meeting Documents & Archives
Chaired by the Vice President for Campus Activities, the Campus Activities Board (CAB) is the campus-wide programming body of SGA. This council of students initiates, promotes, and implements programs including concerts, lectures, comedians, musicians, and a variety of special events to meet the needs of the student body.
Connor Fraley
Campus Activities Board Vice President
Cabinet for Engaging Issues
Cabinet for Public Relations
Cabinet for Public Policy
Cabinet for Ethical Governance
The Student Court is the judicial branch of the SGA. It is the duty of the Student Court to interpret the SGA constitution and bylaws, oversee cases regarding alleged violations of SGA governing documents, judicial review of Association actions such as legislation and executive orders, and hear disputes regarding alleged election and campaign violations.
If you have a question regarding parking appeals, student discipline, Court hearing documents or other Student Court business please contact the Chief Justice. All parking appeals and student discipline issues are handled by the University Parking Appeals Committee and Student Disciplinary Council, which are committees comprised of faculty, staff, and Student Court Justices.
“The Student Senate of Eastern Kentucky University, desiring to promote academic freedom and responsibility, to establish and protect student rights, to contribute to the continual improvement of the University, and to faithfully represent the student body in the perpetual dialogue of community self-governance, exists to provide for meaningful action in the pursuit of our shared collegiate values.”
Preamble of the Student Government Association’s Bylaws Chapter 1
2023 – 2024 Student Senate Legislation
Student Senate Legislation 2024 – 2025
These cases are public record upon the Student Court’s decision. These cases are listed and cited here for reference and future usage of Student Court members and transparency with the Student Body.
The only cases cited here are cases that had a full Court hearing and called into question an interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws. Cases wherein the party pled guilty immediately, were not heard by the Student Court, or cases of impeachment will not be referenced here.
Each case has been formatted to give the facts of the case, the question of the constitution and bylaws that the court was poised with answering, and the answer to each question.
The section labeled “Facts of case” is composed of a case report created or preserved by the Student Court and has been copied word for word from the original case report and written opinions by the Student Court save for grammatical/punctuation error corrections and name removals for privacy concerns. Physical or digital copies of each case cited here may be requested from the Chief Justice.
Elections Cases
Facts of the case:
On March 30, 2010, a complaint regarding breaches of the 2010 Elections Bylaws was brought to the Elections Committee Chair, Megan Verbillion, involving candidate Chelsea Atwater. The complaint states that on March 28, 2010, at approximately 7:45PM, Atwater breached Article IV, Section A Subsection 1 and 1a, by speaking to the Chi Omega fraternity about supporting her campaign ticket prior to the legal posting of the official candidate list at 4PM Monday March 29, 2010. Also, on March 30, 2010, Atwater made statements regarding the qualification and experience of other candidates in the election during class. At 9:55PM, March 30, 2010, the Elections Committee and Student Body President Siahkoohi, acting as ethics administrator, met to discuss both complaints against Chelsea Atwater. A unanimous vote was reached among the Elections Committee and the standing Ethics Administrator to remove Chelsea Atwater from the 2010 SGA Elections, thus disqualifying the Executive Slate ticket of Dujuane Harris and Chelsea Atwater.
On March 31, 2010, Dajuane Harris and Chelsea Atwater filed a request for a Student Court Hearing, seeking to invalidate the Elections Committee’s decision based on 6 separate arguments:
At the Elections Informational on March 26, 2010, Chelsea Atwater spoke with Elections Committee Chair Meagan Verbillion regarding whether speaking to her sorority about campaign tee shirts would be considered a violation of the rules and regulations and was told that it would not be an infraction. Chelsea Atwater assumed that by having this conversation with Verbillion, it was understood that the Chi Omega sorority already knew about Atwater’s intention of running in the election.
Atwater recalls a conversation she had with Sarah Carty, a member of the elections committee, about what would be considered a breach of the Elections Bylaws. During this conversation, Atwater says that Carty explained that if a candidate told someone five years prior to the 2010 election about his or her candidacy, that person would be in breach of Article IV, Section A Subsection 1 and 1a. Atwater states that if this rationale is to be accepted, all candidates would be in breach of the Elections Bylaws simply by speaking to potential running partners and campaign managers and by asking for student signatures prior to the official candidate posting.
Ally Sipes, a member of the Elections Committee, was appointed and sworn into office as Student Court Chief Justice at the March 30, 2010, Senate meeting. At this time, Atwater states that Sipes should have recused herself from the Elections Committee knowing that any appeals concerning Elections Committee decisions would come to the Student Court, a branch that Sipes is now in charge of. By not recusing herself, Sipes has forced the Associate Chief Justice to fulfill a role that in the best interest of the student body should not be fulfilled by no other than the Chief Justice.
Through her presence as standing Ethics Administrator at the meeting between the Elections Committee and Atwater, Student Body President Siahkoohi was acting in an unconstitutional manner. According to the SGA Constitution Article 5, Section B, Part 2 (k), the Student Body President may fill in as Ethics Administrator according to the guidelines set forth in Article 6, Section A, Part 1. However, upon referencing Article 6, Section A, Part 1, no mention of the President or how he or she is to fulfill the duties of the Ethics Administrator are present.
Atwater believes that the Elections Committee was unfairly biased before she gave her verbal statement to the Elections Committee. Atwater claims that she was not informed of the identities of the persons making the complaints against her, and the credibility of these persons and complaints was not taken into consideration.
The Elections Committee did not give Atwater and Harris the option to remove themselves from official candidacy, which would have provided them with the opportunity to run as write-in candidates if they had chosen to do so. Atwater references a case from 2008, when then senator Adam Crabtree was given an offer to resign by then Ethics Administrator, Andrew Bender, during the investigation of an election’s complaint.
Question:
Does advisement from the Elections Committee Chair count as a valid defense to violating the elections bylaws and relieve the candidate from responsibility on the grounds that they acted in accordance with the Elections Committee Chair’s words?
How early is it too early for candidates to discuss their candidacy?
Does any type of campaigning discussion, including searching for campaign managers, running partners, campaign team members, count as a violation of the bylaws because no campaigning prior to the announcement of candidates is allowed?
Does the Elections Committee have to disclose who complaining parties are to the accused?
Does the Elections Committee have to afford a campaign team the opportunity to drop out of the campaign so that they may instead run as a write-in candidate slate?
Does a distinct lack of outline of the President’s duties as Ethics Administrator constitute a violation of the Constitution, even though it is the Constitution that fails to outline these duties?
Answer:
In a unanimous decision, the Student Court upheld the removal of Atwater and Harris from candidacy for the Executive Slate of 2010. The Court responded to each of the questions and rebuttals raised by Atwater in their concurring opinions.
First, the Court noted that although the discussion with Verbillion may have reassured the candidate, they were present for the informational session where the bylaws were discussed at length and signed the form agreeing to review and follow the bylaws, and as such, Atwater agreed to do her own review and follow the rules and regulations as they are listed.
Second, the Court ruled that after Atwater signed the form to run as a slate, she was bound to the rules of the bylaws to not campaign before the announcement. It is noted that the official search for a campaign team, partner and manager prior to the signing of this contract is not a violation of the bylaws as it is done in an official capacity and is necessary to be an eligible candidate.
Third, following from the second opinion, candidates are not bound to the rules until they are informed of the bylaws and sign the contract to campaign, and thus any discussion prior is not a violation of the bylaws.
Fourth, it is the responsibility of the Elections Committee to thoroughly investigate any and all complaints before them, which the Court feels was done properly. The Elections Committee does not have to divulge any identities of the involved person/persons.
Fifth, the Elections Bylaws stated in Article IV, Section A, subsection b, that the Elections Committee can “remove a candidate without a written petition” in the event of a breach of rules. The Elections Committee is not obligated to give Atwater and Harris the opportunity to remove themselves from official candidacy.
Sixth, while the Court agrees that there is no mention of how the Student Body President is supposed to fulfill the duties of Ethics Administrator, Siahkoohi followed the Constitution with what WAS available.
Facts of the case:
On April 13, 2010, SGA elections were held. At this time, a complaint was filed against the Chadwell-Anderson ticket for having two campaign posters up in the Powell building, which is not allowed on election day. The complaint was brought before the Elections Committee. After investigating the complaint, it was decided the best course of action was to dock the ticket 4.125% of the votes they received. The Elections Committee set up a booth in front of the SGA office where voting could take place. The student body could access the polls at any computer whether this be on the campus or a personal computer. The votes were cast through an online program called Survey Monkey, which was provided to SGA through the University.
Question:
In the absence of a “secret ballot,” Is it a defense that anyone could who anyone else is voting for since the ballots were on the main floor of Powell?
Is there a difference between electronic “survey” and electronic “ballot?”
Did the Elections Committee go beyond their reach in determining that a 4.125% dock would remedy the violation?
Is it possible to cast a fraudulent vote with Survey Monkey, how can that possibility be prevented, and should EKU SGA have used IT to record the results?
Did the Elections Committee act unconstitutionally when they stepped out to “get air” which could have opened them up to third party influence?
Answer:
In a 2-1 opinion, the Student Court held that the Elections Committee acted in accordance with the SGA election bylaws and Constitution. The Court answered each of the proposed questions in parts
First, the students had other options than to vote at the Powell booth, this was not unconstitutional. Further, the Court held that if a voter felt pressured in any way, they could ask a voting booth worker to provide them with more private voting conditions.
Second, The Court held that surveys and ballots were the same thing because both terms indicate that the individual is expressing their views on a topic.
Third, it is left up to the committee to decide on an appropriate sanction. It is stated in Article IV, Section 1b “In the event of a breach of the election’s rules, the Elections Committee and the Ethics Administrator can remove a candidate without written permission.” Since this is left open to the committee, the Court feels that they acted well within their rights.
Fourth, it was demonstrated to the Court’s how fraudulent votes could be eliminated. Additionally, since the University pays for Survey Monkey and highly recommends it to be used, the Court does not see the validity of this complaint.
Fifth, When the Committee stepped out for air they were never alone. Sipes and Verbillion stepped out together to keep from having third party influences. No one was allowed in the office where the votes were being counted, so members were not swayed to tampered with them.
Facts of the Case:
On April 8, 2011, a complaint regarding a grievance of the 2010 Election Bylaws was brought to the Elections Committee Chair, Sarah Carty, involving candidate Rachel Mollozzi. The complaint states that on April 8, 2011, between 12 and 1PM, Mollozzi broke elections bylaws Article IV, Section A, Subsection 2, by verbally harassing Margaret Hale in the middle lobby of the Powell Building. The Elections Committee and Ethics Administrator, Phillip Migyanko met to discuss the complaint against Mollozzi. A unanimous vote was reached among the Elections Committee and the Ethics Administrator to force Mollozzi to write a 250-word letter of apology to be submitted by 6PM on April 12, and she cannot actively campaign between 11AM and 4PM on April 12, 2011.
On April 11, 2011, Mollozzi and White filed a request for a Student Court hearing, seeking to invalidate the second part of the Elections Committee’s decision because the ruling is uncalled for and unnecessary. It is further their position that “this ruling will set precedent in the future that anyone can go and file a complaint against the slate for just campaigning.” They also believed that their first amendment rights were being infringed upon, “as they are being punished for just speaking with someone and second in that Rachel is not able to speak her will until 11-4 on Election Day about the campaign.”
Question:
Does prevention of campaigning at a certain time infringement upon the first amendment rights of SGA candidates and is it a valid punishment, therefore?
Answer:
In a unanimous decision by the Student Court, although Mollozzi did indeed violate the bylaws, it was ruled that the punishment by the Elections Committee to restrict Mollozzi from campaigning was unjust based on the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Student Court held that the bylaws in this regard were far too vague and, as such, needed to be changed. However, the Court upheld that the punishment of no campaigning did not infringe upon first amendment rights, as candidates signed a contract to campaign which relinquished their first amendment rights.
Facts of the case:
On April 12, 2011, a complaint regarding a grievance of the 2010 Election Bylaws was brought to the Elections Committee Chair, Sarah Carty, involving candidate Rachel Mollozzi. The complaint states that on April 12, 2011, at approximately 12:48PM, Mollozzi broke elections bylaws Article IV, Section A, Subsection 2, by verbally harassing Margaret Hale in the middle lobby of the Powell Building. The Elections Committee and Ethics Administrator, Phillip Migyanko met to discuss the complaint against Mollozzi. A unanimous vote was reached among the Elections Committee and the Ethics Administrator that this was indeed a violation of the bylaws and therefore considered a breach. As a result, the Elections Committee referenced Article V, Section B, Subsection 1, which states “in the event of a breach of the bylaws, the candidate in question will be removed from the official election.” In conclusion, the Elections Committee and Ethics Administrator voted unanimously to remove the Executive Slate candidates, Mollozzi and White, from the election consideration in accordance with Article V, Section B, and subsection 1 of the election’s bylaws.
On April 11, 2011, Mollozzi and White filed a request for a Student Court hearing, seeking to invalidate the Elections Committee’s decision because “they were wrongly and unjustly removed from the ballot.” It is further their position that “the newly revised bylaws should not have been used in this case because Student Court overstepped its bounds by re-legislating the elections bylaws.” They also believed that since neither Mollozzi nor White signed the “newly revised bylaws” they should not be held to that standard.
Question:
Are Mollozzi and White held to the standard of the newly revised bylaws despite not signing them?
Was the punishment of removal from the ballot overly harsh?
Answer:
In a 5-1 ruling, the Court held that the decision of the Elections Committee to remove the slate of Mollozzi and White is just and constitutional based on the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Court affirmed that the changes to the bylaws were effective immediately upon release of the opinion and that Mollozzi and White should have understood the changes as they were directly addressed in the opinion that caused the revisions, and Mollozzi and White should have understood the new sanctions.
NOTICE: THIS CASE IS NOT COMPLETE
Missing: Answer to Constitutional and Bylaw questions
Facts of the case:
Filed on March 22nd, 2022, there was a concern regarding a barstool post promoting the Degrant campaign. The complainant was unsure if this is a violation of the direct contract we signed in the elections packet, the SGA bylaws or code of conduct, or potentially EKU code of conduct.
The 2nd complaint was regarding a distance violation as DeGrant was campaigning and posted a campaign video right outside of the Powell building within the distance perimeter of the SGA office on Election Day. Proof was provided through video.
The 3rd complaint is regarding a potential EKU conduct violation. DeGrant had also posted a picture standing on the statue outside of Powell and the rec which the complainant also believed is an EKU conduct violation.
The 4th and final complaint involved DeGrant driving the student life golf cart around during election day while also talking to other students about elections. To the student body, this could look like a student life endorsement for his campaign. He is also using the student life golf cart for campaigning, gas, and being paid by student life because he is “working” today. If this is allowed because he is working, all these funds (including golf cart rental, gas, and DeGrant’s paycheck) should be marked on his campaign budget and should be accounted into the $750 limit.
Inspector General Hollandsworth assigned Inspector Chambers to investigate points one and three. On point four I.G. Hollandsworth reached out via email to the complainant and found no additional video or audio evidence. On point two I.G. Hollandsworth found that DeGrant posted campaign videos on the day of the election taken within 150 feet of the polling site in middle Powell (See Appendix A and Chapter 7, Article IV, Section C, Subsection I, clause D – iii). Points one and three did not violate any specific elections regulations found in SGA Bylaws. However, the presence of alcohol in a social media post on a major page including references to SGA and climbing on the Centennial Man statue (See Appendix B and C) reflect poorly on the Student Government, are possible violations of university code of conduct and bring DeGrant in violation of the SGA Code of Conduct line “All elected and appointed members shall conduct themselves in a manner that shall reflect positively of Student Government Association and Eastern Kentucky University.” found in Chapter 8 ‘Code of Conduct,’ Section C ‘Standards,’ Subsection IV.
Questions:
Was DeGrant violating the bylaws by having an endorsement from Barstool?
Was DeGrant in violation of the bylaws by posting himself on the Centennial Man Statue outside Powell?
Was DeGrant in violation of the bylaws by posting a video of himself with an alcoholic beverage?
Did DeGrant violate the bylaws when he used the Student Life golf cart to campaign and should he have included it in the final budget required to be submitted to the Elections Committee?
Facts of the case:
Election season began on March 1, 2023. Informational session occurred prior on 3 dates listed as February 20th, 2023, and 6PM in Powell 201, February 21st, 2023, at 6PM in Powell 203 and February 23rd at 6PM in Powell 229. Informational Sessions detail what each candidate must do to be eligible to run on the executive slate once election season begins. It is noted that you must fill out your packet in its entirety and detail as to whether you will be spending the allotted $750.
On March 1st, 2023, a case was filed by the Elections Committee Chair, Jayna Singleton, for immediate review by the Student Court on the grounds that the Ritchie-Latham campaign had neglected to complete the packet as required by the bylaws and informational sessions. Ritchie-Latham neglected to report whether they would be spending the $750 as prescribed in the bylaws and as such, they did not complete the packet.
Question:
Are candidates eligible to run if they did not complete the packet, specifically pertaining to spending money?
Answer:
In a unanimous decision the Student Court determined that yes, although the candidates did not complete the packet, the incompletion was a minor error that could be easily remedied. However, The Ritchie-Latham campaign indicated that though they did not fill out this portion of the packet, that they did intend to use funds. The Court determined that the candidates would receive the penalty of a 25% deduction to their funds for failure to indicate whether they’d be spending those funds.
Facts of the case:
On March 6th, 2023, members of the Lampert-White Campaign team became aware of text messages sent within the Webb-England campaign Groupme between members of the campaign team. These messages were provided to the Elections Committee Chair via an anonymous source who was in the Groupme of the Webb-England campaign team. These messages detailed planning to take down or intending to take down posters of the Lampert-White campaign in select dorm halls, street-fighting members of the Lampert-White campaign and starting a smear campaign against the executive candidates of the Lampert-White campaign.
On March 7th, 2023, Lampert and White filed a case with the Elections Committee Chair, Jayna Singleton, on the grounds that these messages violated the SGA bylaws which stated:
Chapter 7, Article 3, Section A (1(b and e) All candidates and their agents shall not deface, alter or remove an opponent’s campaign material during the permitted time of campaigning as defined by Article 1 Section C 1(b and e) which defined campaign agents and defacing.
University Policy Student Code of Conduct and Disciplinary procedures, 5.1.3 (pg. 6 item 23 Threatening Behaviors). Threatening behaviors is defined in part a. Threat: written or verbal conduct that causes reasonable expectation of injury to the health and safety of any person or damage to any property.
Chapter 7, Article 3 Section A (1(b) Refrain from abusive conduct, slander, or attacks upon the character or persons of all Student Government Association members.
The Lampert-White Campaign argued that although the actions listed had not occurred yet, the intent to commit such actions satisfied the violation of what is listed in the bylaws.
Question:
Do private text messages that were leaked show intent on the part of a campaign team to actually cause harm to others?
Does the intent to cause harm to others or property satisfy the prongs of Article 3 Section A and can members of a campaign team be punished for intent despite having not committed the acts mentioned in their text messages?
Answer:
The Student Court showed unanimity with a split decision. The Court unanimously found the campaign team not guilty for the counts of threats to deface and threats to smear campaign, but unanimously found them guilty of threats of violence. The Court ruled that although it was proven with screenshots of the intent of Webb-England to violate the bylaws, the intent or comment to take down posters or smear campaign candidates is not sufficient to violate the bylaws brought forth and when provided proof that agents did not commit those acts, it furthered the dismissal of the charges.
Associate Justice Bowman commented in a concurring opinion “Although the statements made by the members of the Webb-England campaign were unprofessional, unethical, and unbecoming, the SGA Bylaws do not specify that making these comments privately and without action can result in punishment.” However, threats of violence were sufficiently founded due to its description in the University Code of Conduct not needing actual harm to come but only fear of harm. The Webb-England was found guilty of this charge because members of their campaign team made these comments, and as the bylaws prescribe, Candidates are liable for actions their agents commit.
General Cases
Facts of the Case:
On Tuesday, February 9, 2010, Elizabeth Miller, President of the Student Occupational Science Association (SOSA) applied for Student Senate Registered Student Organization (RSO) funding, requesting monies totaling $4,335.90 to attend an International Conference being held in Canada. The money requested would provide for 12 members to attend the conference. Money for those individuals presenting research at the conference would be provided by the Occupational Therapy/Science Department. The application met all of the qualifications for RSO funding requests. A special appropriations committee ranked all applications properly filed with the Appropriations co-chairs Chelsea Atwater and Elizabeth Horn. SOSA was ranked 12 out of 38 organizations.
On Tuesday, February 23, 2010, Student Senate met to review RSO funding applications and appropriate $34,699.51 between 38 organizations as ranked by the Special Appropriations Committee. When SOSA’s funding request was brought to the floor, the Student Senate engaged in an arduous discussion and made several amendments. Following a motion to approve and a second, Executive Vice President DaJuane Harris called for the “yeas” and “nays”. It was the opinion of EVP Harris as Chair of the Student Senate that the majority voted nay and SOSA’s funding request was denied. Some Senators expressed their opinion to EVP Harris that more time was needed to call for “division,” before gaveling a ruling and EVP Harris agreed to do so.
On February 25, 2010, Elizabeth Miller filed a request for a Student Court hearing with Chief Justice David Anderson, appealing the decision of the Student Senate citing Student Bylaws Article VI, Section G, I which states:
“If a member of the Association, as defined in Article I Section A of the Student Government Constitution, b believes the Student Senate did not operate with a neutral viewpoint or failed to follow the provisions of appropriations set forth by the Student Senate Bylaws, they may appeal the Student Senate’s decision to the Student Court.”
Question:
Did the senate operate biasedly or fail to operate neutrally when they amended the RSO funding request from SOSA and then moved to deny the request because more division was necessary?
Answer:
In a 5-3 vote, the Student Court ruled that the Student Senate did not operate in a biased fashion or failed to follow RSO funding procedures outlined in the Student Senate bylaws. The Court came to these decisions based on the complainant not meeting the burden of proof of a preponderance of the evidence. However, the Student Court notes that this ruling was due to a lack of evidence from both the Complainant (SOSA) and Respondent (Senate). As such, the Student Court ruled that the Student Senate must amend their RSO procedures to add necessary things such as recordings of the meetings and accurate/updated minutes.
Facts of the case:
During the March 25th-31st, a runoff election between two candidates was held for the positions of Ethics Administrator. Residence Life Council on March 25, 2011, Student Court, and Student Activities Council on March 26, 2011, and Student Senate on March 27, 2011, voted by secret ballot. After the votes were tabulated by Chief Justice Alexandra Sipes, the results showed an exact tie. Sipes then turned to Student Body President Rachel Mollozzi to break the tie.
On March 29, 2011, members of the Constitutional Review Committee, Nicholas Beasley, Josef Katzman, Dan Hendrickson, Marcus Segura requested a Student Court hearing to appeal the election of Erica Childress as the Ethics Administrator on the grounds that the correct process was not followed.
Question:
Did the election of the Ethics Administrator follow the correct procedure?
Answer:
In a unanimous decision, the Student Court concurred that the election did follow the proper procedure.
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed with the SGA Ethics Administrator, Phillip Migyanko on February 23, 2012, by an anonymous member of the Student Government Association. The complainants alleged that the respondent, Residence Life Council Vice President, Salyer, had misused her powers and privileges of her Vice Presidency by allowing her fiancé to use certain office material.
Question:
Is it a misuse of position to allow a non-member of the association to use items in the SGA office?
Answer:
No. The use of SGA materials was not egregious enough to violate the bylaws as a misuse of position and power.
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed with the SGA Ethics Administrator, Phillip Migyanko, on February 21, 2012 by Student Senator Yurt. The complainant alleged that the respondent, Student Senator Jensen, had made several derogatory and inflammatory remarks toward specific groups on campus and was also in violation of the Senate Rules from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. On March 21, 2012, the Committee of Inquiry found Student Senator Jensen not guilty of the charges. On March 27, 2012, Yurt appealed the decision of the Committee of Inquiry due to irregularities within the Inquiry proceeding, the Senate Rules from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and a punishment inconsistent with the crime.
Question:
Did the Committee of Inquiry have irregularities in their proceedings and was the lack of punishment a result of that irregularity?
Did Jensen violate the Constitution based on Robert’s Rules of Order?
Answer:
In a 5-2 ruling, the Student Court upheld the decision of the Committee of Inquiry. The Court noted that there was an irregularity in the proceeding when Senator Chrisman notified the Student Senate of the investigation when it was supposed to be confidential; However, this did not jeopardize the integrity of the decision by the Committee of Inquiry. The Court additionally ruled that Jensen did not violate the Constitution. The rule addressed directly pertains to attacking another member or discussing an issue that is not currently on the table. Jensen’s comments were never directly toward another member but rather the issue as a whole. As such, the punishment was consistent with the offense.
Facts of the case:
On Tuesday. February 26, 2013, the Student Senate of Eastern Kentucky University held its biannual appropriations meeting, in which it granted funding to several Registered Student Organizations (RSOs). As a result of the procedure followed by the Student Senate, there was a small number of the procedure followed by the Student Senate, there was a small number of RSOs that did not receive any funding because the Senate’s Appropriations funds were exhausted all but $1.80 of the funds available, before those RSOs were considered.
One of the RSOs that was not considered before the Senate Body, the EKU Grappling Club, filed an appeal with the Student Court on Wednesday, February 27, 2013. The Student Court, after receiving the original hearing request, unanimously decided to hear the case. The Court, as well as both parties, decided to hold the hearing on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 4PM. Due to illness, one of the parties, the Court recessed at 4:13PM. The Court and all parties agreed to reconvene on Wednesday, March 6, 4:30PM.
In their original hearing request, First Sergeant Richard Sirry, on behalf of the EKU Grappling Club, stated that “[…] not being able to address the Student Council (SIC) about our budget plan was to me unfair […] We were slotted to address the council last but never got the chance because the money was already slotted to other clubs/organizations by the time it was our turn. To me this should have been done after hearing all parties involved then go back and make decisions on who gets what monies.” The Student Court went into deliberation and considered several questions.
Questions:
Did the EKU Grappling Club have a sponsoring senator?
Did the Special Committee on Appropriations properly review and rank the RSOs’ funding application packets?
Are all RSOs who properly apply for funding entitled to 30 seconds of speaking before the Senate Body, as is outlined in the funding application packet that the organizations agreed to the terms of and submitted?
Did the EKU Grappling club fulfill its duties in the appropriations process?
Answer:
In a unanimous decision by the Student Court, ruled in favor of the EKU Grappling club. The Court, after receiving evidence of such, found that the sponsoring senator for the EKU Grappling Club was senator Christopher Thurman. The Court could not determine whether senator Thurman fulfilled his duties as a sponsoring senator due to the lack of guidelines for sponsoring senators. The Court also decided that the Special Committee on Appropriations did properly review and rank the RSO’s funding application packets. The Court found that the EKU Grappling Clubs packet was incomplete and as such, it was their responsibility too. The Court furthered this opinion by stating that even if the packet had been complete, it would not have helped the EKU Grappling Club. However, the Student Court also agreed unanimously that the Student Senate did not fulfill its obligations in that the Senate did not follow proper procedures in the appropriations process. The Court decided that the Student Senate must reconsider the funds appropriated and must rehear every organization on the ranking in accordance with the procedures outlined in Article VI of the Student Senate bylaws.
Facts of the case:
On September 18, 2013 the SGA Executive Cabinet met to conduct a regular meeting. At this meeting, Dr. Michael Reagle was present to discuss a proposed university policy change. In short, this policy would result in the removal of the ‘Anti-discrimination’ Clause (hereinafter referred to as the ‘policy’) in the Registered Student Organization (RSO) contract, thus allowing RSO’s more latitude in selecting their members. This policy was set to be brought before the Student Senate at their next meeting for consideration.
The Executive Cabinet discussed the idea of not informing student senators to prevent potential confusion among the senators about the policy. Ethics Administrator Michael Deaton was present at this meeting for the policy discussion. Deaton expressed his objections to not informing the senate body, but the Executive Cabinet was not persuaded. The Executive Cabinet decided against making the cabinet aware of the policy prior to the Student Senate meeting. This decision was reached by an informal vote and was unanimous amongst the Executive Cabinet members. At no point during the discussion of the policy or the vote did the Executive Cabinet go into Executive Session. Therefore, all knowledge discussed is considered public and reflected in the minutes.
After the Executive Cabinet meeting, Deaton wrote a memorandum that is dated September 19, 2013, and addressed to student senators. This memorandum stated that Dr. Reagle would be present at the meeting to discuss the policy. It also loosely summarized the policy in bold print and encouraged discussion. This memorandum was printed on official Ethics Administrator letterhead and identified Deaton as the Ethics Administrator three different times. This memorandum was sent to the Student Senate via email. Deaton also sent an email to the Executive Cabinet giving them notice of the memorandum and it being sent to the Student Senate on September 20, 2013. In the email to the Executive Cabinet, Deaton stated, “I have deemed it unethical on behalf of the Cabinet not to inform members of the Student Senate prior to their meeting on Tuesday. Per the Constitution I have determined this memorandum to be appropriate remedy for this issue.” Deaton never received a complaint, formed a committee of inquiry, or investigated.
On October 1, 2013, Chief of Staff Andrew Beasley filed this complaint with the Student Court, alleging that this decision violated the SGA Constitution. Article X, Section D, Sub-section 1b gives this Court original jurisdiction over interpretations of the SGA Constitution. Article X, Section D, sub-section 2 gives this Court original jurisdiction and judicial review over the constitutionality of any action of the Ethics Administrator.
In his complaint, Beasley asserts that Deaton exceeded his authority under the SGA Constitution when he acted without first being asked to do so, acted without first investigating, acted without recommending appropriate action, and acted without receiving a complaint.
Questions:
Was Michael Deaton acting as Ethics Administrator when he sent the memorandum and email?
Did Michael Deaton truly deem the act of the Executive Cabinet to keep senators uniformed about the policy to be unethical?
Did Michael Deaton violate the SGA Constitution by failing to act as an independent body?
Did Michael Deaton violate the bylaws when he deemed the Executive Cabinet to keep senators uninformed about the policy to be unethical without first receiving a complaint?
Did Michael Deaton conduct a proper investigation into the Executive Cabinets actions before deeming it unethical?
Did Michael Deaton violate the bylaws when he determined a remedy for what he deemed an unethical act?
Did Michael Deaton exceed his constitutional authority as Ethics Administrator when he executed the remedy?
Answer:
The Court answered the first question with a 5-0-1 vote that Deaton was indeed acting as the Ethics Administrator when he sent the memorandum and email. The letterhead identified himself as such 3 separate times as well as the testimony of Deaton confirming this fact.
Second, in a 5-0-1 decision, the Court determined that Deaton did, in fact, truly deem the act of the Executive Cabinet to be unethical.
Third, In a 0-5-1 decision, the Court found that Deaton did not violate the SGA Constitution by failing to act as an independent body. The Court did not agree with Beasley’s interpretation of the “independent body clause” of the Constitution. Beasley seemed to believe it meant that the Ethics Administrator must act without bias, when the Court determined it to mean that the Ethics Administrator was separate from the other branches of SGA.
Fourth, in a 4-1-1 decision, the Court determined that Deaton did violate the bylaws when he deemed the actions of the Executive Cabinet to be unethical without first receiving a complaint.
Fifth, in a 0-4-2 decision, the Court concluded that Deaton did not conduct a proper investigation into the actions of the Executive Cabinet. Deaton never created a Committee of Inquiry which is required by the SGA Constitution.
Sixth, in a 4-1-1 decision, the Court determined that Michael Deaton violated the SGA Constitution when he determined a remedy for what he deemed an unethical act. The Court notes that the memorandum by itself is not necessarily unconstitutional seeing as the information contained within it is public; However, the purpose of the memorandum when the email to the Executive Cabinet is added to the equation, makes it clear that the memorandum was intended to remedy what he deemed an unethical act.
Seventh, in a 4-1-1 decision, the Court determined that Deaton did exceed his constitutional authority when he executed the remedy.
Facts of the case:
On October 2, 2023, following a senate meeting, an altercation occurred in the SGA office’s MPR room. This altercation involved Seth Johnson being hit on the arm multiple times by another senator who later stormed out of the MPR room. Johnson followed the other senator out of the MPR room and into the main office where they proceeded to argue. Both parties then exited the office and argued very loudly in the middle of the Powell building. A report was submitted for violations of the Student Code of Conduct and the SGA bylaws by several SGA members.
In his Court hearing, Johnson argued that the issue was a personal matter and therefore did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Student Court.
Question:
Does the Student Court have jurisdiction over personal matters that don’t involve SGA business?
Answer:
In a unanimous decision, the Student Court ruled that Johnson, although the victim, had violated the bylaws. The Court agreed that Johnson could have removed himself from the situation after being physically accosted but instead chose to engage further and thus became part of the problem. The Court also agreed that although the squabble was regarding a personal matter, because both violators were SGA members and their actions affected SGA negatively, it was a violation of the bylaws and thus the Court did have jurisdiction to hear this case.
Facts of the case:
Between 8pm and 9:30 PM on Thursday October 26, 2023, there was a minor facility concern in Ritchie’s apartment. The concern was brought up with hall staff by Ritchie’s roommate around 8pm, and they were informed around 8:15pm that this was not considered an emergency maintenance issue and that they would need to submit a work order and ignore it for the rest of the night. Around 9pm, Ritchie and his roommate had one of their friends, who is an RA in another building, call the Maroon RHC on Call regarding the situation because they knew she had the RHC phone number. At 9:36 PM, Ritchie messaged a GRHC who was a member of the Campus Activities Board (CAB) asking for RHC’s phone number who was also a member of CAB. When asked why, he stated that he needed to call her. Ritchie was informed that the GRHC in CAB would not be giving him this information, and if it was related to housing, and the building that she ran, he would need to contact her and not Judd. The GRHC in CAB was communicating with the RHC at this time, where the RHC made it clear that she did not want Ritchie to contact her so it was relayed to Ritchie that if he needed to contact Judd outside of housing concerns, he could do so through less invasive means, as he does have Judd on GroupMe, a professional messaging platform. Ritchie responded “Ok” but followed up by calling Judd’s personal phone number. Judd asked who was calling her and how they got her number. Ritchie responded saying they had called before. This was contested to be untrue, as Aleigha has stated she always saves the contacts of people who text or call her, since her phone declines unknown callers. Additionally, there is no record of a call ever being received from Ritchie. It was later found out that Ritchie accessed the Student Government Association roster to retrieve Judd’s personal phone number. This was later confirmed by EVP Clayton Lathan that Ritchie had accessed the SGA 23-24 Roster around this time. It was also made clear that no residents should have access to the work numbers of RHC’s or GRHC’s and much worse, they should not have access to their personal phone numbers.
During the investigation into him, Ritchie abruptly confronted the Special Investigator on the case, Associate Chief Justice White, and asked that he come into his office for a “discussion.” After Special Investigator White denied entry several times and Ritchie persisted, White entered Ritchie’s office reluctantly. While White was in his office, Ritchie told White that if he did not cease the investigation into him, he was pursuing legal action against White and the complainants. Additionally, he stated that if White interviewed witnesses any further, he would pursue legal action against White directly. White subsequently added two additional charges to the 3 Ritchie was already facing.
Later the same day, Ritchie called another member of the association who recorded the phone call as evidence due to previous misconduct by Ritchie that occurred but was not evident. In the phone call, Ritchie admitted to the misconduct of accessing Judd’s personal number, threatening Special Investigator White and the complainants, threatening the Chief Justice, and threatening University Facilities for bringing forth the case. The phone call recording was subsequently submitted as evidence against Ritchie.
Ritchie argued that it was his job as a Regent member to make sure people were doing their jobs and that he had a right to threaten legal action against White for investigating the case. Next, he argued that because it was not expressly stated in the bylaws that the roster can’t be used for any purpose, that he did not violate the bylaws. Third, he also argued that Special Investigator White was biased in his investigation and that this was the only reason the case went forward. Finally, Ritchie argued that this case should be handled by real courts and that the Student Court had no jurisdiction.
Question:
Was Special Investigator White Biased in his investigation?
Was Ritchie within his duties as a Regent member to access Judd’s personal number?
Because provisions about the roster with member’s personal numbers and contact information was not expressly provided within the Constitution and Bylaws, did Ritchie abuse his power and access to the roster by getting his RHC’s personal number?
Was Ritchie within his rights to threaten Special Investigator White to drop the charges against him before a full investigation was completed?
Was the Student Court within its jurisdiction to hear this case?
Answer:
In a unanimous decision by the Student Court, Ritchie was found guilty of Misuse of Position, Threatening Behaviors, and Conduct unbecoming of an SGA member. The Court answered every question within the Case in Chief that was presented to them. They offered these opinions.
First, The Court ruled that Special Investigator White did not act in a biased manner in his investigation and that it was reasonable to add the additional charges after Ritchie threatened him to drop the charges.
Second, The Court ruled that Ritchie was not within his duties as a Regent member to access Judd’s personal phone number. The Court received evidence that although Ritchie was a Regent member, he was still a student and must follow student rules. Ritchie, as a student is not allowed to have access to the RHC number and abused his position to get the personal number of the RHC instead. The Court also decided that Ritchie could have contacted Judd through less invasive means but chose not to.
Third, the court ruled that although the bylaws did not have provisions regarding access to the SGA roster, it was generally agreed upon and set precedent from the last few years that the SGA roster should only be used for emergencies, to add members to the groupme, or for SGA related purposes. The Court received substantial evidence that Ritchie used the roster for none of those things and instead used it for his own personal gain.
Fourth, The Court ruled that Ritchie was not within his rights to threaten legal action against Special Investigator White. The Court considered this an attempt to obstruct justice as the investigation into it had only begun that morning and he said he would only pursue legal action if White continued to investigate. Additionally, the court agreed that pursuant to the Student Code of conduct, this was an attempt to intimidate White into dropping the investigation, which was not successful.
Fifth, The Court ruled that it was well within its jurisdiction to hear and review the evidence in this case because Ritchie violated SGA bylaws and the Student Code of Conduct, which gives the Court original jurisdiction.
Facts of the Case:
On March 20, 2024, at 12:28PM Elections Committee Chair Aaron Barker emailed Josh Reynolds. This email’s contents will be entered as Evidence Article I. As the Elections Committee Chair, ECC Barker is responsible for ensuring the proper people are on the Voting Ballot for election day. ECC Barker sent IT this specific email regarding White dropping out of the running for CAB VP. White asked me to take him off the ballot, therefore ECC Barker emailed Josh the following, “I had one person drop out of the race, so I’ll have you take his name off the ballot if you don’t care. White (a Cab VP candidate) is no longer running.” This should have been the end of the matter as White requested to no longer be on the ballot, and I as ECC carried out his request.
On the morning of March 26, 2024 (Election Day), ECC Barker received a message from White referring to him still being on the ballot. After receiving this message ECC Barker was thoroughly confused as he had already directed IT to take White off the ballot. I immediately emailed both Josh Reynolds and Jeremiah Duerson. The email said, “I wanted to reach out about an error in the SGA ballot. Last week White officially dropped out of the race and should no longer be on the ballot. I need his name to be taken off the ballot ASAP.” Jeremiah promptly responded two minutes later saying, “Camden Ritchie made the decision yesterday to keep him on the ballot. Please discuss with him.” This will be entered as Evidence Article III.
Following that message ECC Barker immediately contacted the Faculty Advisor as this is a major problem. Ritchie is (1) not a member of the elections committee, (2) not the Elections Committee Chair. Ritchie has absolutely no authority in any situation involving elections, more specifically, making any final decision with members on the ballot.
To further investigate this, ECC Barker met with both Jeremiah Duerson and Josh Reynolds to discuss the contact Ritchie had made with them. Jeremiah and Josh both remember Ritchie mentioning that he had cleared keeping White on the ballot with someone prior to talking to them. Jeremiah’s email also specifically stated that, “Camden Ritchie made the decision to keep him on the ballot.” During the meeting, Josh told ECC Barker that he mentioned to Ritchie that ECC Barker had emailed him about taking White off the ballot because he dropped out but that Ritchie told them no – leave White on the ballot because we (SGA) already printed stuff with his name on it (The only thing printed was a single page that had the slates on it). They mentioned that it wasn’t until after ECC Barker had reached out to them on the morning of elections that they hadn’t noticed the red flags that Ritchie was displaying by having them keep someone who was no longer running on the ballot. Multiple times on the call both Josh and Jeremiah stated that, according to Ritchie, due to materials already being printed that White had to stay on the ballot.
Furthermore, ECC Barker met with Ritchie to gain his side of the story and to ask questions based on what information I had previously gathered. Ritchie said that while on the phone with Jeremiah and Josh, he never told them that he had previously cleared leaving White on the ballot. He also said it was ECC Barker’s job, as the Elections Committee Chair, to contact IT about the ballot to be posted. In multiple situations, Ritchie also made it very clear that he “doesn’t have the power to interfere with the elections.” Ritchie also said it was not in his power to tell Jeremiah and Josh “no leave him on or no take him off the ballot.”
Therefore, the problem lies in something that Ritchie himself admitted to not having the power to do, but still doing it. By contacting Jeremiah and Josh he went above the Elections Committee and ECC. He did say he contacted Jeremiah and Josh, but his intent of the call was to make sure the ballot was ready for the next day. It was ECC Barker’s opinion that Ritchie had ample time to contact myself or Chief Justice Heavren to make sure we had been in contact with IT about the ballot throughout the entire election season, but never contacted us.
At trial, the question arose as to whether this case was an elections violation and constituted a closed hearing because it involved
At trial, Ritchie attempted to argue both that he did not give a directive to IT by telling them to leave the candidate on the ballot and that even if he did, he had the authority as President to do so. Ritchie cited the Constitution which stated:
“Represent all members of the Association in dealings with persons or entities of other universities and the faculty, staff, and administration of the University.”
And held that this meant that he had the power to go over the heads of everyone in the association and represent them in any capacity. Mr. Ritchie argued that ECC Barker had not fulfilled his duties as ECC and therefore this gave him the right to answer IT’s questions instead of directing them to ECC Barker or Chief Justice Heavren.
Questions:
First, does directing IT to keep a candidate on the ballot constitute a directive?
Second, Does the Student Body President have the power “represent” positions within the SGA and exercise their powers despite not being in that branch or part of that Committee; and what does represent mean in the SGA Constitution?
Third, after determining what represent means in the Constitution, can the Court determine that Ritchie improperly represented the association?
Fourth, after determining what “represent” means in the Constitution, can the Court determine that Ritchie misused his position as Student Body President by taking actions that only the ECC can take?
Fifth, does this Constitute a violation of position if Jeremiah and Josh did not confirm receipt of EC Barker’s email?
Sixth, does this Constitute an elections case?
Answer:
First, The Court determined that because ECC Barker had directed IT to remove the candidate from the ballot, Ritchie’s telling IT to keep the candidate on the ballot constituted a direction and thus affected the outcome of the election. The Court determined that the appropriate action would have been to direct IT to speak to the ECC or candidate directly instead of making the decision on his own.
Second, The Student Court determined that “Represent,” as stated in the Constitution, does not allow the President to conduct the jobs of other branches or positions in SGA. Represent was determined to be more figurative, in that the President shall represent by ensuring that each position is conducting their duty as prescribed by the Constitution. The Court determined that if the President were allowed to “represent” individuals of the Association in the way that was argued by Ritchie, it would defeat the purpose of the ECC and other leaders within SGA.
Third, The Court in a 3-2 vote determined that Ritchie misrepresented the members of the Association by attempting to represent the ECC in a matter regarding Elections.
Fourth, The Court, in a unanimous decision, agreed that Ritchie misused his position to make decisions that he was not entitled to make.
Fifth, The Court decided that although it was uncertain whether Josh and Jeremiah received ECC Barker’s email at the time, that did not change the fact that Ritchie gave IT a directive from a position in which he was not authorized to do so.
Sixth, it was argued between both parties as to whether this was an elections case. ECC Barker argued because Camden Ritchie himself was not a candidate, even though this case involved and affected elections, because it involved no slates, it was not an elections case. Ritchie argued the opposite, that because it involved and would affect elections, that the case should be treated as an elections case. The Court unanimously agreed to treat the case as a conduct case against a non-election member of the association thus, the hearing proceeded as a non-elections case.
In a majority opinion written by Zachary Weston it was written, “It is the opinion of the court that the course of action taken by the defendant is a clear violation of the EKU Student Code of Conduct and SGA Bylaws. Because the defendant contacted EKU IT for an elections related matter, informed them of elections procedure, and then gave them a directive, the defendant superseded the authority of the SGA Elections committee, and acted improperly. From the court’s perspective, the only behavior solicited by the bylaws would be for any member of SGA to, instead of saying anything, refer the entity asking questions to the Committee responsible for whatever the entity is asking about. Any response, correct or otherwise, is not acceptable.”
The Student Voice Since 1954
Since the establishment of the Student Government Association nearly seventy years ago we have been striving towards our goal of representing our fellow peers, and promoting student self-governance. The SGA has been referred to by many names and has been led by sixty-seven student body presidents.
First Thoughts
The first recorded idea for a student government at EKU was proposed by President Herman L. Donovan (1928-1941). He made a speech before the student body and faculty in November 1928 during which he laid out the values he observed that they need to strive towards. These goals included personal honesty, protection of public property, sobriety, a higher degree of “comradeship” between students and faculty, and a student government. The Eastern Progress would subsequently publish a Progress Platform in each of their issues for nearly ten years which included a call to organize a student government.
While President Donovan would end his tenure at Eastern before a student government was established, he did continually push for student involvement in administration by placing at least one student on nearly every university committee.
First Organizations
The Open Forum Committee (OFC), founded during the Summer of 1924 (four years before President Donovan’s tenure began), was the closest organization on campus said to have resembled a student government. Sponsored by faculty member, Dr. Anna Schnieb, the committee’s purpose was to provide a line of communication for ideas and concerns between the administration and student body. This committee was the first of its kind in Kentucky, and was composed of all members of the student body. They sponsored a number of events, speakers, and initiatives until they fell into obscurity around 1930.
Their most substantial contribution was the revitalization of a small student loan fund, which awarded at-need students with scholarships of no more than fifty dollars. One of the students who took advantage of this new fund was a young Robert R. Martin, future president of EKU, who received a loan of thirty dollars in 1934.
The Student Relationship Council (SRC) was founded in 1936 as a semi-successor to the Open Forum Committee. Their purpose was to bring about a better understanding between students and faculty members, primarily through the examination of university policy. They also hosted numerous events such as formal dances, fundraisers, and social drives.
In May of 1938, a university committee comprised of students and faculty, presided over by SRC President Otwell Rankin, was formed to study the possible establishment of a student government and write a constitution. Along with the Eastern Progress, the SRC sponsored a vote for the ratification of this constitution on May 28th, 1938, however this vote was defeated by a margin of 335-371. W. J. Moore, who was Dean of the College, suggested that the failure of this vote was due to it being “slanted towards faculty and administration.”
The Second World War
Eastern’s ROTC program was one of the largest in the state, boasting nearly 250 students divided into three batteries and six chosen for Army Air Corp flight training in 1941. When the war began all members were called into active service, and Eastern became a training school both for the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corp (WAAC) and the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP). During this time period Eastern saw a large drop in enrollment, with the majority of civilian students enveloped by a sea of the olive green uniforms of the trainees housed on campus. However, these few civilian students still on campus continued to advocated for student representation in administration. One editorial published in an issue of the Progress in 1942 proclaimed, “We would like to see some real results,” in their demands for a student government. However, with campus focused on the war and other matters, it would still be another 12 years until these efforts would come to fruition.
Powell Building
Room 116