The Council Calls Meeting to Discuss Final Deliberation of the SBP Election
The King’s Council, consisting of the ten House Presidents and the Cabinet, congregated in the Founders Room for roughly two hours on Monday. I I Photo credit to Morgan Chittum
The King’s Council held a last-minute meeting to discuss the final deliberation of the recent Student Body President election on Monday night.
According to incumbent SBP Koby Jackson, the council had one major topic discuss: to determine how the Council would respond to the recent actions taken by Student Development to reopen the 2020 SBP run-off voting.
Last Friday, on Feb. 28, Colin Phillips won the election by 11 votes after a runoff and an unprecedented tie. He and former SBP candidate Madelynn Kaufmann had 157 votes, according to Dean of Students David Leedy in an email to the Student Body.
At 12:14 p.m., a school-wide email was sent out, announcing that the ballot would reopen from 12:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. that day. Final results were then announced in the Fish Bowl at 4:25 p.m., where Phillips was declared next year’s SBP.
In the history of SBP elections, there has never been a tie, according to Jackson.
I I Photo courtesy of Morgan Chittum
As referenced in Leedy’s email, Section six of Appendix A states, “In the event that a run-off election is conducted between two candidates resulting in a tie, an emergency meeting of The King’s Council will be called to determine the new Student Body President. This meeting shall consist of all members of The King’s Council, except any members who are also candidates in the run-off. A simple majority vote of The King’s Council will be required for electing a new Student Body President. Voting will be taken by ballot. Proxies will not be allowed to attend.”
After the tie was announced, seven House Presidents approached Director of Student Development Jonathan Sheaffer, asserting that the election was unconstitutional. This account was confirmed by Sheaffer and several House Presidents at the Council meeting.
Sheaffer summarized the interaction in an email to EST.
“I explained how the proceedings were directly in line with the Constitution (the Constitution was cited in the email to the Student Body). We discussed it and could not reach a consensus interpreting the Constitution. The Presidents never asked for a meeting and never asked to delay the election, only that the election be canceled and that Article II, section six be immediately invoked (an option meant as a last resort for breaking a stalemate), allowing the Council to make the final decision. Because the election was clearly constitutionally defensible, it proceeded as planned.”
Sheaffer elaborated on the situation, describing the House Presidents as those who care deeply about the King’s community.
“The House Presidents are incredible men and women who love this community deeply. The same can be said of the Student Development team.” Sheaffer said. “What gives me hope is that all involved are on the same team, working together to do what is best for the King's community.”
The King’s Council, consisting of the ten House Presidents and the Cabinet, congregated in the Founders Room for roughly two hours on Monday. The Council meeting began in prayer led by the Director of Spiritual Life, Isaac Coston.
From the start, Jackson emphasized the importance of unity and open discourse throughout the night.
“If we want to make a decision and if we want to sign our name to something, I think it carries a lot more weight as a Council, rather than having ten House Presidents or four house presidents,” Jackson said. “After this meeting, if we can’t reach a consensus, that is fine. But at least we had a conversation.”
Director of Student Organizations, Madelynn Kaufmann encouraged the Council to speak freely, regardless if she was a candidate in the election or not.
“I’m here first and foremost as a member of the Council so please feel free to say anything. I know it’s an odd situation. Not necessarily odd, but I am a candidate as well. Outside of this, I am following my own course of action. I won’t be interjecting with that at all,” Kaufmann said.
Jackson then proposed two questions for discussion during the meeting: Does Student Development have a right to interpret the Council’s Constitution? Did they interpret it correctly?
Jackson believes since Student Development has been the facilitators of SBP voting since 2007, that they do have some right to interpret the Constitution. He specified that this was in terms of SBP voting. However, Jackson also expressed that they should not have final interpretative say without consultation.
House President Catie Shoemaker read the official statement for SBA. Shoemaker said that although the Council has given Student Development the power to facilitate voting in various ways, it does not mean they have final interpretative say over what the Council Constitution says.
“The idea that a constitution, outlining the rules of student government, is not subject to the student government itself is absurd and calls into question why we have student government in the first place,” Shoemaker said.
Later, Shoemaker noted that anything said is in no way a comment on Phillip’s competence to lead as SBP, rather a concern of Student Development following proper election procedure.
The majority of the House Presidents voted that the Council has the final authoritative say of their Constitution’s interpretation, while Student Development has the right to some interpretation and the right to give feedback to the Council.
Churchill President Jake Staples said that the Council should have the power to interpret and decide among themselves with most issues. However, if they are giving power to other people, such as in the case of a SBP tie, then the Council should not discount what Student Development has to say.
In the case of a SBP election rarity, such as ambiguity in the Council Constitution, Lewis President Blake Ashley proposed that the Council could potentially have the power to delay a SBP election for 72 hours.
“It’s better to get it right than just to make an announcement,” Ashley said.
In cases such as these, Jackson also proposed having a member of Student Development sit in on a meeting to hear what the Council has to say.
QE1 President, Chelsea McDaniels and Corrie ten Boom President, Emma Oesterreicher, hope to have better communication with Student Development when making decisions such as these in the future.
“It kind of seems like we [Student Development and the Council] both make decisions, but we never actually talk about the decisions,” Oesterreicher said.
During the final moments of the meeting, Ashley and Honor/Reagan President Fritz Scibbe proposed forming a special committee to draft amendments to the Council Constitution. The official motion to form a special committee to draft amendments for the Council’s Constitution, which includes four House Presidents and the SBP was adopted by the Council.
The Council did not officially write any amendments during the meeting.
By the end, the majority of members agreed that there should be some form of an invitation to an apology from Student Development, and believe many of these concerns can be resolved through amendments to the Council Constitution.
Two House Presidents had to step out of the meeting early. Therefore, their formal votes will be conducted via email.
Senior Eddie VanZandt stayed for the entire meeting. He thought it was productive, and was glad that the meeting took place.
“I’m glad all the House Presidents and the Cabinet members got to air their concerns. I think there’s a lot of thoughtful deliberation that needs to happen before we make a final decision on the next steps. I think tonight was a very important and key part of that process.”
The next Council meeting will be on March at 9 p.m..