After questions concerning more than $18,000 allocated to student organizations throughout the year were raised Wednesday, Residence Halls Association officials said the association will not request any money back.
Low attendance at Wednesday’s meeting led to the debate of whether the association has been meeting at quorum - the legal number of members needed present to vote on issues - this year and whether the organization’s business during spring semester had been valid.
John Sturk, RHA internal vice president, said that since the money is already gone it is not an issue, but constitutional interpretations of quorum are still up for debate.
“I am sure we are going to take a closer look at it for next year,” said Sturk, who came into his position April 10.
“We will make sure something like this doesn’t happen again. We are going to clean it up as soon as we can. People make mistakes.”
Former RHA Internal Vice President Josh Minor said the quorum problem arose because of a misinterpretation of the association’s bylaws. All business conducted by the general assembly was valid last semester, he said.
“Throughout the fall, we didn’t have 39 voting seats, we added five,” Minor said. “That changes what quorum would have been.”
In January, the five lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender caucuses were given voting seats on the RHA General Assembly. The caucuses are Brody Residents In Great Harmony Together, People Respecting the Individuality of Students at MSU, Respecting Individuals on Neutral Ground, Spectrum and People Respecting Individuality Diversity and Equality.
Sturk, who was formerly the North American Indian Student Organization RHA representative, said quorum was being determined on a meeting-by-meeting basis by the average number of representatives attending the three previous meetings. Representatives not attending the last four meetings, in accordance with RHA bylaws, were not counted, he said.
But Case Hall Rep. Adam Raezler, who raised the quorum question, said that standard is too loose.
“We should not be operating by past traditions of former administrations - traditions that were not ever approved by students or residence halls,” he said. “All this is going to do is put into question our constitution and our credibility with the students. What it shows is there are major internal problems within the organization.”
The association’s constitution, which was approved in November by the student body, says, “two-thirds of voting members of the general assembly,” or 26 members, must be present for quorum.
“The constitution clearly states that quorum is two-thirds of all recognized halls and CORES and COPS groups, not of the ones present,” Raezler said.
But BRIGHT Rep. Patrick Walker said he thinks the quorum challenge is not a constitutional one but personal problems between Sturk and Raezler.
“I think it was personally done out of spite,” Walker said. “There has been a running feud between the Case Hall rep and the IVP. I just saw this as another attempt to disrupt his business.
“If it is brought up again, seeing former VPs are helping, I don’t think the issue will last very long.”
Raezler was joined by Bryan Hall Rep. Fred Sharp in questioning quorum policies.
Sharp said he doesn’t agree with executive board members’ open interpretation of the RHA constitution.
“What they had been doing is two-thirds of the people attending the previous meeting,” Sharp said. “But according to the constitution, it’s only two-thirds of those that have named an RHA rep. I believe there are 12 organizations who don’t have reps. So then the required number would be two-thirds of 27.”
He said he still feels as strongly about it as he did at the Wednesday meeting and hopes the association will follow its constitution.
