March 17th, 2011 – After a contentious reading during the last senate meeting before spring break, the SGA senate finally heard the amendments to controversial Resolution 43-22
Calling for a Referendum Election Regarding Racial Profiling (see our previous article for more information on the earlier meeting and the events leading up to the events outlined in this article:
http://vanguardvoice.blogspot.com/2011/03/senate-profiles-in-prolonging-racial.html). Apparently it took several highly dedicated progressive caucus Democrats, fourteen registered student organizations, and an entire fiscal committee running out of money to come to this. With no fickle fiscal entanglements senate would have to deal with “governmentally” type issues, the SGA’s least favorite part of their own acronym. <Yuck />. It was certainly an entertaining show that our dear student senate put on for the viewing pleasure of the large contingent of students in support of the resolution as well as the meager teabag-load of four or so College Republicans who came out to watch the proceedings on the resolution. The long awaited showdown began during the open forum when the College Republicans fired the first volley against the resolution.
The argument offered by the two representatives of the College Republicans came down to two points. The first was highlighted in the copies of HB 237 handed out to senators as part of their presentation. They argued that the following clause within the bill would protect against abuses to civil liberties via racial profiling: “
A law enforcement officer of this state or a political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color, or national origin when implementing the requirements of this subsection, except to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution or the State Constitution”. (It should be noted by this observer that it is not entirely clear how a person’s skin color can be considered in cases “
permitted by the United States Constitution or the State Constitution”, unless one refers to the clause that some people are legally three fifths of a person, perhaps making this two-fifths OK to racially profile within certain circumstances? Or that our dumb state’s constitution allows for something typical of a state that looks like a wang and builds a capitol building to match
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/03/florida_capital.html. Who knows what the bill’s authors were thinking on this one?) Furthermore, the College Republican representatives claimed that the question as worded in the original legislation remanded to the Governmental Affairs Committee last senate meeting provided a “straw man” argument in adding “
where the methods raise concerns of racial profiling”. In so doing they argued the question would cause students to vote against anything from Pell grants to several other examples of obviously non-racial profiling related issues, if such a clause were added to a referendum question on those potentially infinite issues. The Republican political activists also denounced the “political activists” in the form of the College Democrats and the other thirteen allied groups, and their attempt to provide students a forum on this issue by claiming it would in some way turn UCF into a production center for “political propaganda”. A point which makes sense to this observer if the question is considered to be misleading (although the
political activists using the term
political activists derisively to describe others and representing a party who is at least partially subsidized by FOX News is not).
However, things really got rolling over an hour later when Senator Lane moved for the senate to consider the resolution, in the midst of the period of time allotted to report backs from Senate committees, in light of the high volume of students waiting to hear that issue be discussed. After an initial balking by Deputy Pro Tempore Friefeld, the senate voted to hear the resolution at that time. At which point, College Democrats Director of Internal Communications Ida Eskamani gave a brief, but quite detailed presentation on the changes that the fourteen RSO’s wished to see enacted and the importance of the legislation to UCF students. Among other points the presentation explained the legal definitions of the terms “racial profiling” and “reasonable suspicion” and how the changes impacted the potential for misuse of the legislation towards individuals of color and the non-wealthy. She started by explaining how the bill which sparked this debate, Florida House Bill 237, was related to an Arizona law which the Department of Homeland Security Report found to increase claims of racial profiling (see:
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_10-63_Mar10.pdf). Amongst the most prominent issues brought up in the presentation was the request by the organizations in support of the referendum was the rewording the question to drop the term “racial profiling” and add the term “”reasonable suspicion”. The new question read:
“Do you support or not support immigration legislation which requires law enforcement to use “reasonable suspicion” to determine the immigration status of lawfully detained individuals?”
After a series of pointed questions from Deputy Pro Tempores Hardman and Friefeld, came the debate portion of the hearing and the avalanche of amendments which highlighted issues both proposed by the students and their allies in the legislature and the SGA senatorial opposition. There was simply too much action to fully disclose in this report, but this reporter shall attempt to capture the more relevant reasoning employed and the actions taken as a result. If one wishes to hear a complete accounting of the meeting it may be public records requested from
ccoffey@ucf.edu, in accordance with Florida’s only sane law …errr, pardon….Florida’s Sunshine Law. To provide some background on the actions to come, let us review some of the arguments for and against the resolution.
As in the last time this issue was heard, a major argument against the resolution was that it was not the place of the Student Government Association to get involved in these matters. According to these senators, led by Pro-Tempore’s Office and Senator Kaplan, it was their opinion that within this legislative branch of the Student Government Association this issue was too political and thus was not germane to the focus of the constitutionally mandated forum for the representation of student interests in a democratic manner. They expressed their concern that if issues like this were allowed to be debated in senate concern over allowing these issues to be debate in senate would stall the ability of senate to debate issues of cultural food and deciding the very complex and difficult decision of whether they should send condolences to recently deceased knights. Some potentially imaginary and extra-dimensional sources, close to senate explain that in particular the question of whether to sending a grieving family a condolence letter is not as simple as one may believe. It is also possible that senate could potentially send the relatives of the deceased Knight contents of their lint traps or a box containing a dead cat.
In news more relevant to this dimension, there was an attempt to explain that former Governmental Affairs Chair Stephen Mortellaro specifically wrote and managed to help pass the very type of referendum election for the reasons debated on today by the students proposing it. Furthermore, that issues such as the one presented here constitute the very purpose of the Governmental Affairs Committee as outlined in SGA statutes. Also, that this was particularly relevant to UCF as there are documented cases of this already affecting the university prior to the passage of HB 237 (see
UCF professor claims racial profiling, says police called her 'drug user, crack head and liar’ http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-08-31/news/os-ucf-racial-profiling-alleged-20100831_1_ucf-police-mixed-race-assistant-professor). This elicited blank stares and the chirping of crickets.
A more rational concern was raised by Governmental Affairs Vice-Chair Arbos. Vice Chair Arbos noted that only approximately 5% of students voted in the last senate elections in the fall of 2010, and that as such it was not appropriate for the current senators to represent the entire university student body of more than 56,000. Some senators pointed out that the students had the ability to vote and that the roughly 95% had essentially consented to the current representation by choosing to not vote. Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Hellinger mentioned that this was the best possible way to gain an accurate cross section of student opinion on this issue as the turnout numbers would be available along with the decision ultimately made by the students who chose to vote. He proceeded to point out that the referendum was the most efficient and convenient way of reaching out to the greatest number of students.
Some other arguments include Deputy Pro Tempore Friefeld’s claim that the student body could not be counted on to be properly educated on this issue by themselves. To which Services and Public Relations Vice-Chair Warrick responded that changes to the question were available on the power point presentation which was at that point displayed for Senate, and that responsible senators should be keeping track of amendments anyway. However, what should have been the end of the hour plus long verbal brawl was Senator Lane’s rude injection of reality by noting that by state law the student government would have to place any referendum question on the ballot that was called for by the petition signatures of roughly 900 students. In light of the approximately fifty students from the fourteen RSO coalition were able to maintain themselves through what was then about three hours of the even more inane than usual senate meeting, this appears to be a certain reality. In addition, SGA would be responsible for spending additional money on the pay for elections officials to hold another election specifically for the referendum, instead of simply allowing it to be placed on the ballot during presidential elections. Unmentioned was the near certainty that even less students would turn out for an election that did not involve a major candidate race.
Over the course of the heated debate to come the question was eventually put in its final form, the following was eventually voted on by the student senate:
“Do you support or not support the State passing legislation that requires local law enforcement to use the practice of “reasonable suspicion” to decide whether or not to check the immigration status of lawfully detained individuals?”
It is truly difficult to chronicle the transfinite nature of all too many a senator’s ability to contort oneself in the most asinine way possible. Suffice to say that the only way to truly do so is to public records request the meeting and play it back while seal-spankingly high. Somehow the resolution managed to make its way passed second reading, but faltered after that. Unfortunately, due to the late introduction of the resolution it was necessary to pass the bill through second and third readings in one sitting. There was however, a great deal of confusion that ensued on how to actually place the resolution on third reading. Members of the opposition attempted at several points to attempt to kill the possibility of passing the resolution through the strict and potentially spurious application of Robert’s Rules of Order. Several senators attempted to “reconsider their votes” in an attempt to bring about a vote to place the resolution on third reading. At one point College Facilitation Committee Chair Bryant “forgot” how he voted in a previous attempt to bring the resolution to a third reading, to bypass the meddlesome anal blockade of reasonable student service. After a narrowly won vote to bring the resolution onto third reading, Senator Kaplan explained to Speaker Pope that senate rules require a two-thirds vote to bring up a bill on third reading during the same meeting in which it passed second reading. At which point Speaker Pope profusely apologized for “wasting the time” of senate and that of the assembled students.
Eventually, an opponent of the bill, Senator Moesch, called for a reconsideration of his vote in which he explained was due to his unwillingness to allow such maneuvers to deny the resolution a right to a vote. Swayed members of the opposition changed their votes and voted in favor of passing the resolution onto third reading. Despite another round of debate on the legislation, and Senator Lane’s reiteration that the student group would be able to collect the 900 signatures after the presidential election (and what it would result in), the resolution failed to obtain the two-thirds vote required to pass a resolution for a student referendum. The coalition members refused to be seated and instead attempted to show their displeasure at the inability for the senate to do something as simple as place a timely and well written referendum question on the ballot. This tactic assumed that the senators who fought so hard against bringing up a simple referendum question for a presidential election were capable of shame or the ability to understand why they should possibly be ashamed. Following this exchange coalition members have stated to the Voce that they will collect the requisite number of petitions, and hold a referendum question on this issue, regardless of whether SGA’s senate likes it or not. We here at the Vanguard Voice will continue to keep you updated on this story as it develops, as well as other important issues concerning the student body.
