The Howard University Student Association (HUSA) senate held its final appointments and confirmations vote for the judiciary, elections commissioner and executive department directors earlier this month. What was meant to be a standard HUSA Senate hearing was filled with debate amongst senators and an unconfirmed appointee.
Discussion started when those appointed to HUSA executive departments were not in attendance.
Chairwoman of the Senate, Leah Peterson, said she was notified an hour before the meeting that executive appointees were planning to be absent in protest of Senate procedures and their treatment throughout the appointee process. Executive appointees are recommended through a senate appointment and confirmations committee, and are unelected student leaders that direct the various departments surrounding campus life (Department of Public Safety, Department of Student Health etc.) if confirmed.
Though attendance is not required by the HUSA constitution, multiple senators, such as Senator Zion Eldridge, voiced their dismay over the absences.
“As somebody who has voted on nominees before, it’s not fair to put it all on one person but …number two in order to be objective and hear their perspective, how can we be objective if we don’t know why they’re absent,” Senator Eldridge said. Other senators expressed sentiments that the absence was unprofessional and, as such, should not be confirmed.
HUSA Vice President Peyton Garcia said appointees were absent due to time conflicts, Senate delays and debate over whether attendance was standard precedent.
Garcia added that there was an attempt by HUSA President Naesoj Ware to converse with the Senate on appointee attendance, though Peterson denied the existence of an attempt immediately.
Senator Luke Pierre, co-chair of the appointments and confirmations committee felt that appointee attendance was not relevant to their qualifications and therefore their confirmation.
“Senators have had ample time to ask questions to each nominee. Senators have also had ample time to go back and look at records of each nominee,” Pierre said. The other co-chair, Kionne McGee, opposed Pierre’s sentiment.
“Over the course of the summer as co-chair, one of the things that really convinced me about these appointees was the promise of transparency and collaboration of our branches. However, this has been a slap in the face to not show up… almost as if we do not matter,” said McGee.
Senators also raised concerns about stipends. Under the constitution, executive directors receive 1.078 percent of the student stipend budget, sourced from the student activity fee and the chief of staff receives about 1.5 percent.
“I tell people all the time — that check comes everyday on time, doesn’t miss. So if you want the relationship, it has to go both ways,” Eldridge said.
Garcia attempted to defend the absent executive appointees during the vote, but majority of the senators were unwilling to vote in absent appointments. The remaining executive branch appointment confirmations were tabled first to the end of the meeting and after HUSA President Ware joined the meeting to defend her appointees, the senate decided to move the remaining to a different date.
While present at the meeting, President Ware claimed that there was never an official protest by executive appointees and that the word “protest” had “vilified my directors from the beginning.”
Though Senate records don’t show confirmations, on Sept. 19 HUSA announced all department directors. Both branches declined to comment.
Judiciary appointee Zikei Brooks was unconfirmed due to absence and the judiciary branch clarified that they had no knowledge of the executive appointee protest.
A debate was had towards the end of the hearing between Peterson and Ware on the origin of the appointee protest claim. Peterson, who as chairwoman has the power to start and stop comments during senate sessions, refused to acknowledge the president’s replies, which President Ware said was unconstitutional.
Victoria Bracco, a judiciary appointee who was confirmed during the meeting, used part of her confirmation comments to explain how HUSA’s constitutional design, which is modeled after the U.S. Constitution, does not necessarily accommodate the model and needs of student leadership.
“It seems like there’s a lot of tension in our constitution right now and I really encourage you guys all to to build new normative structures between each other that are more respectful, and it seems like you guys are attempting to do that,” said Bracco.
Bracco, a second year at the Howard University School of Law, gave more insight on the role HUSA’s constitution plays in the values of student leadership.
“Student government involves complexity also in its constituency and leadership as being students is the primary focus. Students are limited in their time and must effectively prioritize to be effective,” Bracco said.
Bracco recommends that all students look at alternative forms of constitutions that structure power distribution and policy untraditionally.
“The frequency of graduation creates inherent transition issues between academic years, as well as issues in building and maintaining long term efforts for institutional reform. Keeping unique interests like this should be in front of mind in assessing the effectiveness of the constitution,” she added.
Bracco said their appointment process was generally positive and that the judiciary, overall, has had positive interactions with the other branches of government.
“We cannot speak to the perception of the judiciary by our sister branches. We can only say the judiciary exists only as much as it is respected by other student leaders and students at large. We are committed to carrying out the responsibilities in a way that upholds the trust placed in our role,” Bracco said on behalf of the judiciary.
The meeting ended with public condemnation from students and student leaders alike of the nature of the meeting, many saying that the senate had engaged not in procedure, but personal misgivings.
“The disagreement between senate and HUSA has been growing since I’ve been in student government and continued to grow, but the decorum that I saw today is very disappointing,” Senator Salimah Scott said. “You must put the students first and I would like you all to evaluate as individuals.”
Kourtland Marcotte, a freshman political science major from Louisiana, was an observer of the meeting. He said both the Thursday meeting and his knowledge on the spring elections controversies have severely impacted his trust in student leadership.
“They’re getting too caught up on ‘how is Constitution Avenue doing it’ or ‘how is the White House doing it,’” said Marcotte. “We should be saying ‘ok we have a democratic process here at Howard, let’s show them how to lead.”
On Sept. 14, the judiciary committee released constitutional recommendations, including changes to confirmation procedures, but denied the Sept. 10 meeting was a factor.
Copy edited by D’Nyah Jefferson – Philmore
