Elected "members" of the SGA:
I have reviewed the fifteen "proposed" articles of impeachment drafted
by the distinguished Treasurer. As part of the minority of students who
are alert to the issues of the student government I feel that it is my
duty to report on them. I would like you all to note that Christopher
E. Lowman rises in unilaterial OPPOSITION to the "articles." I would
also like you to note that I am NOT supporting our Executive officer,
rather I will argue that to impeach based on these articles would be a
disgrace to the art of politics and to the student body.
Why? The two main "tacks" that Treasurer Holmes uses are, as I like to
call: (1) "The Bad Credit Approach" (2) "The Lack of
Participation/Trust" approach. It should also be noticed that the
majority of points raised are in reference to the former, rather than
latter which, I would argue, biases what should be an objective document
due to the position of the author.
(1) Holmes raises several points that Douglas should not be President
based on outstanding debts that he has with the SGA i.e. use of a Mobil
card, meal card, etc. First, I would urge all of you to IGNORE the
detailed calculations as they are rhetorical in nature and IRRELEVANT.
What is relevant is whether or not you are going to impeach Douglas
based on the fact that he owes money. If this is the case, then you
have to ask yourselves the question, "do I owe any money?" If you
answer "yes" to this self-directed question and vote "yea" to impeach
the President knowing that you calculated his poor credit in to your
decision, then you must RESIGN immediately. If you vote "yea" and
calculate his poor credit and DO NOT resign, then you would be acting
hyprocritically and unfairly. If Doulgas owed $1,000 to the Visa
corporation would you impeach him? Whether or not he owes money to the
SGA or VISA is not the issue at stake. It's the principle behind both
cases, of whether or not bad credit = impeach. Clearly the answer is
NO, NO, NO, NO.
(2) In my opinion Holmes raises valid points regarding Douglas' lack of
attendance at certain meetings. He argues that because of this lack of
attendance and other factors the "trust" that Douglas had with the
officer members (Sally/Blanka) and the students was weakened. Is trust
with the officer members a duty of the President? ABSOLUTELY NOT. The
office members are not part of his constituency and therefore their
trust of him means about as much as a diploma from UVM. Next, can you
successfully gauge the loss of "trust" amongst the student body? Only
through polling, which again doesn't really mean that much. The
question that needs to be asked is whether or not you are going to
impeach Douglas based on his lack of attendance the answer again is NO,
NO, NO, NO.
In conclusion the "articles" of impeachment are filled with persuasive
rhetoric and not with substance. There are TWO issues (1) Bad Credit
and (2) Lack of Participation/Trust. Are we going to impeach a
President because he missed a few meetings? No way, that is bad policy.