I'd just like to take a quick moment to once again take issue with just
about everything Mr. Lowman has to say.
Mr. Lowman equates President Douglas' "bad credit" situation with having an
outstanding debt to VISA. What Mr. Lowman seems to be failing at is
recognizing that the financial infractions committed by the President were
committed against the student body and its interests. Do I owe money?
Yes! Do I owe, or have I ever owed, money to the student body that I did
not have permission to borrow in the first place? Absolutely not! That,
Mr. Lowman, is the relevant question. We have a duty to investigate abuses
of power by the executive.
Mr. Lowman goes on to say that there is no potential issue raised by a lack
of trust in the SGA office ("Is trust with the office members a duty of the
president. ABOSLUTELY NOT"). Again he is wrong. What he has failed to
realize on this point is that with trust goes credibility and with
credibility goes effectiveness. A dysfunctional office is in no one's best
Mr. Lowman would also be well served to note that Treasurer Holmes' memo
does not constitute even a proposed list of articles of impeachment.
Senator Chris Allen.
At 02:59 PM 12/7/98 -0500, you wrote:
>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.