Dear dear former Senator Lowman,
It appears that you have misinterpreted quite a bit of
information from the memo, so I would like to let you know that I am
available to help you with any kind of translation of what the memo
represents.
The first thing I would like to point out to you is that my memo
was in no way "Articles of Impeachment" as you reffered to them. This
was simply an informational memo for Senators to get the information
that I have had the opportunity to have.
The second thing, is that for someone whom seems to constantly
be worried that students are in some way being cheated, you fail to
really notice that in some cases students have been betrayed here. That
is students money, it is not VISA and it is not my money. It is
student's money and this memo demonstrates a blatent misuse of that
money... and as I argued, an abuse of power, which is how the situation
is relevant.
Once again, I am available for any kind of questions you may
have and I urge you to come forward for any kind of clarification you
may need.
Respecfully,
Andrew Holmes
AJH
Andrew Holmes, SGA Treasurer
B156 Billings Student Center
phone: 802-656-7734
fax: 802-656-7719
[log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris E. Lowman [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 3:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: "Articles of Impeachment"
>
> 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.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Chris Lowman