[Admin]

If you have not heard yet, you will soon read about it on the Poly Post.

The ASI senators brought about a vote of "No Confidence" on the current
ASI president (Jason Dyogi) to request him to withdraw from the current Presidential race for the upcoming 2004-2005 academic term. The senators had to go against the ASI bylaws and had to request for the by-laws to be suspended for this particular meeting as they made a discussion item (which normally is given at least one week for the senators to speak with their councils in their college and ask them how they should vote on a topic as their duty is to voice the decisions of their college and not their own) an action item to vote, hence making a personal vote. Our council had not heard of any concerns in regards to our ASI president being unfit. This is the first we have heard about it, one week before the president's term is finished and one week before elections. (Nine months later) It appears to me that if an officer is unfit for a position one month should be enough time to see this and this person should have been dismissed and replaced with a qualified candidate. One senator did ask to postpone the vote in order to bring this up to his council. His request was denied. Surprisingly enough, the authors of the proposal and the majority of the sponsors for the vote are supporters of
other opponents running for president this year. Ah...how campaigning
schemes come in all forms. Now lets look at a Senator's duties...

A senator's duty, ASI bylaws 2003-2004 Article XVII section III Duty of Loyalty. The duty of loyalty requires Senators and officers to subordinate their personal interests to the welfare of the students and of the corporation. Section IV Conflict of interest. A Senator's and Officer's fiduciary duty requires that they make a full disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest that might arise in any corporate transaction. Now how many councils were not informed of their senator's decision to vote on their own without consulting their councils? Why had the senators not brought this issue up until 1 week before elections? If this was a real concern why did they allow for 9 months to pass before taking action on this issue? It is to my understanding that most of the Senators had at least one weeks notice and could have consulted with their councils before making a vote on their own. Is this within the Senator's jurisdiction or are they making a personal vote but using their council's name? Is this a real concern or just a campaigning scheme? Just something to think about...