SGA Members Should Have Disclosed Conflict of Interest in PERIOD Endorsement

Source: Period at Boston University Facebook

On March 6, student government voted to endorse a particular student group during its general assembly meeting. The motion passed unanimously after brief discussion from six senate members. As a result, one student organization now stands above all others on campus with its political clout and endorsement from the most powerful lobbying group on campus: student government. Seems clean right?

Well, what if I told you that half of the members who spoke were members of the student group that SGA endorsed? What if I told you that these members did not disclose their membership to the senate while they were contributing in a discussion about whether to upgrade the status of their very own student group? It would change the narrative and raise some serious questions, wouldn’t it? Well, that’s what happened.

Vice President Savannah Seely, Parliamentarian Katie Hicken and Sen. Caleb Morrison each contributed to the discussion, even put their organization and its mission in a positive light, but without disclosing their ties to PERIOD International (PERIOD) chapter on campus as leaders. Setting aside intent, this amounts to a tacit abuse of office.

Hicken, Morrison and Seely should have disclosed their roles in PERIOD so that voting members could have known that their contributions to the review process came from people who stood to personally gain from the senate's endorsement. Senators could have factored this into their decision.

These members also should not have voted since collectively they are the actual party in question. They are the student group. They had no right to have a say in using SGA to advance their own interests. This is cronyism! 

Anyone would have been affected by the possibility of improving one's own status and student group in a vote like that. Just the possibility of doing so itself introduces a temptation in the line of duty that would make it inappropriate for any person to participate in a decision such as this. Therefore, it was inappropriate for members to vote under these conditions.

What is even more curious about these members' behavior is that both Seely and Morrison seemed to go out of their way to refer to their own group in the third person. Seely repeatedly referred to PERIOD as “they” and Morrison said “the charter at the school here” when referring to his own student group and mission statement. It is puzzling.

Also, when Parliamentarian Hicken was asked “What does it mean” if SGA endorses the group, she replied “It’s just a formality,” only to have Seely contradict her moments later by saying an endorsement was an endowment of political power.

Hicken never should have been in a position to officiate this discussion since, as the founder and student leader of Period International at UT Tyler, SHE IS PARTY to the student group in question. This was a huge conflict of interest.

Overall, I don’t know that these students had sinister motives. I don’t even know if they knew how to process something like conflict of interest since most people learn about this concept in upper level coursework. But maybe I’m being too easy on them since conflict of interest is also rather intuitive. (Why else would Seely blatantly refer to her own group as “them” unless she didn’t know she was a part of the group--which is unlikely given her comments--or unless she intentionally tried to conceal her tie to the organization?) I don’t want anybody to slam these three, but come on, people. This wasn't hard.

Hicken, Morrison and Seely need to explain the reason for their lack of disclosure. Furthermore, a senator should “move to reconsider” SGA’s endorsement at next week’s meeting so that all members can have another chance to vote on PERIOD's endorsement in light of this conflict of interest information.

Katie Hicken, Caleb Morrison and Savannah Seely should have disclosed their conflicts of interest and abstained from voting in March 6’s vote to endorse their student organization, in which they themselves are the leaders. This behavior is seriously inappropriate for student government members. The integrity of student government is at stake.

WATCH the discussion here or READ the rough transcript here. 

Twitter: @jhescock