O'Donoghue penalty
By LAURA ROMPF
Assistant News Editor
In an emergency meeting last night, the Senate passed an amendment 16-6 decreasing the campaign suspension on the Brian O'Donoghue /Brooke Norton campaign. The bylaw passed by the Senate in Wednesday night's meeting was approved yesterday by Joe Cassidy, director of Student Affairs. This allowed the senate to reduce, increase or change the imposed penalty by the Elections Committee.
"We agreed [Wednesday] night that there was a violation," said Carroll Hall senator Patrick O'Donnell. "A penalty needed to be imposed on the O'Donoghue/Norton campaign. However, we are allowed to reduce, increase or change the other penalty. I vote that we make the suspension one day because the two day punishment is entirely unfair. I do have confidence in the Judicial Committee, but the punishment is unjust. Enough damage has already been done to their campaign."
O'Donnell also stressed that the Judicial Council's punishment was handed out against the rules of the constitution. The committee formed to decide the punishment did not meet the constitution quotas, and thus their punishment was "null and void," O'Donnell said. However, the senate did agree that a violation did occur and they should review the situation.
Before debate began, Senator O'Donoghue left the floor. "I am removing myself from the debate for obvious reasons," he said. "However, I want everyone to know that this appeal did not come from us. It came from outside our campaign."
Overall, the senators wanted to finalize the decision. "Rules are rules," said Fisher senator Philip Dittmar. "We decided that last night. For now let's make a decision and move on."
Knott senator Ed Foy added, "Let's get this over with now."
Some senators were upset the decision was reconsidered.
"We made a decision," said Zahm senator Ryan Becker. "Now to go back 24 hours later and hear this again ... we have to support the Judicial Committee and go with our original ruling."
Candice Marcum, Welsh Family Hall senator argued otherwise. "[Wednesday] night it came down to two decisions — either extreme left or right," she said. "There was no room in the middle. Now there is much more of a variety on what we can do."
Off campus senator Pat Foy urged the senate to look at the situation objectively. "Do what is right," he said. "Last night, the decision didn't work out for several reasons. We made a mistake, but that doesn't mean we have to make another mistake tonight. The punishment must match the crime."
Bridget Tomes from Cavanaugh disagreed.
"I do not think we made a mistake last night," she said. "I do not think that the senate is a supreme body. It was the job of the Judicial Council and I think the punishment should stand."
After debate ended, O'Donnell restated that the Judicial Council did not follow the rules of the constitution and thus an amendment should be made on the punishment.
"I want to reiterate what Pat [Foy] said: Do what's just. Do what's right," O'Donnell said. "I don't think the Judicial Council made the right decision and the constitution was not followed. The punishment should stand at a one day suspension."
Kelly Folks, Judicial Council President, was apologetic for the mistake, but stood behind her original punishment. "I did not make this decision by myself," she said. "I made it by consulting many others. I know this is not what technically should have been done, and I apologize for that. But the issue is not the ethics of my decision. Please leave the ethics out of this."
After debate, the amendment was brought to the floor and with 16 of 22 votes, it passed.
"I think with the ruling we made [Wednesday] night we were going to deal with many apathetic voters," said Walsh senator Kate McCarthy. "Not only apathetic, but we would have confused apathetic voters. By the amendment tonight, we decreased the confusion and allowed voters to receive the most information possible. The voters now have the choice to make the most informed, best decision."
Pat Foy agreed.
"The senate thought a candidate going on a WVFI broadcast that reaches maybe three people ... did not warrant a two day suspension," he said. "We thought one day was more appropriate for the violation."
Overall, O'Donoghue's outlook was positive.
"We're happy [with the amendment], no doubt — especially because the appeal came from outside our campaign," he said. "It's been a trial but we never lost faith. We're going to continue on to make this University better."
All News Stories for Friday, February 11, 2000
