The method some Student Association senators used to try to remove President Huda Scheidelman from office was inappropriate and ineffective.

Senators Galvin Kennedy and James Mertes had some legitimate concerns about Scheidelman’s leadership capabilities, but their inadequacy in preparing an impeachment petition prevented them from arguing as they wanted.

The most blatant failure in the petition was the senators’ negligence in supplying the senate with a bill of particulars, which would have outlined the specific charges against Scheidelman they wanted to address.

Kennedy and Mertes claimed they had more reasons to remove Scheidelman than just the questionable actions of the executive board when it unconstitutionally allowed the Black Student Union to charge admission to black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan’s speech on Jan. 30. However, about 75 percent of the impeachment petition was dedicated to this charge.

This hurt the petitioners because they were unable to discuss other points against Scheidelman because they were not mentioned in the petition. Kennedy was even ruled out of order for a second time and asked to leave the meeting when he questioned Scheidelman’s ethics when she recommended Nick Valadez at the top of a list of three people to fill an opening in the DeKalb City Council last semester. Kennedy’s argument was that Scheidleman did not make an objective recommendation to the council because she dated Valadez.

If the petitioners mentioned their charge in a bill of particulars, which could have even been turned in after the petition was filed, they could have addressed the issue.

By petitioning for Scheidelman’s impeachment and then withdrawing it even though Kennedy and Mertes weren’t allowed to present all of their arguments hurt their credibility and that of the senate. It appeared to most as though Kennedy and Mertes did not plan to carry out the petition. It seemed as though they only wanted to put a scare in Scheidelman.

If its purpose was to scare Scheidelman and show disapproval of her actions, other avenues should have been taken.

Perhaps instead of trying to impeach Scheidelman, Kennedy and Mertes should have tried something the senate might have been more easy to agree with—such as a vote of no confidence.

With such a vote, senators could tell Scheidelman they were not happy with her without the direct threat of removal.

The petitioners claimed they had good intentions and wanted to improve the senate by beginning with removing the “cancer.” But they failed by not following through with their petition and not putting it together right in the first place.

Some valid points were raised by various senators at the end of the meeting about moving on from the impeachment issue and just representing and working for students. Hopefully, at least this was gained from Sunday night’s meeting.

But Sunday should not be forgotten easily because it can prove to be a reminder of what the SA should not be worrying about—internal quarrels.