SA directors under review


Erik Anderson | Northern Star Student Association senators (from left) Brian Troutman, Derek Koegel, Nick Wians and Mike Theodore listen to a speaker during the SA Peformance Review Wednesday night at the Holmes Student Center.

By Jacqueline Evans

The Student Association Senate Procedural Review Committee conducted a review of requested SA directors Wednesday night in the Holmes Student Center.

Directors “who did not have tangible evidence of what they’ve been doing” this academic year were up for review, said Sen. Nik Champion.

Chief of Staff Josh Venaas was one of the SA members under review. Committee members expressed their concern to Venaas about keeping track of what exactly directors were doing.

“I personally keep track of their progress by communicating with them on a constant basis,” Venaas said.

Members of the committee questioned how the Senate will be kept informed of directors’ work and progress in the absence of weekly reports.

“If a director isn’t doing his job, how will we know?” Champion asked.

Venaas said the bylaws were too vague about how to report directors’ progress. Venaas suggested the review committee change the bylaws to be more specific on how to notify the Senate of directors’ work.

According to Article IV, Section 1, Part F of the SA Constitution, “Every officer of the Student Association shall submit a written or oral report of their activities to the Senate each month.”

Additionally, Article III, Section 4, Part A.7 of the SA Bylaws states that, “All cabinet members, regardless of their position…Shall attend weekly staff meetings, prepare weekly written staff reports and attend meetings of the Student Association Senate to provide reports as required by the Senate and President.”

The committee also requested the time cards of the directors from Venaas, but he said he was not allowed to reveal such information because it is a human resource policy.

In addition, the committee inquired about reprimands for directors failing to complete weekly reports.

“There is no specific reprimand if directors do not provide reports for the Senate,” Venaas said.

Venaas recommended that the procedural review committee, which is in charge of procedural changes, looks into a system that supports the type of information the Senate requests.

Alyssa Ford, director of cultural affairs, was also up for review.

Ford reported on her efforts to improve the working relationships between resource centers on campus and the SA.

“There was a broken connection between resource centers and the SA,” Ford said. “I have worked to help promote cultural programs and let the student voice be heard through my position.”

Members of the committee questioned Ford about programs she hosted and how she publicized them.

“Through my position I hosted the Mardi Gras Fat Tuesday event on March 8, and I promoted the event by utilizing social media networks and giving out handbills,” Ford said.

The committee also planned to review Elliot Echols, director of Athletics and Recreation Services, and Deldric Henderson, director of organizational development. Both Echols and Henderson said they were unable to attend due to a last minute room change that they were unaware of. The committee plans to meet with them later this week to complete their reviews. Echols is currently a candidate for SA President.

Committee Chairman Mike Theodore said he felt these types of reviews are necessary to keep track of what directors are doing.

“We don’t really know what the directors are doing, and that is our biggest concern,” he said.