@thepittnews

Vol. 105Issue 62

Monday, November 3, 2014Pittnews.com

FOOTBALLFOOTBALL

(OBVIOUS PUN)Blewitt

STUDENT GOVERNMENTSTUDENT GOVERNMENT

While the candidates are clam-oring for seats on the Student Government Board, the Elec-tions Committee Chair has lost hers in a way she deems unjust.

The SGB dismissed Elections Chair Lauren Barney from her position on Friday, stating con-cerns over her conduct. Barney will appeal the decision with the SGB Judicial Committee in an attempt to regain her posi-tion. Meanwhile, Kevin Tracey, who previously served as vice chair of the Elections Commit-

tee, will assume Barney’s role.Board President Mike Nites

informed Barney via email on Oct. 31 that the Board had dis-missed her from her position as Elections Chair. Barney ran for Student Government Board in the previous two elections but lost and applied for the Elections Committee in 2014. The Board appointed Barney as Elections Committee Chair in January.

“I was 100 percent blind-sided,” Barney said.

Nites said, in addition to general improper conduct within meetings and hearings, Barney sometimes neglected to

follow Robert’s Rules of Order, the general procedure required for hearings and meetings by the SGB governing code.

One example of Robert’s Rules of Order would include motioning to the committee to vote, which Barney said she doesn’t always remember to do.

“We wanted to make sure that the integrity of the elec-tion is maintained. They could say things that weren’t followed in the rules,” Nites said. “To remove that possibility of that being brought up, we as a Board felt that we had to make the

BOARD BOOTS BARNEY

Cristina Holtzer & Harrison Kaminsky The Pitt News Staff

SGB 3 Heading into its game against No. 24 Duke, the Pitt football team knew receiver Jamison Crowder would make a di! erence for the Blue Devils.

“Hopefully he didn’t get his fl u shot and gets the fl u on Friday or something,” Pitt’s secondary coach Troy Douglas said jokingly to media last Wednesday.

Unfortunately for the Panthers, the senior didn’t take ill, and he fi n-ished Saturday with more receiv-ing yards (165) than the rest of his team combined (101), as well as two touchdowns. His massive day propelled to a Duke 51-48 double

overtime win.“I just felt in the zone today,”

Crowder said afterwards.He did the most damage in the

opening half, as both of his touch-downs and 149 of his yards came then, but the danger he posed throughout created opportunities for other aspects of the o! ense to succeed.

“Thats why they’re a good of-fense. If you commit too much to one or the other, be it the run game or the throw game, [or] one receiver, you have a tendency to be vulnerable to some other [areas],” head coach Paul Chryst said.

The fi rst display of his ability

Chris Blewitt kicked a 25-yard fi eld goal attempt wide left to send the game to overtime.Theo Schwarz | Visual Editor

He reallyAbout two weeks before Student Government Board

elections, the Board dismissed its Elections Committee Chair.

See See page 8page 8

“Chris Blewitt has

been a reliable kicker during

his #Pitt career. I feel bad for the

kid.” @cjregan99

“Never have been so

mad after a pitt loss #Blewitt” @33_luke

“Much has been made of Chris Blewitt’s missed FG to end regulation but don’t forget the 1st qtr when his snapper and holder “blew

it”.. #Pitt” @P_WooFootball 5

Your fi ll-in-the blanks...“Hackenberg just

couldn’t hack it on that last play?? Just had to

do it after all the #Blewitt jokes earlier” @djFlem

Missed kick, Missed kick, shaky defense shaky defense down Pitt in down Pitt in

double OTdouble OT

Jasper Wilson Staff Writer

3November 3, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com

He said that’s why his organization did not encourage student voter registration because, in his opinion, students would be more likely to vote against the interests of Pitt College Republicans.

“It would have been counterproduc-tive to encourage people on campus to register,” he said. “Nine out of 10 students would probably vote Democrat rather than Republican.”

Linton says all the members in Col-lege Republicans, who are likely to vote Republican, are registered to vote, either in Allegheny County or by absentee ballot.

Antonio Diaz-Guy, the president of Pitt Students for Liberty, a libertarian group, said that being registered to vote and ac-tually voting have two di! erent meanings for the members of his organization.

“Voting is often a contentious topic among liberty-minded individuals,” said Diaz-Guy, a senior economics and philosophy major. “On the one hand, we have members that believe the best way to bring about change is to work within the current system and elect responsible candidates. On the other hand, some of our members see the current political process as fundamentally fl awed.”

VOTERSFROM PAGE 2

decision.” The Board, besides members Graeme

Meyer and Meghan Murphy, met with Barney and Tracey on Friday at its weekly planning meeting. Meyer and Murphy abstained from the meeting to avoid conflicts of interest because they will run for office next term.

“The Board, barring Meyer and Mur-phy, concluded that the sanctity of the election could have been compromised if Barney were to retain her post,” a SGB release from Sunday said.

Nites said a member of the Elections Committee, whom he refused to name, brought Barney’s conduct in Elections Committee meetings and hearings to his attention early last week.

Barney held an Elections Committee hearing in the SGB office on Oct. 29 to

deliberate on an elections infraction filed on Oct. 27 by Wasi Mohamed, who is running for President next t e r m , a g a i n s t Meyer and his af-filiated slate.

Nites said the meeting was very loud and could be heard throughout the office.

Barney said she held the Elections C o m m i t t e e ’ s hearing regard-ing Mohamed’s complaint against Meyer on Oct. 29 in the SGB con-ference room be-cause of a sched-uling conflict with rooms. Barney said the Election Committee nor-

mally holds hearings outside the SGB office.

“It was the biggest mistake I could have made,” Barney said.

Barney said the Elections Committee deliberated from 12:04 a.m. to 1:34 a.m. and voted on the infraction.

“We didn’t just decide last minute. It was taken seriously,” Barney said.

Nites said he wouldn’t comment on whether he thought the Election Com-

SGBFROM PAGE 1

SGB 4

“It was like a witch hunt. All the questions were super leading.”

Lauren Barney

4 November 3, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com

mittee members were acting inappro-priately during their deliberation, but that they were speaking loudly.

“During our Board planning sessions, people can’t hear us speaking,” Nites said. “If there is order in the room, and people aren’t shouting at each other, you can’t really hear outside the conference room.”

Barney said Nites pulled her aside after the Elections Committee’s meeting and told her he could hear things during its meeting. At this time, Barney said, Nites questioned her procedure.

Barney said the infraction accused Meyer and his affiliated 87s slate, which includes Murphy, current Allocations Chair Nasreen Harun and Everett Green, a sophomore majoring in finance, of breaking the elections code with “paper campaigning,” or the distribution of flyers or posters to voters. The code for-bids paper campaigning until five days before the election, which is on Nov. 11.

Meyer and Nites both refused to comment on the infraction filed by Mo-hamed, stating that it’s not yet public information until after both the Elec-tions Committee and Judicial Committee put it to a vote. Although Barney said

she could not provide the status of the Elections Committee hearing regard-ing the infraction filed by Mohamed because it’s private information, she said Meyer filed an appeal of the deci-

sion on Oct. 30.Elections infractions remain private,

Nites said, to prohibit candidates from slinging unfounded accusations at one another in the middle of an elections season.

Barney said she advised Mohamed that if he believed candidates were breaking the elections code, then he could theoretically file several infrac-tions against the slate. For example, if a

slate passed out 10 papers, Barney told Mohamed he could file 10 infractions.

Meyer filed an infraction against the Elections Committee to the Judi-cial Committee on Oct. 28, stating bias within the Elections Committee based on the email Barney sent to Mohamed advising him that he could file multiple infractions against one slate.

The Judicial Committee met on Oct. 29 and determined that Meyer’s case against the Elections Committee war-ranted a hearing.

Nites said he invited Barney to the Board’s weekly planning meeting on Oct. 31 at 3 p.m. to discuss her conduct and have an “open discussion” about her position. He said the Board did not go into the meeting with the intent to dismiss her.

Barney said while she expected an open discussion, she didn’t get one.

“I wanted to open the lines of com-munication,” Barney said. “I thought, ‘Oh, this is the Board I was working with for a year. They’re going to help me so

SGBFROM PAGE 3

SGB 5

Oct. 28Meyer files an infraction against

Elections Committee

Oct. 27Mohamed files an

infractionagainst Meyer and the 87’s slate

Oct. 29

Oct. 30Meyer appeals

Elections Commit-tee’s decision over Mohamed’s infraction

Oct. 31SGB impeaches Barney, appoints

Tracey as Elections Committee Chair

Barney holds hearing to deliberate Mohamed’sinfraction

Judicial Committee warrants Meyer's infraction

5November 3, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com

came on the visitors’ fi rst drive of the game. After moving into Pitt territory, Blue Devils quarterback Anthony Boone lofted a deep throw down the right sideline. With Panthers freshman cornerback Avonte Maddox con-taining him step for step, Crowder created separation at the last second by pushing o! with his arm before corralling the pass for a 39-yard score.

While some thought the move warranted an o! ensive pass interference call rather than the defensive infraction given to Mad-

dox, Crowder’s skill was evident nonetheless.That play set the tone for his matchup

with the Panther secondary for the rest of the fi rst half. While the battle continued, Crowder was in control.

A sequence similar to that fi rst touch-down played out in the second quarter when Crowder again took to the outside from his spot to the right of the line of scrimmage and ran straight ahead. Maddox again stayed with his mark until the ball arrived just before the goal line, just enough of a gap for the receiver to possess the ball before tumbling into the end zone untouched: a 45-yard completion.

“At the time the ball was caught, he’s right in his hip pocket,” Ray Vinopal said of Mad-

dox’s play on both touchdowns. “That’s just a kid making a play.”

Crowder nearly found the end zone for a third time with the clock running down at the end of second quarter. With redshirt junior corner Lafayette Pitts opposing him, Crowder took that familiar route, this time stopping and starting his run in an unsuc-cessful e! ort to lose Pitts.

Crowder neared the end zone, sand-wiched between the sideline and Pitts, and Boone had little room for error with his at-tempt.

The two connected once again, and Crowder got a foot in bounds at the one-yard line for a 27-yard gain with less than

10 seconds left.The Blue Devils scored on their next play,

tying the game at 28, after the extra point to go into halftime with momentum and the knowledge that they’d get the ball back to start the third quarter.

Vinopal didn’t think the Devils’ success through the air, specifi cally with Crowder, came as a result of something he and the rest of the defensive backs did wrong.

“I don’t know how to respond to anyone who thinks that we were in bad position on 21 of those points that were scored,” Vinopal said. “They made plays. They’ve got a good receiver. Our guys were in good position. Simple as that, they made the play.”

FOOTBALLFROM PAGE 1

we can work this all out.’”At the meeting, Barney said the first

question Nites asked her was whether the meeting could be recorded — some-thing that would be unusual at a casual weekly planning meeting.

The Board questioned Barney at the

meeting and, at times, asked Tracey to corroborate Barney’s answers regarding whether Barney followed proper pro-cedure during meetings and hearings, Tracey said. He declined to comment on what types of questions the Board asked him or how he answered.

“It was like a witch hunt,” Barney said. “All the questions were super lead-ing. Before they came in, it felt like they already decided I hadn’t followed pro-

cedure. I was being grilled in an inter-rogation room.”

Nites said the Board does not con-duct a formal hearing to remove some-one.

“We held a discussion with Lauren to learn more about the situation and then made a decision,” Nites said. “This follows the exact procedure outlined in the Constitution.”

Judicial Committee Chair Audrey

Winn said the Judicial Committee hasn’t yet determined when Barney’s appeal hearing will take place, but that she is aiming to schedule it this week. Winn said the hearing will be public and the deliberations private.

“In the appeals process, the deci-sion isn’t final until the appeal,” Winn said of Barney’s dismissal. “Then [The Board] can’t dismiss her, and they can’t appeal again.”

SGBFROM PAGE 4

After more than two hours of debate lasting until after midnight on Friday, the Student Government Board for-mer Elections Committee Chair will fi nd out her fate in 24 to 48 hours.

The SGB Judicial Committee oversaw former Elections Commit-tee Chair Lauren Barney’s appeal of the Board’s decision to dismiss her in a public hearing held Thursday night.

Roughly 35 people attended the hearing, which started at 10:12 p.m. in a conference room outside the SGB o! ce on the eighth fl oor of

the William Pitt Union. The Judicial Committee will release the hearing results within 24 to 48 hours, accord-ing to Judicial Committee Chair Au-drey Winn.

The Board dismissed Barney Fri-day, Oct. 31, via email, stating con-cerns over misconduct prompted in part by a hearing and deliberation she held in the Board’s o! ce on Oct. 29. The hearing followed presiden-tial candidate Wasi Mohamed’s com-plaint about competitor and current Board member Graeme Meyer and his a! liated 87’s slate.

Judicial Committee Vice Chair Andrew Van Treeck heard the case after Winn recused herself, stating a confl ict of interest because she and

Barney are friends. The Judicial Com-mittee then heard opening state-ments from Board President Mike Nites, who represented the Board, and Barney, who represented her-self. Both parties provided evidence — including text messages, email threads and names of witnesses — to the Judicial Committee.

In his opening statement, Nites said the Board dismissed Barney be-cause she “was a danger, and still is a danger, to the elections process.” Nites said the Board alerted Barney to her misconduct on many occa-sions before her dismissal and listed occasions when the Board was dis-

@thepittnews

Vol. 105Issue 66

Friday, November 7, 2014Pittnews.com

On the road On the road againagain

VolleyballVolleyball to visit to visit ACC foesACC foespage 5page 5

Save it for Save it for chemistrychemistry

Channing Kaiser on why Channing Kaiser on why you should stop calling you should stop calling

girls basicgirls basicpage 3page 3

Jeff Ahearn | Assistant Visual Editor

Theo Schwarz | Visual Editor

WAR OF WORDSWAR OF WORDS

Cristina Holtzer,Harrison Kaminsky &

Mahita Gajanan The Pitt News Staff

SGB 2

OUSTED ELECTIONS OUSTED ELECTIONS COMMITTEE CHAIR LAUREN COMMITTEE CHAIR LAUREN BARNEY PLEADS CASE AT BARNEY PLEADS CASE AT

JUDICIAL HEARINGJUDICIAL HEARING

Theo Schwarz | Visual Editor

2 November 7, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com

ACROSS1 122-square-mile

republic6 Three or four, say

10 Incise with acid14 Voiced15 Racing sled16 Mozart’s “__ fan

tutte”17 Office evaluations19 Industrialist who’s

had his ups anddowns?

20 Plenty21 Syncopated work22 Fla. neighbor23 Posh Riviera

residence29 Peaceful harmony31 “Bravo!” relative32 Tied (to)33 Riga native34 Bamboozle36 Damage, so to

speak37 Mischievous ones

hiding in plainsight in 17-, 23-,46- and 58-Across

40 Acute41 Troubadour’s

offerings42 Sinus docs43 Western treaty

gp.44 One in a sports

page column45 Art print, briefly46 “That’s my

generalimpression”

50 Wear (through)51 Huffington Post

parent co.52 Whiskey choices56 “Sea Change”

musician58 Summer venue

where kids canclown around?

61 Seize62 Pen sound63 Part of a TV

signal64 Milquetoast65 Pine for66 False __

DOWN1 Subject of

clothed and nudeGoya portraits

2 Frequently3 Gray wolf

4 Becomes evenmore charming,say

5 Org. promotingwater fluoridization

6 Police profiledatum

7 Spore producers8 Custard

component9 Broncos wide

receiver Welker10 USDA inspector’s

concern11 Gross figure12 CBS series set in

a lab13 Presley’s “(Marie’s

the Name) __Latest Flame”

18 Serving aid22 Street sign abbr.24 Words to a traitor25 Seals the fate of26 First name in jazz27 On a smaller scale28 Home security

letters29 Orioles, e.g.,

briefly30 Buildings from a

plane,metaphorically

34 City northwest ofDetroit

35 “A hot temperleaps __ a colddecree”:Shakespeare

36 Butcher’s offering38 Worms, perhaps39 Actor Dullea40 Showy carp44 Moisten45 Ripsnorter47 Does some

gardening48 Incredible stories

49 ’90s White Housecat

53 When tripled, astory shortener

54 Muslim dignitary55 Pal of Rover56 Incidentally, in

textspeak57 __ de parfum58 Kin of org59 Trio on Big Ben60 Sweden-based

carrier

Wednesday’s Puzzle SolvedBy Jeffrey Wechsler 11/20/14

©2014 Tribune Content Agency, LLC 11/20/14

The

Pitt

New

s Cro

ssw

ord,

11/

7/20

14

satisfi ed with her conduct. “I did not know the full reason why I was

dismissed,” Barney said in her opening state-ment. “I was never informed until today.”

Barney said, in her opinion, the charges brought against her were an attempt by Nites to help his “fraternity brother and protégé,” Meyer, secure the SGB presidency for next term, and that the Board had “no standing to dismiss me.”

Following opening statements, both par-ties introduced several exhibits of evidence to the Judicial Committee. Nites presented a list of what he identifi ed as mistakes made by Barney during her time as elections chair, including leaving SBG public meetings early, leaving confi dential information in a printer in the SGB o! ce, losing track of a candidate’s personal check in the SGB o! ce, throwing a “temper tantrum” after a meeting and allow-ing a non-voting member of SGB to be present during an o! cial Elections Committee hearing on Wednesday, Oct. 29.

“Her mistakes demonstrate that she cannot

conduct a fair election,” Nites said. Barney presented correspondence with

several of the candidates running for election next term, a statement from the Elections Committee stating its lack of bias, the 2014 elections timeline, attendance rosters to two of her elections workshops and a series of texts and emails with other members of SGB.

Following the presentation of evidence, both parties brought forth witnesses. Nites called four witnesses and Barney called 10.

Nites asked current Elections Committee Chair Kevin Tracey if he could speak on Bar-ney’s conduct during the elections hearing on Oct. 29. Tracey said Barney did not o! cially motion to vote during the hearing, one of the key components of Robert’s Rules of Order. Tracey said he could not recall how many times Barney asked the Elections Committee for their vote during that hearing.

Barney’s witnesses included candidates running for SGB. Barney asked each candi-date if he or she thought Barney had shown bias while working as the elections commit-tee chair.

Candidate Jack Heidecker, a sophomore majoring in German and political science, said he was “very convinced” that Barney

had shown no bias and that her dismissal had “thrown him for a loop.”

Presidential candidate Andrew Stefanick concurred that Barney had not shown bias during the elections process.

Barney said even though Nites dismissed any allegations of bias as part of the Board’s case against her, she decided to make it a major part of her case because it was the catalyst for her removal.

Nites also called Board member Sarah Klein and asked her to elaborate on what the Board discussed during the Board’s planning meeting on Oct. 31. Klein said the Board, minus Meyer and Meghan Murphy, who is also running next term, discussed only Barney’s conduct. Klein said the Board quickly dismissed and deemed irrelevant any allegations of bias by the Elec-tions Committee.

Barney called Zach Scha" er, Elections Committee member and vice president of Hil-lel, the Jewish student organization on campus, of which Barney is also a part. He compared Barney’s failure to use Robert’s Rules of Order to Nites’ failure to set up monthly review ses-sions with each of the committee chairs, as he is supposed to do based on Section 1.02 Part A, No. 14 of the Duties of the President, of the

of the SGB governing code. “So, even if Lauren didn’t follow some of

Robert’s Rules or some of the procedures she was supposed to,” Scha" er said, “she did intend to issue a fair, honest and e! cient election, regardless of whether she missed one or two of those minute details.”

Nites said his procedure in how he commu-nicates with committee chairs di" ers when it is not a part of an o! cial meeting, like Barney’s was on Oct. 29. He also said if Barney sought a formal meeting with him to discuss any prob-lems, she was free to schedule one.

“It doesn’t say that I have to do formal sit-down meetings with them,” Nites said. “I make it continuous communication. I don’t think [the two issues] are very related at all.”

Following witness statements, the Judicial Committee addressed each party with ques-tions about the necessity of Robert’s Rules of Order and whether the decision to dismiss Barney was unanimous. Nites said it was.

Barney said the way the Judicial Committee ran the hearing was fair, even without knowing the o! cial ruling.

“I wanted my due process and my justice, which I think I got tonight, in terms of a fair judicial procedure,” she said.

SGBFROM PAGE 1

@thepittnews

Vol. 105Issue 67

Monday, November 10, 2014Pittnews.com

The expectations are clear. The rules are not. During the public Student Government

Board meeting on Nov. 4, the Board voted to place two referenda that would change the Student Government Constitution on Tuesday’s ballot. While the Board voted yes straight down the line, the events preceding, following and surrounding the vote are less fi nite, slipping through the hands of even President Mike Nites.

According to the Student Government Constitution, there are two ways to initiate such changes.

Section 10.01 of the Constitution reads: “Amendments and/or revisions to this Con-stitution may be initiated by either a petition signed by 5 percent of the student body or by a Constitutional Review Committee appointed by a simple majority of the total membership of the Board.”

At fi rst, in an interview on Nov. 6, Nites said the Board did neither.

Nites confi rmed that the Board did not circulate a petition for the referendum passed in October, which changed the Stu-dent Government Board’s term from a cal-endar year to an academic year.

Nites also confi rmed that the Board did not establish a Constitutional Review Com-

mittee for the upcoming referenda, either. However, in an interview with The Pitt

News on Nov. 9, Nites said “that might have been [his] mistake” on the lack of a Constitu-tional Review Committee for the upcoming referenda.

Nites said on Nov. 9 the Board estab-lished a Constitutional Review Committee on Sept. 16 to discuss the referenda passed in October. Nites said this Constitutional Review Committee then also discussed these upcoming referenda.

The members of the Constitutional Re-

view Committee were Nites, Board member Ben West, Board member Meghan Murphy, Allocations Committee member Nick Re-slink and executive board director of Pitt Program Council Jon Lehan.

Nites said this committee was smaller compared to the Constitutional Review Committee from the 2012-2013 Board and was not like these “formal, formal meet-ings,” because the proposed changes were “straightforward” without “much impend-

Abbey Reighard & Danielle Fox The Pitt News Staff

UNDER REVIEWInconsistencies cloud

constitutional referenda

The Student Government Board Elections Committee Chair will reclaim her job, ef-fective immediately, following the Judicial Committee’s ruling on her reinstatement.

According to a release sent by Andrew Van Treeck, Judicial Committee vice chair, who heard the case Thursday night, the Committee deliberated and found that Elections Committee Chair Lauren Bar-ney’s dismissal was “not justifi ed accord-ing to codes which govern the actions of the University of Pittsburgh Student Government .”

The Committee’s decision is fi nal and not subject to appeal.

Kevin Tracey, the former Elections Committee vice chair who replaced Bar-ney during her dismissal, resigned fol-lowing the ruling. He sent his resigna-tion to the committee via email Saturday morning.

Tracey said in an email that he re-

Barney’s Back

Elections Committee

chair reinstated by

Judicial CommitteeHarrison Kaminsky, Cristina Holtzer &

Danielle Fox The Pitt News Staff

Barney 3SGB 2

Heather Tennant | Staff Photographer

3November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com

signed to “ensure another leadership tran-sition would not a! ect the election in a nega-tive way.”

“I don’t believe [resuming my role as vice chair] would have substantial e! ect on the election. I just wanted to avoid any un-necessary tension or strain that might have persisted in this transition,” Tracey said.

Barney appealed the Board’s decision to dismiss her in a public hearing on Thurs-day night in a conference room outside the SGB o" ce. SGB President Mike Nites, who represented the Board at the hearing, cited concerns over misconduct throughout the course of Barney’s tenure as Elections Com-mittee chairwoman as the primary reason for her dismissal.

According to the release, Article VIII, Section 8.01 of the SGB Constitution states a committee chair can be dismissed if he or she :

Are absent from four or more public meetings of the Board without excuse

Fail to act in accordance with the respon-sibilities as outlined by the Constitution, the SGB Bylaws, and/or Code of Ethics

Fail to perform the duties of their o" ce as prescribed and determined by the Board.

According to the release, neither side sub-mitted evidence to show Barney was absent from three or more public meetings.

The committee found Barney did not vio-late the SGB Code of Ethics and, therefore, is not eligible for dismissal on the grounds of ethical violations. The committee also found Barney met the requirements of the Consti-tution, SGB Bylaws and/or Code of Ethics, as well as duties determined by the Board.

The committee found Barney not in viola-tion of a series of other ethical, procedural and duty-based infractions as well.

In the release, the committee addressed a portion of the Board’s written appeal regard-ing comments Barney made in a Pitt News article following her dismissal.

The Board argued that Barney divulged information regarding the infraction hear-ing.

The Board’s written appeal reads: “Al-though she was not elections chair when she disclosed that information, the Board believes that it is reasonable to expect that she would maintain information as confi den-tial if she expected to return to her position

through the appeals process.” The Judicial Committee ruled that since

Barney had already been dismissed from her position at the time of her statement to The Pitt News, she was not in violation of the Elections Code.

Barney said upon fi nding out the decision made by the Judicial Committee to rule in her favor, she felt empowered and reassured as opposed to relieved.

“I knew I did nothing wrong. Now that I have had due process, justice took its course,” Barney said.

Barney said a positive did come out of the appeals process.

“I think part of the issue was my lack of understanding of the SGB governing code,” Barney said. “Now, after extensive review [of the governing code] from the hearing, I am way more informed on it.”

Nites accused Barney of looking to create unnecessary drama with an “exciting elec-tion” during the hearing, but Barney said the hearing only “impeded the process of a fair, honest and e" cient election.”

“I don’t think it created any drama. If you’re professional about this, it’s not like anyone’s out to get someone,” Barney said.

Barney said putting politics aside, she wanted to make this a fair election for the candidates.

Tracey does not think Barney’s reinstate-ment will have a major impact on the election.

Nites said he would not question how the Judicial Committee interpreted the Elections Code, Governing Code or SGB Constitution, and he trusts the members’ judgment.

“I’m a fan of following the procedures and rules,” Nites said. “I respect the appeal process. I believe that’s why it exists. The Judicial Committee exists to give due process to people.”

While he said he wished the hearing hadn’t run so close to the closing time of the William Pitt Union, which forced the Judicial Committee to limit time during closing argu-ments, Nites said each side “got to state [its] side of the story adequately,” and the hearing was consistent throughout.

Regarding Barney’s allegations that Nites did not meet with her consistently enough to discuss her progress or conduct, Nites said he would be happy to meet with her more formally during the next two months that they will work together on SGB.

“If that’s how [Barney] wants to conduct that, then I am happy to do that for the two months we have left together,” Nites said.

BARNEYFROM PAGE 1

6 November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com

OPINIONS

COLUMNCOLUMN

It’s morning in America.Well, not really. But anything, and I

mean anything, is better than the cold, dark night of the last two years. If any-thing has made me see the wisdom of Winston Churchill’s oft-repeated quote, “democracy is the worst form of govern-ment, except all the others,” it is the 113th Congress.

The common gripe among pundits is that the last Congress has been the least productive in history. Per the Washing-ton Post, that claim is demonstrated by this past Congress passing a historically low amount of total bills — about 250 laws in total, which is the lowest amount of legislation passed since 1973. Not that quantity is preferable to quality in bills,

but this Congress couldn’t even do the most simple of government tasks, like pass a budget.

After last Tuesday’s elections, though, this mess is finally behind us — which is good, because coming of age during this time of fierce bipartisanship has caused much disillusion amongst millennials like me when it comes to our political system.

But will a new, Republican Congress really be any different from the last one? The majority of Americans don’t think so. According to a Gallup poll released last week, 29 percent of Americans trust Republicans to control Congress, 27 per-cent trust Democrats and 40 percent feel there is no difference. It must be hard to differentiate between two sides that are both equally good at not doing anything other than bicker.

Thus, if the next two years turn into another session of partisan tit for tat, then you can expect to see more Inde-pendent candidates making noise. In 2012, we saw the second Independent senator, Angus King of Maine, elected. This year, Greg Orman, a former Re-publican congressman who ran as an Independent, almost defeated the Re-publican incumbent in Kansas to be-come the third Independent senator, while Larry Pressler of South Dakota, another former Republican congress-man turned Independent, was in a tight three-way race for an open Senate spot — he came in third with a surprising 17 percent of the vote.

The common thread between these three Independent candidates is their diverse positions: Socially liberal (pro-choice, pro-marriage equality), environ-

mentally conscious (accepting of global warming) but fiscally responsible (bal-ance the budget, slash spending where appropriate).

That is, everything millennials find important.

According to studies by Harstad Stra-tegic Research and the Harvard Insti-tute of Politics, millennials are widely in agreement on socially progressive poli-cies. But, the economic issues become a lot trickier — some millennials favor more economic intervention by the government, while some want less. The new crop of Independents reflects this spread: While Orman has been against the Affordable Care Act and agrees with Paul Ryan on some issues, Pressler has come out in favor of higher taxes on the rich.

Talkin’ ‘bout my generationWhy Independents should be the millennials’ choice in 2016

Stephen Caruso Columnist

Caruso 7

Balancing the checks: SGB needs consistencyEDITORIALEDITORIAL

With Student Government Board elec-tions tomorrow night, the incumbents are set to leave behind a legacy mired with haste and confusion.

Besides temporarily disposing of its Elections Committee chair two weeks before the election, a referendum passed on Oct. 12 which extended the incoming Board’s term on conditions that violate SGB’s Constitution.

Like the Board’s meeting to discuss the dismissal of Lauren Barney because of alleged misconduct, the legwork for the invalid referendum occurred behind closed doors, devoid of proper proce-dures or substantial student input.

But the abrupt decision to dismiss Barney, who was reinstated a week later, proved to be more detrimental to the elections process than Barney could have been.

Her sudden fi ring and replacement with Elections Committee Vice Chair Kevin Tracey — who resigned from his position on Friday, Nov. 7 — triggered more confusion among candidates. Moreover, testimonials from SGB can-didates and witnesses during the hear-ing echoed a sentiment that Barney was dedicated and loyal to her job.

This comes as another ine! ciency in an election that didn’t start out smoothly, as the Board rushed a referendum that extended its next term by a semester.

The referendum aligned SGB’s term with the academic year, rather than the calendar year, giving the incoming Board prolonged distribution of the $2.6 mil-lion annual Student Activities fund de-signed to help students’ ideas and initia-tives fl ourish.

But, much like the decision to dismiss

Barney, this referendum wasn’t executed properly. The Board passed the refer-endum without an adequate amount of checks on its power or an e" ective and informed student vote.

SGB’s Constitution only requires 3 percent of the student body to vote on a referendum, and a simple majority of those who vote need to approve the mea-sure for it to pass. After the student vote, SGB must obtain a two-thirds majority vote of approval from the Constitutional Review Committee.

For the referendum to extend SGB term limits, the Board gave the student body three days to vote, and the Con-stitutional Review Committee that as-sessed the referendum consisted of fi ve members — a low number compared to that of years past.

Therefore, because of the obstruc-

tive dismissal of Barney and the rushed referendum process, it would not be fair to the students or to the next Board to extend the length of the next SGB term.

The Board shouldn’t have thrust a term extension on members who may not have expected a lengthened term when they were considering running and without evaluating a more extensive list of options.

Barney’s dismissal shows that the cur-rent Board is incapable of pursuing an action by the book as determined by the SGB Judicial Committee, so why would this referendum be any di" erent?

Perhaps, then, it would be best to wait to pass a referendum that approaches a term switch under a new, fresh-faced SGB that is excited to serve and utilizes time to e" ectively and e! ciently pursue policy.