Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Council of Graduate Students retracts officer change after backlash

wernecke.5@osu.edu

Published: Monday, February 25, 2013

Updated: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 01:02

meeting

Sally Xia / Lantern photographer

The Council of Graduate Students hold a meeting Feb. 22 at the Ohio Union.

The Council of Graduate Students has reversed its decision to split the vice presidential duties and stipend between two members after receiving backlash for violating its constitutional procedure.

The executive committee of the CGS nullified Act 1213, which split vice presidential duties between the CGS secretary and treasurer, at its delegate meeting Friday.

Faced with what she called a difficult decision, CGS president Allison Sturm told the delegate body that Act 1213, passed at the previous delegate meeting, was done in conflict with the CGS constitution and was therefore void.

Sturm said the committee made its decision in hopes that the organization could move past the controversy associated with the change.

“At this point it’s done,” Sturm said. “We’re all moving on and I think we should remember what we were elected to do. From this point forward, for the month or two we have left, let’s try to remember that and finish strong.”

The act, passed after former CGS president Allen Cochran resigned, was in violation of the CGS constitution because it was delivered to the delegates less than 24 hours before being put to vote.

CGS physics delegate James McMillan objected to the procedure and distributed his concerns on the leadership change by email to more than 3,500 graduate students.

McMillan’s actions brought attention to the issue, but also to him. He was eventually called in for a mandatory meeting with assistant vice president of Student Life, Douglas Koyle, who McMillan said attempted to surprise him by inviting an OSU Police officer and a representative from Student Conduct. McMillan said the officer and Student Conduct representative tried to “demoralize” him, and Koyle tried to “intimidate” him.

According to CGS’ agenda for the Friday meeting, Koyle and Javaune Adams-Gaston, vice president of Student Life, were scheduled to speak but were not present.

Sturm encouraged the delegates not to dwell on the issue.

“What we just did brings us back to point zero. So I want to make sure we are not discussing something that didn’t happen,” she said.

McMillan said in an email to The Lantern that he was “very pleased with what has developed.”

With Act 1213 nullified, the vice president seat remains open and can be filled by any graduate student. Nominations were opened immediately.

Cochran, who stepped down as president for health reasons in January, nominated himself.

McMillan nominated physics graduate student Zachary Carson to fill the seat and Carson accepted.

Joshua Coy, an art education delegate, nominated himself. After his movement was seconded, Coy accepted the nomination on the condition that he not receive the allotted stipend for the vice president.

Nominations remain open online until the next CGS delegate meeting on March 22 when the election will be held for the 2012-2013 and the 2013-2014 seats.

The elected 2012-2013 vice president will hold the position for one month until the delegate meeting on April 19.

Matt Sievert, a graduate student in physics, said during the Friday meeting that while he was happy issues with Act 1213 were finished, he still has concerns about infrequent updates to CGS’ website and an absence of recently posted meeting minutes.

“I think that poses a fundamental problem as to how the student body can be aware and hold CGS accountable for what happens within this room,” Sievert said.

Minutes from the Jan. 25 meeting and all other meetings during the 2012-2013 academic year have yet to be released.

While some delegates thanked McMillan for bringing more light to the issue, others were more critical.

“I’m pretty enthusiastic and excited about the passion here. I think that everyone cares so deeply needs to be recognized,” Cochran said. “However, I am ashamed to call myself a part of a body that is more concerned with the idiosyncrasies of policies than they are about helping graduate students.”

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

5 comments

J Coy
Tue Feb 26 2013 20:42
Thanks to Mr DoGood for attempting to frame this in a legal light. I love reading legal arguments, truthfully. Feel free to email me with the rest of your argument.
However, my primary intention as you indicated was not frame this fully in legal terms, but to remind Mr McMillan that he doesn't have cart blanche to just say whatever he wants in every situation. Hence the SL intervention. Decorum is required.

As to specific claims James put forth, here are just some that I feel indicate a penchant for operating outside the bounds of truthfulness:

On his website:
-He has claimed that Allie "shaved the votes" publicly despite the fact that Allie never even touched a single ballot personally, something he is well aware of.
-He claims that Allen's illness was not unforeseen, calling this "a documented lie" and "an outright lie", although he has no way to determine Allen's personal decision making process regarding his health whatsoever.
-He has called the memo Pres. Sturm circulated regarding the logic behind bringing forth the Act "a bunch of half truths and lies". While the logic behind the act was erroneous, there were no intentional lies in that document at all.

He has framed the argument in the chambers and on an individual level not just on the procedural issues at had, but as a manipulation of legislation for personal gain. Before the meeting in question, he claimed outright that Zach had fabricated this legislation in order to get the stipend and in order to set himself up for further office to myself personally. The facts speak for themselves that this is false.

The previous Lantern article quote from James is as such: "I think a lot of them were confronted with the choice between going home at 5:30 versus having to stay later to deal with elections and they're like 'Ah that's more work. I don't want to deal with that,'" McMillan said. "Others were like, 'I don't see a problem here. I don't care. This organization doesn't matter because we just come here and it's a garden club, so who gives a whatever about it.'" The Act was never framed as such, no one ever claimed that they didn't care or indicated that CGS was a "garden club", if so I encourage him to point them out publicly rather that just making hyperbolic statements.

In the mass emails sent out, one of the versions stated "in order to secure their pay raise the executive officers concealed the resignation of the former President for nearly two weeks." False. The resignation should have been sent out by Allen immediately, but Zach informed me over a week before at a Senate meeting. I personally told James this after the Jan. delegate meeting, yet he claims they concealed it.

He claims that he gained all the student emails only from pouring over public documents, but at least one delegate initially received notification from IT dept that he had first attempted to use a listserv. We do not know how he obtained that listserv, but as a result, the email was deleted before being sent out by IT. He then individually entered each students email in order to bypass obvious notice from the IT dept. I think this indicates a level of manipulation that is upsetting and founded in dishonest actions.

The end result of all this unnecessary drama is that CGS has already pulled together and become stronger and more focused.
I greatly appreciated some of the views expressed in person by individual students who attended our last meeting and I will work to personally address concern brought up.
I encourage anyone who would like to see us at work to come to any and all future meetings... better yet, elections are open!!

Silence Dogood
Tue Feb 26 2013 17:39
Mr. Coy brought up several legal notions in his comment to this article. Although not a member of the Bar, I feel I should mention a few points related to these matters he may have overlooked. Before I proceed, I would like to state that I am in the same department as Mr. McMillan and have spoken to him in the past. I disclose this so that any reader may be better informed about any potential biases I may have for or against Mr. McMillan, a problem that has occurred with communiques that have reached my department in the past. Mr. Coy discusses slander/libel, saying that Mr. McMillan has slandered the CGS president and secretary. He further states that someone can be held liable in court of law for slander, with what I interpret as the inference that Mr. McMillan is perilously close to that legal threshold whereby a "preponderance of the evidence" would indicate he had slandered/libeled the individuals in question. However, we cannot immediately assume that statements against the interest of a particular party are not protected speech. A first element we must consider in such a case would be whether the statements were STATEMENTS OF FACT. If a statement is an opinion, the courts will not hold the declarant liable. Undeniably some of Mr. McMillan's statements were indeed statements of fact, such as "This action was unconstitutional." Others, however, seem far more along the line of opinion. Although I do not authoritative case law to cite at this moment, often statements about motivations, mental states, the feelings of an individual, etc., are considered as opinions when introduced into evidence in a general court case. An example would be the difference between lay and expert OPINIONS when witnesses describe the demeanor of an individual. Should someone without expert credentialing attempt to introduce their characterization of one of these properties of thought, rather than word, action, or appearance, it would be objectionable as an IMPROPER LAY OPINION. Now we must consider that line when we look at all of Mr. McMillan's statements. Perhaps some of Mr. McMillan's statements about the motivation of individuals in this case are statements of fact, but we must consider that some potentially negative statements are in actuality opinion, and are protected as such. Another point we must consider is that slanderous/libelous statements must be true. If it is a statement of fact, and it is true, it is not libelous. Some of Mr. McMillan's statements are indeed true. CGS itself has admitted that the act was unconstitutional, so at the very least these statements from Mr. McMillan are protected free speech. As for other statements, Mr. Coy has me at a disadvantage, as I do not currently have access to any minutes that might shed light on the truth or falsity of other statements. This is certainly an issue when evaluating statements and actions coming from any individual or body. Third, it must be considered whether the person slandered/libeled is a public or private figure. If a person is a public figure, such as an elected representative in Congress, many jurisdictions hold that the slanderous/libelous statements must have been made with the actual intention of causing harm. Although the CGS president and secretary are certainly not on the level of US Congresspeople, we should remember that they are acting in a representative capacity for thousands of graduate students, and Mr. McMillan's statements concern the activities they perform within the graduate student public sphere. As for whether Mr. McMillan intended harm, his stated goals have been the repeal of this act and respect for proper representative procedure. If Mr. Coy has any evidence that harm was an intended other than that these statements might adversely affect the people in question, I would welcome that evidence to support Mr. Coy's claims about possible liability. Further, it must be shown that actual harm was done. Although no one likes negative statements about themselves, whether these statements cause legally quantifiable harm is not a trivial matter. Have so many graduate students thought that the president and secretary are out for their own personal gain at the expense of proper procedure that they have suffered in their work, ability to function within the community, etc? I do not know, but we certainly cannot say that, just because they did not like the statements, that harm was done. I would further like to comment on Mr. Coy's paraphrasing of Holmes in Schenck vs. US, the "you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater." Although Mr. Coy is correct in that the law does put limits on free speech, Schenck vs. US and subsequent cases dealt with CRIMINAL speech, speech that posed a "clear and present danger." No one has suggested that Mr. McMillan's statements promoted an imminent and likely violation of the law, and I do not believe Mr. Coy is suggesting this either. However, we cannot...
Anonymous
Tue Feb 26 2013 16:25
I'm curious. What specific quotes from James constitute slander/libel and what "damages" could Allie/Zach claim?
J Coy
Tue Feb 26 2013 12:48
(Apologies for the formatting issues...)

-Moving forward, those of us that want to continue to focus on making the graduate student experience the best it can be, have already discussed several options to avoid procedural and legislative mishaps. One idea that will likely come to fruition is a governance committee charged with reviewing legislation periodically, and also as a sounding board for delegate concerns regarding procedure and legislation.

-To avoid any further confusion when executive officers resign, I will propose a standing rule that resignations form Ex Os must be directed to the entire delegate body. This will avoid any lag time in notification, a problem in this case.

CGS does exceptional work for this University.
I have worked personally with the Officers that were slandered by James and have found them to be completely professional, extremely hard working, and some of the best representation of what an OSU grad student is that we have available to us.

I hope we can move forward from the damage James has caused, and urge all grad students to get involved in some manner to see just exactly what CGS is really about.

J Coy
Tue Feb 26 2013 12:46
Once again, The Lantern has failed to adequately report on the complete story and important facts in this issue, despite a letter I compiled and sent to John Werneke last week, or his presence at the recent CGS meeting.Important factors to consider regarding this issue:-This is a learning institution and as such, CGS delegate are also learning how to properly govern in carrying out their duties. In passing the Act in question, they made a mistake, but it was not malicious.-James was correct on the procedural concerns, but chose to frame the argument in terms of personal attacks aimed at the officers, accusing them of creating the legislation for personal gain and slandering their good reputations.-On the day in question, 40 delegates agreed with the officers initial plan to cover the VP spot. There was a lengthy debate before any vote was had. Not a single personal nominated anyone else or themselves to assume the VP role. Had they done so, no vote on the Act would have ever taken place. The Lantern continues to fail to bring this point to light, despite being informed of it by myself.-As a result, had any of the lower officers wanted the VP position, they could have seemingly had it, and the stipend in full, unopposed. Therefore, I find the allegations of greed put forth by James to be unfounded.-James then chose to gain access to 2,000 grad student emails that were outside of his constituency and secretly emailed them claiming that their delegates had behaved inappropriately, an entirely underhanded and unprofessional move, as well as extremely disconcerting in terms of the use of grad student personal emails. -We discovered that he supposedly gained all these emails by pouring over individual public documents that grad students had posted on line. Not only did he clearly spend an enormous amount of hours doing this, as opposed to actually attempting to hold a conversation with any other delegate and come up with a solution, but I stand by my assertion that his actions were fundamentally "creepy" in their nature. -In the meantime, several delegates were already working to remedy the situation. I personally voted in opposition to the original Act, and was in regular contact with CGS President Allie Sturm working on a fix, beginning as early as two days after the vote. -James was rightfully called into the Student Life office for his bullying tactics and misuse of personal grad student emails, a fact the Lantern seems wholly unconcerned with, but those of us in the CGS delegation find to be a serious misuse of his position.-James has framed himself as the expert in this situation and attempted to claim Freedom of Speech as his shield. His is not the only delegate with an opinion on this Act, nor is he an expert in any way. Responsible delegates were acting behind the scenes to affect adequate procedural change without insulting anyone or acting rashly. -James has gone outside the bounds of Free Speech protection by making patently false and slanderous claims against CGS officers. You cannot just yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. You also cannot just attempt to destroy another person's reputation publicly, as James has attempted with Allie and Zach, and not have actual facts to back up your claims. Without those, you can be held liable for your speech in a court of law and damages assessed. Just something James ought to consider before he attempts to trump up any further claims with additional lies and outrageous personal attacks.-I personally have called for the Operations and Elections Committee to review James' behavior in this case, with my recommendation being to remove him from office due to inappropriate use of student information and unprofessional behavior in his attacks. James has already appointed an alternate in his dept that could take over immediately. -I intended to call for censure of Delegate McMillian during the most recent CGS meeting, but was approached by another delegate that is a friend of James before the meeting begging me to reconsider James' removal, in light that this friend was going to personally call for censure himself. This appears to have also been a lie and a ploy to avoid bringing up the issue, which I was only able to get out as the last comment of the night directly before we adjourned. -James has failed to apologize, or take any responsible look at his actions and how they reflected on CGS and his department. He has embarrassed the delegate body (when he has not just directly insulted us) and embarrassed his dept. The mature thing to do would be to step down immediately. Barring that, I am calling for a special meeting of the delegate body to consider both censure and removal of Delegate McMillan. -Moving forward, those of us that want to continue to focus on making the graduate student experience the best it can be, have already discussed several options to avoid procedural and legislative mishaps. One idea that will likely come to fruition is a...




log out