Several students attended Tuesday night's meeting to complain about the assembly's secret-ballot vote. As a result, Engineering Rep. David Burden moved to reconsider the resolution and hold a roll-call vote - stating he was "tired of the image of cowardice" cast upon MSA as a result of the secret ballot. After a short 10-minute debate on the issue, the assembly voted to form the committee by a narrow margin of 13-12, with 2 abstaining. The extraordinary conditions surrounding the vote make its integrity questionable.
MSA's composition on Tuesday was different than at the resolution's first vote. Not only were there fewer members present, but the investigative committee's most vocal opponents were absent - preventing both sides' original intensity. While the first consideration of the resolution held an hourlong debate, Tuesday's was short and uninformative. Representatives absent the previous week did not have the benefit of the entire discussion - making their decision difficult and clouded.
The committee will investigate Mehta's actions and recommend a proper consequence - ranging from acquittal to recall from the assembly. The committee must make impartiality its primary goal and avoid personal or partisan attacks.
Representatives resorted to bitter spats over the investigative committee. LSA Rep. Ryan Friedrichs resigned from his appointment to the investigative committee, "disgusted" at its formation - Schor stated he felt the same way when the resolution initially failed.
The vote to form the committee was narrow - indicating a strong division on the issue. In such a hostile atmosphere, bias could turn the investigation into a series of personal vendettas - further damaging students' perceptions of MSA.
It is imperative that committee members investigate all information from both sides of the argument. The committee should focus on serving the student constituency Allowing partisanship and personality differences to rear their heads would accomplish little and would make MSA, as an institution, look foolish. The committee's power to recommend punishment is significant; it must prevent rash judgments from blocking the goal.
The investigation into Mehta's actions faced a rocky road in its formation. The vote to form the committee was shady - especially considering the circumstantial conditions. For the committee to fulfill students' wants, it must prevent bias from being a factor in its decision - students' faith in MSA depends on it.