In a tense Wednesday meeting, the student body senate voted on a bill of impeachment regarding Knott Hall senator John Knott and an order to increase the student activity fee from $95 to $140. Both measures failed.
The meeting, held in a classroom on the first floor of the Mendoza College of Business, was stuffed with students. One could be forgiven for thinking all of Knott Hall attended Wednesday’s meeting in support of their hall senator. Knott stood out: he was dressed for the meeting in a bright neon orange suit to match his constituent dorm’s signature color.
“We’re here to support our senator John Knott,” sophomore Colin Larson said ahead of the meeting. Larson, Knott's roommate, felt that the hearings were “a big show of power.”
At 5:22 p.m., about 30 additional Knott residents entered the senate floor and joined their earlier counterparts, wearing neon orange beanies and Knott Hall crewnecks, with their signature Marion Knott portrait in-hand.
“I’m here because there’s been a great injustice on our campus, and the freedom of speech of one John Knott is under threat,” freshman Aidan Pacholec, a Baumer Hall resident, said.
Pacholec entered the meeting with a speaker in hand and a patriotic tie around his neck. While Pacholec greeted Knott with a handshake and wails of “Born in the USA” from his speaker, Pacholec reported he was not a friend of Knott.
“Well now I am, I shook his hand just minutes ago, but I heard about this on Fizz, and I decided I had to be here because I am a first amendment absolutist,” Pacholec said.
Judicial council president Hunter Brooke brought forth the council’s impeachment case against Knott Hall senator John Knott for alleged misconduct in an email he sent out to Knott Hall residents.
Knott’s email was a recap of his dorm’s hall council meeting sent out to the Knott Hall listserv in his role as Knott Hall secretary, containing a complaint from Knott about the same student activity fee increase debated later in Wednesday’s meeting.
“I haven’t read the Bible much but I’m pretty sure taxation without representation is a cardinal sin,” Knott wrote. “(Student body president) Dawson Kiser and his gimps want your money and we aren’t giving it to them. If someone else wants to self-immolate on the senate floor next Wednesday let me know.”
In a packet also including the complaint and a copy of the email, the student union ethics commission argued that Knott violated Article XIII, Section 1(b)(1) of the student union constitution.
The ethics commission cited the article’s definitions of “misconduct” in their argument that Knott committed “willful injury to the good name of the student union,” “incompetent or negligent performance,” “hindrance of the student union or any of its legitimate endeavors” and an action “deemed unbecoming of the senate.”
In the questioning stage of the bill, Knott repeatedly asked Brooke why he did not recuse himself from the impeachment process, to which Brooke claimed there was no “conflict of interest” apparent to him or anyone else on the ethics commission. Other members of the senate were similarly skeptical about Brooke’s impartiality.
“Just the presence of someone with authority and power being at the meeting and heading the meeting makes it so the findings of that position, at least in my view, would not and could not be impartial,” Keenan Hall senator Matthew Amante said. “To me, that would be the same as if John Knott were chairing this meeting.”
Brooke later added he had never considered how his involvement in the case would have been perceived by others.
“I do want to make it abundantly clear to you all that I have no personal vendetta against John,” Brooke said.
In the complaint form, the accuser responded “Maybe” when asked if the behavior merited impeachment. The complaint was evaluated by the ethics commission, which convened Oct. 13 and is composed of randomly selected student union members from each branch.
According to Brooke, the ethics commission voted unanimously in favor of advancing the impeachment proceedings to a vote in the senate.
Carroll Hall senator Alex Mitchell asked if the email sent to Knott residents “was not tongue and cheek.”
“Even if it was tongue and cheek, it was nonetheless inappropriate and unbecoming of a student senator,” Brooke said.
When asked where the ethics commission draws the line between appropriate criticism and slander, Brooke reported two lines were drawn. The first “hard line” was drawn on account of the use of what was determined to be a slur, and the second “soft line” was drawn on account of distributing misleading information on senate proceedings, whether intentional or unintentional.
Alumni Hall senator James Baird yielded his time in debate to Clay Chauncey, a junior in Knott Hall and Knott’s predecessor as both Knott Hall senator and secretary, who spoke about the nature of the hall government emails sent out to residents.
“There’s a very long standing tradition that these emails be satirical … because we have found that this is the only way to get people to actually read the email,” Chauncey said. “And to be quite frank, John’s words were kinder than some of the comments we got in our hall gov. meeting.”
In the debate, Mitchell expressed frustration with a claim Brooke made during questioning, that the ethics commission decided impeachment for Knott was appropriate over a public apology for the reason that a public apology “would certainly be inappropriate” given “the severity of the act.”
“I find it amusing that [the ethics commission is] able to decide whether a public apology is tongue in cheek, and are unable to decide whether this email is tongue in cheek,” Mitchell said.
A motion to make the vote closed and private for senators failed after a few minutes of debate.
A motion to move out of debate was made at 6:34 p.m., over an hour after the meeting began. At this time, Knott Hall residents and John Knott supporters standing around the room joined in arms.
In the end, only two senators ended up voting to advance the impeachment to a hearing. Following student body vice president Maeve Miller’s statement about the letter failing, the room erupted in applause and cheers from Knott Hall residents as John Knott — who exited for the debate proceedings — walked back into the room.
Knott’s attempt at a celebratory handshake with parliamentarian Thomas Musgrave was rejected.
The second issue of importance in Wednesday meetings was the proposal to increase the student activity fee by $45. The order was co-authored by Brooke, Musgrave and Club Coordination Council president Anna Teerlinck. Kiser and ten others sponsored the bill as well.
Teerlinck noted the Club Coordination Council has a deficit of $1.3 million in monetary requests from clubs, and the bill would put a $200,000 dent into that deficit. Earlier, Molly Swartz stated the total cost of Notre Dame attendance today is $86,000 compared to the $42,000 cost of attendance for the 2006-2007 year, the time in which the $45 activity fee was originally set.
“When events get more expensive, it favors those who can pay to go,” Musgrave said.
Musgrave said he was swayed to support this bill on account of “equity.” The bill would allocate more funding to dorm signature events and clubs.
Duncan Hall rector Nic Schoppe attended the meeting to argue in favor of the bill. He cited his past experience with residential life, the student activity cost at peer institutions and the current financial situation of Duncan Hall, stating the money provided by the activities fee is important for students who want to attend signature events but cannot.
“My job is to advocate for students and make sure that they’re able to equitably access a lot of things the dorm does,” Schoppe said. “I don’t want to see a Notre Dame that ostracizes students based on financial need from being able to go to these events.”
Applause followed Schoppe’s words.
“In my mind first, I really believe it's best for Notre Dame students because we’re seeing things like increase in SUB ticket prices, we’re seeing things like increased club dues and on all these things,” Kiser said. “So basically, this will allow for these things to be cheaper and more accessible to students, without students necessarily paying more for their tuition.”
According to director of financial aid Mary Nucciarone, the University “will continue to meet full demonstrated financial need.” Since any increase in fees would not change the estimated family contribution, financial aid would have likely covered the expense. Kiser said he would not have supported the bill if the additional cost was not going to be covered by financial aid.
Many argued for more transparency about how the extra funds would be allocated. Additionally, several called for the need for a student body referendum to discern students’ opinion on the bill.
“The reason why I am so strong against this bill is because there is actually absolutely no transparency on behalf of us in terms of expressing this to the entire student body,” Knott said.
Miller responded to Knott’s comment with a reminder to the senate of their role in knowing their constituency.
“I know inflation exists, holy cow, but I want to know how much is this going to impact each student?” off-campus senator Ian Schowe said. “Can we go to ‘X’ more events? Can ‘X’ more students be involved in these clubs?”
Despite the best efforts of Kiser and others, the measure was not passed. The order required a two-thirds majority to pass, and the result was 20 in favor and 12 against with two abstentions.
