No-confidence resolutions fail to pass through UNC Joint Governance Council

The UNC Joint Governance Council voted 5-3 on Wednesday against passing the no-confidence resolutions against Chancellor Lee Roberts and Provost Chris Clemens. The resolutions were passed last week by the Graduate and Professional Senate Government, voting 33-8 with 11 abstentions and 32-9 with 11 abstentions for bills surrounding Roberts and Clemens, respectively.

Jake Diana, chair of the JGC, led and moderated the debate surrounding the resolutions. In the virtual meeting, members also discussed having more graduate representation on the Board of Trustees, a new program piloted by the GPSG concerning graduate students, making the Graduate and Professional Student Bill of Rights official and the student organizations fee audit.  

Nicholas Moloci, attendee by proxy on behalf of GPSG Senior Vice President William Boyer, began by saying that the resolutions were passed by graduate students due to of a lack of a voice within administration, with one of the larger issues being a lack of input in the chancellor selection process.

Benjamin King, GPSG chair of oversight & accountability, shared that during discussions with constituents about making the resolutions joint, the general agreement was that if the Undergraduate Senate wished to express a similar sentiment, they should introduce their own no-confidence resolutions.

GPSG Chair of the State of Graduate and Professional Students Ellen Risemberg said in support that the resolutions were not perceived by the authors as a joint bill, as there are concerns within them that were very specific to graduate students. 

Undergraduate Student Government speaker Matthew Tweden said that the resolutions have already become a tension point in working with administration. 

“I do think that this is an important thing, as joint issues aren't just those that are taken from the position of one constituency but those that really will implicate the ability of another constituency to perform their responsibility,” he said.

Tweden said that had the USG been engaged in conversations with the GPSG, content of the resolution may have looked different.

“The reason I say this is those of us who, every single day, are meeting with administrators and working with them understand that there's a healthy degree of criticism of administrative decisions, of process, of procedure, and there are very strong and very powerful avenues to go about that, including the resolution,” he said. 

USG Vice President Christopher Williams commented in opposition of considering the resolutions as joint, comparing the legislation to the Gaza Ceasefire and Israel Divestment Resolution passed by the GPSG in March, which has similar implications and was not considered joint. 

Tweden later responded, saying that the divestment resolution did not have nearly the degree of personal antagonism to the administration and did not give University administration the impression that student government was hostile toward them. 

Logan Grodsky, attending as proxy for Christopher McClanahan, USG rules & judiciary chair, shared an experience from his first year with the JGC, saying that his legislation to amend the undergraduate code to provide stipends to undergraduate members of the Board of Elections was unexpectedly designated as joint in a vote.

Grodsky clarified that his bill was meant to only affect the undergraduate code, but that JGC has the authority to classify legislation as joint if it impacts both graduate and undergraduate students.

He said he was very sympathetic to the fact that the sponsor of a piece of legislation may not have intended it to be joint, but in his point of view, the no-confidence resolutions have already had implications for undergraduate students. 

Section 303 A of the UNC Joint Code states that the JGC has the ability to approve legislation impacting both undergraduate and graduate and professional students at UNC. Section 300 B defines joint as any piece of legislation that concerns both undergraduate and graduate and professional students.

Grodsky said that he had received concerns from one person within University administration — who he said has been at UNC since former Chancellor Carol Folt — about continuing their regular meetings because she believed him to be a part of the majority who voted to pass the no-confidence resolutions.

“There's one chancellor, there’s one provost,” Grodsky said. “If this point is going to be made, it's one for everyone. The implications of that are for everyone.” 

Student Body President Jaleah Taylor said that she has heard from administrators that the resolutions could potentially be a non-starter on other issues such as the increase of graduate stipends.

Taylor said that she recognizes that graduate students have felt a lack of representation and that is why these resolutions were introduced. 

“I think by having something like this essentially overridden by undergraduate students is something that we really need to consider being that a lot of graduate students are already feeling underrepresented in,” she said. “Essentially, the contents of the resolution [are] about being represented and heard.”

Katie Fiore, USG finance & appropriations chair, said that a vote of no-confidence directly inhibits the ability of student leadership to represent students, saying that her ultimate fear with the resolutions and why they should be designated as joint is because they would not be able to represent students to an administration who thinks that student government as a whole doesn’t want to work with them.

Fiore told JGC members that the number one priority is the representation of students, and it could only be achieved through a means of communication and being on good terms with administration. 

Risemberg said the arguments being raised were about the resolutions' content and it seemed that the goal of making the resolutions joint was to shut them down. USG VP Williams shared his agreement with the statement in the meeting's virtual chat.

Tweden said that while he's not unsympathetic with some of the policy concerns raised in the resolutions, he's worried about the impact the policies could have on his and other USG members' ability to walk into rooms and get deliverable results. He also noted that designating the resolutions as joint is meant to encourage dialogue between the two senates.

Moloci said that the resolutions were something that the graduate students wanted to pass because they felt it specifically impacted them with certain processes and the lack of representation within administration. 

“Now I will say, as the president pro tempore, I've served on the committees with the chancellor and I've served on the one with the provost; I will say they've let us in the room and they are willing to have conversations on it,” he said.

The resolutions passed for joint consideration and future discussion, with a motion of objection to tabling the resolutions for future discussion subsequently approved, allowing the JGC to proceed with discussing the resolutions immediately.

A following motion to table the resolutions for future discussion was introduced, but failed, with three against, four in favor, and one abstention, indicating that there was no majority. Therefore, the motion to table the resolutions was not approved, and the discussion would continue. Grodsky then proposed combining the two resolutions into one question, which received no objections, with JGC members then voting on both resolutions as a single item.

The JGC voted 5-3 against passing the resolutions through the body.

According to Section 305 A of the UNC Joint Code, when the JGC rejects joint legislation, the presiding officer of the senate where the legislation originated — the GPSG senior vice president in this case — must notify the GPSG of the legislation's failure in the council.

In a Thursday statement following the council meeting, Tweden wrote that the JGC is the ultimate legislative authority in any matters concerning student government. He wrote that those involved in student government leadership understand that advocating for the student body outweighs any personal political spats between individual senators and senior administrators.

“This outcome should be lauded as a success of the joint governance model, which ensures that a small and antagonistic fragment of campus cannot derail the work of student self-governance,” Tweden wrote. “I look forward to continuing to work with the Chancellor and Provost to advance student priorities in academic policy, campus safety, and responsible governance.”

Specific actions and plans going forward are at the discretion of the GPSG Executive and Legislative branches at this time. 

@calebherrera

@dailytarheel| university@dailytarheel.com