GUSA Vice President Mason Ayer (SFS ’03) defeated junior representative Trey Street (SFS ’03) to officially become chair of the GUSA Assembly following a debate over the constitutionality of a 1999 amendment that would have automatically placed the vice president in the position.

Eric Lamar Rivers (COL ’02) contested the constitutionality of the amendment in March on the grounds that the original student body vote that passed the ruling was not legitimate. The amendment was overturned at a hearing last onday.

“The Student Association mistakenly accepted the amendment as part of its Constitution due to the lack of knowledge about the Constitution and its requirement,” Rivers wrote in his formal objection. “Even though the vice president has served as the chair of the Assembly for two years, it doesn’t mean that this change should be accepted and continued.”

The resolution that placed the vice president as assembly chair was passed in April 1999. Controversy arose when the Yard resolution, voted on this past February, was held to what Rivers called a different standard.

“I wanted to be sure that GUSA is being held to the same higher standard that the Yard proposal was,” Rivers said.

The voting procedures for amendments are explained in Article VII, section three of the GUSA Constitution. “In either case, each proposed amendment shall be ratified individually as a valid part of this Constitution for all intents and purposes upon the affirmative referendum of no less than one-fourth of the entire undergraduate student body, provided that this affirmative vote constitutes the majority of the total votes cast in the referendum,” the constitution reads.

According to Rivers, there are two common interpretations of the procedures. One interpretation is that 25 percent of the student body must vote and a majority of that group is necessary to pass an amendment; the other interpretation argues that 25 percent of the student body, assuming that 25 percent is a majority, must approve the amendment.

GUSA Chief Advisor of Internal Affairs Jack Ternan (COL ’04) presented a formal objection to Rivers’ appeal, emphasizing that even if the amendment should not have passed, it did in fact pass and therefore should not be removed from the Constitution.

“Setting the precedent that procedure is paramount by siding with Mr. Rivers will result in throwing out of all Assembly resolutions after 1999 because the procedure for passage was invalid,” he argued in his counter-objection.

Rivers dismisses this on the grounds that the amendment was not technically part of the Constitution because of faulty voting procedure.

“It was as if the Assembly picked him [the vice president] to be chair because they didn’t object,” he said.

Ayer said overturning the amendment would ultimately have a positive effect on his position. “Now there is more legitimacy to my job as chair of the Assembly, whereas before I was more hesitant to exert the authority I should have,” Ayer said.

The Constitutional Committee held a formal hearing last Monday striking down the amendment, resulting in the necessity of an assembly vote to choose a chair. Ayer broke the seven-seven vote in his own favor, pursuant to the rule stating that the vice president shall break all ties.

According to Ayer, the Assembly chair is responsible for setting the agenda and running Assembly meetings. Some GUSA members, including Rivers, argued that this presents a conflict between the executive and legislative branch.

“Right now the assembly can’t set its own agenda and the division of powers has been clouted,” Rivers said. “The original intent was for the legislative and executive to be equal, but by the executive being the chair of the assembly that is sort of negated.”