“I resolve henceforth to utilize my senatorial privilege and block every decision made on the Senate floor, regardless of its appeal, on the grounds that it is illegitimate,” wrote Senator Bryan Cahall in his editorial, Guilford College Community Senate breaches social contract, in the last issue of The Guilfordian. Cahall’s strong accusations caused not only a great deal of controversy and discussion in the Guilford community, but strong emotions as well.

“Bryan’s article was an outrage,” said Senator Wesley Corning.

Cahall wrote in his article that the Senate is now a “mouthpiece for developing administrative policies,” and should cease all activities other than creating new election procedures.

“There should be no ‘representatives’ and therefore no elections for Senators,” said Cahall in an interview. “Privileges should be extended to the entire student body without condition.”

Accusations first came at an earlier Senate meeting when a financial issue could not be settled. The Guilford College Cooperative Association (GCCA) representative requested $2,000 to fund a retreat in which the group would create its by-laws.

No agreement could be reached on the floor, and Community Senate President Ali Stewart recommended a special committee to settle the matter comprised of GCCA leaders, the Steering Committee, and both groups’ advisors.

The rejected recommendation stemmed from an agreement made by the GCCA and Senate last year. Senate provided the GCCA with two loans to cover start-up costs, but agreed to free the GCCA of their financial obligations on the grounds that the GCCA did not request more funding.

Senate decided to terminate GCCA funding because the Greenleaf, the GCCA’s biggest co-op, is the only organization on campus that brings in revenue; and the Greenleaf has filed for non-profit status, making them independent from Guilford College completely.

“The recommendation from [Stewart] was to go to a smaller group of people who had already made their decision,” said Cahall. “The vote on the floor was one-third for, one-third against, and one-third undecided. If the whole Senate was undecided, how can a small group of representatives accurately represent the consensus of the entire student body?”

The timing of the accusations led some to question Cahall’s motives.

“It’s awfully funny that Bryan decided to challenge the validity of Senate at a time when his organization was asking for money that it looks like they’re not going to get,” said Stewart. “He was Senator last year and we used the same means of electing Senators as this year, yet it wasn’t until now that he has a problem with it.”

Senate by-laws permit a 24-hour period following elections when objections can be voiced. No objections were voiced following last year’s uneventful elections.

Only one ticket appeared on the ballot for Senate Executives last year, and the Guo/Jesus ticket received the most write-ins with three votes.

The winning ticket – comprised of President Stewart, Vice President Leise Gergely, Treasurer David Unger, and Secretary Lili Sharpless – then held a two-week period for students to nominate themselves or others for open Senate positions. These nominations came in the form of applications for committee leaders, collectively known as the Steering Committee.

The two-week period ended with many positions still open and only a handful of positions with multiple applicants. The Senate Executives, following their by-laws, then filled the empty positions with one of the candidates in a race for another position. Part F of section 3 in article B states, “In the event that positions remain unfilled, at the conclusion of fall elections, all open positions become appointed positions.”

Applications were made available for Senate Representatives – which must be held by someone involved in the group they wish to represent. The Steering Committee and the Senate Executives then appointed applicants to representative positions, as was the procedure the last three years.

Cahall believes that electing a Senate, which then appoints representatives, limits true democracy and does not realistically represent the student body. He feels that every meeting and every decision should be made open to whoever wishes to exercise their right to vote and that the actions of Senate Executives should be performed by clerks, who hold no authority like a President.

“I feel no need to explain my motives,” said Cahall. “Questioning them only indicates a hesitance, unwillingness, or incompetence to engage with the problem at hand.”

The GCCA and Senate insisted that there is no animosity between the two groups and Cahall maintained that there were no personal conflicts. However, the GCCA wants Cahall’s opinion to be considered his own personal belief and not the belief of the organization.

“There’s a lot of anger there. I feel like it was a reaction to the money,” said Secretary Lili Sharpless. “I don’t think he’s a bad person, but there are issues that need to be resolved.”

“I wish to emphasize that my motivation was in no way personal,” said Cahall. “If we at Guilford College – this ‘hottest school for social awareness’ – hesitate to approach, wholeheartedly and earnestly, the problems facing our own model of democracy then we will never live up to that media moniker.”