The following is a speech written by former Graduate Student Senator, City Commission Representative, and Required Student Fee Committee member Angel Rivera, intended to be delivered in response to the articles of impeachment brought against Student Speaker Robert Eppler and Internal Affairs Director Kate Eckert. After the articles of impeachment were dismissed by a vote of 30‑20‑3, the speech was submitted to the Weekly Rose as an op‑ed.
Good evening. I am here to speak on behalf of the accused.
Let me be clear, the Student Senate Constitution explicitly states that “Members of the Student Senate… may form Student Coalitions for their mutual benefit.” As has been repeatedly noted by members of the fee committee and confirmed by the Weekly Rose, there is no rule, clause, or provision requiring such coalitions to be public, transparent, or disclosed. The full release of the relevant group chats makes one fact unmistakably clear. The allegations of scripted dialogue, coordinated obstruction, or manipulation are false. Every issue discussed within the fee review coalition chat was also debated openly in committee meetings. Debate was not suppressed, scripted, or curtailed. On the contrary, debate occurred repeatedly and extensively, regardless of anything said in private messages.
Furthermore, Kate Eckert acted independently at all times and did not speak on behalf of the committee. While there was alignment on funding the University Daily Kansan and other listed entities, there was no conversation, explicit or implicit, about individually contacting those organizations. That is the full extent of it. No procedural rules were violated.
Coalition formation within the fee review process is neither novel nor exceptional. As a senior member of this committee, I can state unequivocally that during last year’s fee review there existed a large coalition alongside several sub-coalitions. Proxy voting patterns clearly reflected alignment with the previous administration, particularly under the former president, who openly threatened to veto any package not aligned with their agenda. That was not consensus-building. It was coercion. Additionally, multiple group chats existed last year, accompanied by substantial behind-the-scenes vote coordination that was never disclosed publicly. I can attest to this directly as one of the minority voters during that process. The only distinction this year is numerical, not procedural. The coalition was larger. That alone does not constitute wrongdoing.
The disproportionate focus on Robert and Kate is therefore difficult to interpret as anything other than a targeted political maneuver. Long-standing tensions between the executive and legislative branches have been allowed, and in some cases encouraged, to culminate in this moment. It is also evident that the president fundamentally disagrees with the fee package itself. Rather than engaging that disagreement through proper channels, the president instead chose to undermine the credibility of the fee committee by fostering suspicion and distrust. This effort was specifically directed at Robert and Kate.
What makes this situation particularly troubling is the conduct of the individual who released the second round of group chats. This representative from rights was initially aligned with the coalition and chose to withdraw only after complaints were raised by the Student Senate Coordinator of Staff. That same individual is now a vice-presidential candidate for the Crimson and Blue coalition and is campaigning on a platform of transparency. Equally notable is that the author of the motion at issue, the Vice Chair of Community Affairs, is also a prospective presidential candidate. While I will not speculate on intent, the convergence of these actions with ongoing and forthcoming elections is impossible to ignore.
At this stage, the damage caused by this episode extends well beyond any single person. I would strongly recommend the dismissal of the entire fee review committee and the election of new members, as the environment created has fostered hostility, imposed undue pressure on committee members, and rendered the process fundamentally untenable.
In closing, I am formally withdrawing from all offices and positions I hold within the Student Senate, with the sole exception of my seat as a Domestic Graduate Student Representative, which I will retain solely for the purpose of overseeing any impeachment proceedings should such a trial occur. Upon the conclusion of those proceedings, should they take place, I will immediately resign from that position as well. I will not otherwise continue to serve under an administration that governs through intimidation, manipulation, and bad-faith tactics. I will also be stepping away from Student Senate for the foreseeable future, as the conduct displayed by prospective candidates and current leadership has contributed to an atmosphere of dysfunction that I refuse to legitimize through continued participation.
Thank you.
Comments
Post a Comment