Home > MetNews

Student Court to rule on removal of senior SACAB member

Student Representative removed from SGA post, remains head of SACAB

By Andrew Flohr-Spence
spencand@mscd.edu

A Metro student representative to Auraria’s board of directors is fighting the Student Government Assembly’s decision to dismiss her because she was gone for two months over the summer and allegedly neglected her duties.

The case, which has highlighted the complicated relationship between the SGA and the Student Advisory Committee to the Auraria Board, will now go to the Metro Student Court for a final decision.

Aaron Wylie, president of the SGA, said that Nicole Barringer lost her position with the assembly in accordance with the rules because she missed two meetings and the SGA refused to excuse her absences.

Barringer, who is the current chief of staff and most senior member of SACAB, said that SGA is blowing her absence out of proportion and that her position at SACAB is not for SGA to govern. She said she did not violate any of SACAB’s rules when she was out of town over the summer and SACAB is the body she answers to.

“I understand that they want to stick by their policy,” said Barringer, “but I applied for this (internship in Washington D.C.) way back in December and made myself readily available (to SGA) over the phone and over email.” Barringer said she is being punished for taking an internship, which she attended in Washington, D.C. for two months over the summer.

Wylie said regardless of what the reason was, Barringer broke the rules and, as far as his understanding, the rules say she must be removed.

“I spoke with her several times during the spring and warned her that if she wasn’t going to be present that we (the SGA) were going to have a problem,” he said. Wylie said Barringer replied to his warnings that she didn’t think it was fair.

While the SGA and SACAB usually work together and communicate with each other, the two bodies are wholly autonomous and have different by-laws and realms of influence.

SACAB consists of members from the three schools at Auraria and is mandated by Colorado law to represent the students of campus. The six-member committee, made up of two representatives from each school, works with Auraria’s board to manage what the Tivoli and other facilities offer students on campus.

The SGA is student mandated and aims to increase student participation in the decision making specifically concerning Metro.

The two groups are separate, but Metro’s SGA, such as the student governments of the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center and of CCD, writes the paycheck for its two SACAB members.

Barringer is still working as a SACAB member, but she isn’t getting paid and the SGA refuses to acknowledge her position, advertising the position as vacant.

Chief justice for the Student Court, Christopher Boyd, said this case is a chance for the Student Court to review the policies that govern the relationship between the two bodies and set precedent for how the policies are applied in the future. Boyd said the SACAB representatives are in a special situation because they answer to both the SGA and specifically SACAB.

“That’s what we have to look at: whether those two rules compromise each other,” Boyd said.

He said if there is a conflict, the court will have to decide which set of rules will apply. Boyd said he doesn’t foresee a situation where the there is no conclusion to the case and the Court has the option to both rule in either side’s favor or to establish a middle ground to impose penalties on Barringer instead of removing her.

The court could go as far as to advise for by-law changes or a constitutional amendment if they conclude that such an action would help.

One of the aspects the Court needs to consider, Barringer said, is that she has been with SACAB longer than anyone else and that all of the other members are new to the committee as of last spring. She says removing her would hurt SACABs effectiveness because of the relative inexperience of the other members.

Justice Boyd said the Court could not make a ruling simply according to what would be easiest for the parties involved.

“It would be improper of the Court to decide to make a decision based on the possible fallout,” he said. “ I wouldn’t be a justice if I did that.”

The Court has scheduled Oct.5 to begin with the pretrial hearing.