In a chaotic turn of events, the Cornell University Student Assembly has entered interregnum. Following the ouster of winning presidential candidate Pedro Da Silveira ‘25 on Tuesday night, the SA has been without a president.
At five o’clock on Tuesday, four hours after results from last week’s SA elections were released, the body met to swear itself in. Not several minutes following Da Silveira’s rise to power, losing EVP candidate Rocco DeLorenzo ‘24 filed a motion to dismiss Da Silveira. The motion carried, setting up a fight for filling the now-empty top job.
A Tale of Two Documents
Article II Section 4 of the Student Assembly’s bylaws allow the removal of an officer by a two-thirds vote of the assembly. The SA used this provision to remove Da Silveira on Tuesday night. In the event of a presidential vacancy, according to Article III Section 2(3) of the bylaws, the Executive Vice President assumes the office. If the bylaws are followed, Claire Ting ‘25—who won the EVP job by 19 votes on Tuesday—would become President of the Student Assembly.
However, the Student Assembly’s charter provides a different procedure. According to Article IV Section 6 of that document, “All vacancies will be filled by seating the highest-ranked non-winning candidate in the last election from the same constituency.” Unlike the bylaws, the charter does not mention the specific instance of a presidential vacancy. If the charter is followed, Patrick Kuehl ‘24—the second-highest vote getter in last week’s presidential election—would become the next president.
The SA has a document problem. Its foundational governing documents contradict each other, with dire consequences for the entire body. Seeking assistance, the SA asked the university to resolve the dispute, according to sources familiar with the matter. No such resolution has yet been provided.
The battle lines are simple: if the bylaws are followed, Ting will become president; if the charter is followed, Kuehl will become president. The Review reached out to both Kuehl and Ting for comment.
Bylaws, in typical parliamentary form, are written to accord with a preexisting charter. Therefore, in the case of conflict between the two, the charter “wins.” However, the bylaws are far more specific than the charter in this case, specifically provisioning for a presidential vacancy. Sources close to the SA have also indicated that precedent from previous contested membership incidents has favored the bylaws. Ultimately, the SA itself must decide who to seat.
Implications for the university at large
Every two years, the Student Assembly reallocates the some $3 million it collects through the Student Activities Fee. Every undergraduate student is forced to contribute $310 (at present) to be allocated among student organizations. The SA will be tasked with setting the fee and determining which organizations receive funding later this year. The composition of the SA is thus incredibly important for student organizations at Cornell.
Most student organizations receive funding through the Student Activities Funding Commission (SAFC). At present, 36.5% of the Student Activities Fee is allocated to SAFC, which then disperses some $1.7 million to hundreds of student organizations. The remaining 63.5% is reserved for “byline organizations”
In addition to setting the fee and allocating it, the Student Assembly also decides which organizations merit funding directly from the fee itself, instead of the intermediary of SAFC. These include the Slope Day Programming Board, several intercultural and identity organizations, and the Cornell Concert Commission, among others. Even the smallest byline funded organization, at $0.75 per undergraduate student, receives more than $11,000 from the Student Assembly. For reference, the top bracket of funding available to non-byline student organizations (through SAFC) is $8,000.
Because of this flexibility, the Student Assembly commands an immense amount of power during byline funding years.
However, it is not merely money that lies in the balance; the very legitimacy of the SA itself is at stake. With back-to-back years of anemic turnout (10.55% last year, 15.6% this year), the Student Assembly is in dire need of reform. Despite its immense control over student activities funding, the student body simply does not care about the institution. Quite tellingly, each candidate for the presidency emphasized their desire to restore legitimacy to the body.
This most recent episode is unlikely to bolster confidence in the institution. With no plan for succession, the SA ousted its incoming president and plunged itself into interregnum. Even after the current situation is resolved, the SA will still have to answer questions about what happened this week and why nothing was done sooner.
Both candidates already have a tenuous grasp on legitimacy, with razor-thin margins across the board. As aforementioned, Ting won by 19 votes (a 0.88% margin) while Kuehl lost by 74.
The assembly has yet to release public comment on the issue, with details slowly leaking to campus news organizations. The Review elected to wait until the story became clear—and the facts completely verifiable—to report anything. The fog of war has been compounded by the ouster of Da Silveira taking place in executive session– a form of meeting entirely off-the-record and supposedly sealed to secrecy.
The SA met on Thursday evening to consider its options, but adjourned with no resolution in sight. Sources close to the Assembly say that both Kuehl and Ting believe themselves to be the rightful heirs to the SA’s throne, and without an arbiter to decide who takes control, the representatives themselves must settle the matter.
At this hour, the Review can independently confirm the following: Pedro Da Silveira was ousted on Tuesday night. Ever since, winning Executive Vice Presidential candidate Claire Ting and second-place presidential finisher Patrick Kuehl have been locked in bitter dispute about which should accede to the presidency.
The Review cannot confirm if the university has responded to requests for assistance from the SA, nor can we confirm the veracity of the allegations against Da Silveira that resulted in his ouster.
As aforementioned, the Review has reached out to both camps for comment. A follow-up will be published should either respond, or should new information come to light.
UPDATE: The Review elected to not include unverified information about Title IX cases against Da Silveira. We could not independently confirm the reasons for his removal outside of SA members. The Cornell Daily Sun has reported that DeLorenzo’s motion to vacate Da Silveira was due to pending sexual assault cases.
