I am worried about the state of the Student Assembly.
This succession crisis is not about endorsement favoritism; it’s not even about the confusion surrounding the governing documents.
Rather, the biggest problem that this succession has revealed is the lack of institutional knowledge and active checks and balances within the Assembly.
We are now in a time where two voting members effectively have conflicting interests and incentives to interpret the governing documents in a manner that benefits themselves most. So it should be no shocker that turning to the same voting body to determine an outcome for the successor to the Presidency opens a door to unchecked authority and potential abuse.
A functioning government must have an effective separation of powers, including an independent judiciary. The judiciary is responsible for interpreting and applying the law impartially, including the rules governing the Assembly’s procedures.
In other words, for the Student Assembly to be effective, fair, and functional in its governance, neither me, Patrick (Patrick Kuehl ‘24, another candidate for the presidency), nor any other voting member of the assembly should be the one to interpret the rules to determine the outcome of the Presidential succession.
It must be an objective, independent judiciary – one without a stake in the outcome result.
Yet, the Office of Assemblies has asserted that “It is the Student Assembly’s privilege and responsibility to manage its own internal affairs, including in the selection of officers and the management of vacancies.” So now who?
Enter the Office of Ethics.
The Office of Ethics is an external committee of 7 impartial persons, nominated and confirmed by the 2021-2022 Student Assembly. Neither presidential frontrunner appointed members of the Office of Ethics. By design, they are an indirect body of the Assembly made to act as an impartial, yet incorporated panel that can review issues that concern fairness and transparency like this.
They are the only mediator the Assembly has.
And most notably, it was created because its predecessor (the Research and Accountability Committee) was viewed to be too biased (as voting members ran it) and ineffective to fill the need for judicial review in moments of demand for the Assembly.
In other words, the Office of Ethics exists to account for and resolve the same situation we are in now – because voting members with a potential interest in collusion, a lack of transparency, and a stake in the outcome are the ones investigating and resolving their own suspected issues.
Office of Ethics is part of the Assembly, appointed by the Assembly, written into the governing documents of the Assembly, and, most importantly, expected to act in this capacity about the Assembly – to review all given facts, precedent, and potential areas of confusion while being subject to standards of unequivocal fairness and transparency in order to recommend an impartial outcome.
The fact that 6 members of the Student Assembly have called for a special meeting to “officially appoint a new President and create a line of succession” – without ever consulting or meeting with our judicial body — deeply concerns me.
In my past term serving as the ILR Representative, I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. Given the outstanding issues I have witnessed first hand concerning clandestine activities from certain groups both within and outside the Assembly, it has become clear to me now more than ever that the Assembly is in desperate need of reform. Regardless of my position – whether I become President or not – I am determined to effectively lead the Assembly with honesty, transparency, and integrity so that we can create a lasting legacy of impact for our student community.
This article was previously titled “The Student Assembly Succession Crisis Reveals Potential for Abuse.”
Claire Ting ’25 is a sophomore in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Ting was elected as Executive Vice President of the Student Assembly last week, and is now a potential successor to the Presidency. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of The Cornell Review.
