The Government of the Student Body’s senate bill titled Constituency Council Clarification has been vetoed by GSB President Daniel Fischer, senior in agricultural business.

The bill states “nowhere does [GSB] Constituency Councils describe what a constituency council should be, and this problem … has recently been the focus of much discussion and legislation.”

The bill outlines qualifications of a constituency council, including that the organization should facilitate the flow of information from students to GSB and vice versa. It also states at least 50 percent of the voting members on a vote to nominate senators for vacancies must not be that constituency’s own GSB representatives.

In the event that the organization does not meet the qualifications, legislation shall be authored to review its status as the GSB-recognized constituency council.

Fishcer wrote in a memo that “the action that requires at least 50 percent of voting Constituency Council members voting on nominations to not be current GSB Senators brings up the issue of jurisdiction.”

Each constituency council is responsible for the representation of their own respective area, and this includes nominating senators, he wrote.

Fischer wrote that Article II, Section I of the GSB Constitution states, “In the event that a Senate seat becomes vacant prior to the next general election, a replacement, nominated by the recognized constituency council, may be seated by a majority vote of the Senate until the next election.”

He said the style each council takes in nominating senators is essentially their decision to make, as GSB governing documents don’t rule over constituency councils.

“Our system is modeled after federalism, in which the central government and the divisions share power, but the central government allows the divisions to decide how they would like to represent,” Fischer wrote.

Additionally, Tom Hill, vice president for student affairs, committed to contributing $300 to respective constituency councils.

Fischer said although he agrees Hill’s pledged contributions would help to improve operations, “it is not an Agriculture and Life Science or IFC student’s right to instruct how an engineering, IRHA, or off-campus leader should be representing their respective students,” he wrote.

Fischer wrote he doesn’t agree with forward legislating that is based on assumptions.

“None of us surely know if $300 will generate significant success,” he wrote. “This year, GSB doubled expenditures on efforts to get candidates to run for office, yet fewer candidates are running for Senate elections.”

Fischer wrote, “The veto is a philosophical difference in the current ideology taken by the Senate, but the constitutionality is of greatest concern … If this is overridden, I plan to take subsequent action to receive a final determination of this matter,” he said. Speaker of the senate Jon Turk, junior in political science, said a constituency council is essentially a phrase GSB has created. “I can’t go start a constituency council right now as Jon Turk, but I can start a student organization and get it registered,” he said.

Turk said GSB developed the constituency council idea as a way to improve communication.

Essentially, a Liberal Arts and Sciences senator would attend LAS student council meetings.

“Because we say that we are the ones giving the constituency council clarification, it would make perfect sense that we would have requirements for how these run,” Turk said. “The key thing to remember is a constituency council is not a designation made by the university or student activities center. It is something GSB has created.

“We could have a bylaw bill that said off campus government is no longer a constituency council. They would still be an organization but GSB wouldn’t recognize them.

“If GSB was telling these councils they have to do this in order to exist as an organization, that would be an issue.

“But we are just saying you’ll exist, but not as a council if you can’t meet the requirements,” Turk said.

Turk said Fischer speaks a lot about ideological differences.

“I believe the ideological differences are unfounded,” Turk said. “It is not grounded in logic.”

Turk said it takes a two-thirds senate vote to overturn an executive veto. He said he assumes they will discuss the veto in senate.

“There will probably be a motive to override the veto, but I don’t know if it will happen,” he said.

He said that at this stage, he would support an override to the veto.

“I voted for the bill,” he said. “I think it’s still OK and as far as constitutional concerns, I don’t believe they’re even there.”