By Daniel Johnson-Kim, Editor in Chief

Read Comments

Don’t believe the old saying – silence is seldom golden.

But based upon the secrecy and closed lips of the majority of the Students’ Association Congress members during and after the impeachment of former SA President Daniel Paul Watkins, our campus leaders must be drinking the cliché Kool-Aid.

Despite the SA Congress’ constant claim that throughout the year it is transparent when it comes to the activity of our student government, its recent action to close Watkins’ impeachment hearing tells a different story.

Want to know which 25 Congress members voted to strip Watkins of his title, power and status as an ACU student leader?

Tough luck; there is no public record of which members voted to boot Watkins.

Want to know the five student representatives who were unconvinced Watkins deserved impeachment?

Maybe if you ask nicely, but there is no public record of which members voted in the minority.

Want to know exactly what the elected representatives heard and said during the impeachment hearing of a leader more than 800 students voted to office?

Sorry, that’s private.

Rather than alerting the student body of the accusations against Watkins, members of the Congress, the executive cabinet and its administrative advisers, stripped students of the democratic right to hear the accusations against their elected leader. By closing the hearing to the public, they decided the first impeachment of a student leader in the history of ACU student government was a private matter, and ultimately told the student body to trust they made the right decision.

Had it not been for a small number of Congress members who shared everything they could remember about the impeachment proceedings to Optimist reporters, the student body might not have known anything behind the decision to impeach Watkins. Those who talked realized openness was the best way to defend their decision.

Although SA Congress advisers Dr. Jean-Noel Thompson, vice president and dean of Student Life, and Dr. Jeff Arrington, associate dean of Student Life, and other executive cabinet members openly fielded questions from journalists eager to learn why Watkins was impeached, they refused to explain specifics of the charges against Watkins. Instead, they cited it was a legitimate process approved by all cabinet members, including Watkins.

Even if this process was legitimate, this “trust us” attitude is non-democratic. It is secretive and causes the community to assume foul play was involved.

By hanging to a “no comment” response when asked about specific examples of Watkins’ alleged irresponsible leadership, manipulation, disrespect and unethical behavior that led to his impeachment, it causes one to assume there is something to hide.

Despite the pleas of those involved in the impeachment, in no way was this a private matter.

Watkins is the purest definition of a public figure and was a public official on ACU’s campus. Not only was he elected by the student body, but when media outlets across the country reported on the hangman’s noose he said he found in his office chair in September, he became – for better or worse – a person those outside the ACU community attributed as a spokesman for this campus and its students.

SA Congress is an organization that must be open at all times. The Congress members are given thousands of dollars to spend and are often the student leaders who lead prayers in Chapel and have meetings with the university’s administration as representatives of the students. How are their official proceedings private? Why would they believe they can close their doors and not be suspected of foul play?

The only remedy of Congress and its advisers’ undemocratic decision to close the impeachment hearing is to hold a public forum where their constituents can ask questions of the Cabinet and Congress members who removed Watkins from office.

They must be open to all questions, and Watkins must be given the right to publicly defend himself against the charges. Anything less would be a spit in the face for the student body.

Secrecy fuels claims of foul play. Openness and honesty will prove Congress made the right decision.

I will politely disagree with Mr. Kim. As a member of this secretive congress, I understand some of the comments that he makes, yet I don’t see why everyone needs to know everything. Some things have to be taken with a grain of faith and trust that the elected officials did what was believed to be best. I appreciate the role of the press to keep us in SA honest, and I support it and encourage people to come to the meetings. How open should we be? Shall we throw our God given power of discretion out the window to make sure that the public knows what goes on in the meetings? I pray that it never comes to that. God asks us to be careful with our words, so I see nothing wrong with a no comment. Let me say this though, if people want to know what goes on, please ask. There are Congressmen and women, like myself, who don’t mind sharing as much as is prudent, and adding some of our own personal thoughts. The SA office is open everday after lunch, please come down and see and talk to someone, we like talking to folks.

Aaron Escobedo
Education Building Rep.

While I sympathize with the desire for discretion, I also agree with Mr. Kim: democratic values must be upheld. Impeachment is a big deal- and the fact that it occurred with only 7 weeks left to the school year makes it seem like it was, in fact, an urgent matter. If it was really just a problem of Watkin’s not working enough hours and saying a few rude comments, then it seems to me that SA could just tough it out for another month and a half rather than be dramatic and draw negative national media attention to the school. Their secrecy is causing the student body to suspect and speculate that Watkin committed some huge crime, and that if they let out the secret a full on court trial could result. Watkin’s filled the shoes of a big role on campus, and the campus deserves to know exactly what wrong steps he took- so that we can have confidence in the people that make decisions about how our money gets spent.

I will have to agree with Marabeth. Yes, we do have to take some things with a grain of faith as Aaron pointed out, and frankly, most of the things that the SA Congress is involved with we do take with faith. However, as Marabeth pointed out impeachment of our president is a huge matter, and I find it both undemocratic and simply unprofessional that that the SA Congress would be so secretive about the matter. I am not sure if it is because the Congress simply wants to pretend like it didn’t happen and get it all cleared away or what. The truth is, it isn’t just gonna go away, people will be asking questions. It disturbs us as the student body that things as important as impeachment would be kept completely secret and then we are told to take things with a grain of faith. I think it is our democratic right to know the truth and the full truth surrounding not just the impeachment of our SA president, but all dealings of the Congress if the student body wishes. The facts must come out.

When you refuse to specifically say what the accusations were against Watkins, you lead the public to assume the worst. This must be made public, however painful it may be, to instill trust and confidence in the ability of SA to operate effectively and ethically.

On another note, since when is it the right of the Executive officers to vote in such a proceeding, when they have such personal gain associated with the outcome? Then they turn around and tell us just to trust them in their decision? How ignorant do you think we are?

Daniel-Paul was robbed of justice when he was convicted by people who could not be objective, due to their close association and dealings with him. It looks way to much like some of SA just didn’t like him or his ideas.

In absence of the specific allegations being made public, we are left only to realize that SA believes one of two things:

1. The allegations are just a personal vendetta of a few against DP and his ideas, therefore the general public would blast SA for impeaching him.

2. The actions of DP are so disgraceful that they do not want to embarrass him and the university.

Either way, it’s not good.

The allegations need to be made public, now.