SGA joins the fray, votes no confidence in VPAA and Biondi

Back to Article
Back to Article

SGA joins the fray, votes no confidence in VPAA and Biondi

Academic Affairs Vice President, Richard Joubert, counts votes for last night's vote of no confidence

Academic Affairs Vice President, Richard Joubert, counts votes for last night's vote of no confidence

Academic Affairs Vice President, Richard Joubert, counts votes for last night's vote of no confidence

Academic Affairs Vice President, Richard Joubert, counts votes for last night's vote of no confidence

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

The Saint Louis University Student Government Association seconded the Faculty Senate’s no confidence sentiments on Oct. 31 by declaring no confidence in President Lawrence Biondi, S.J. and Vice President for Academic Affairs Manoj Patankar. The senators voted 38 in favor and zero against, with one voter abstaining.

Academic Affairs Vice President, Richard Joubert, counts votes for last night’s vote of no confidence. Kristen Miano/ News Editor

The statement comes just a day after the vote of no confidence made by the Faculty Senate and follows weeks of controversy within the university concerning the current administration and its relationship with the rest of the community.

“I think our senators made it pretty clear tonight what they think is in the best interest of the student body,” said SGA President Blake Exline. “They clearly stated that their constituents have no confidence in the president of the university to continue in his position.” Exline said the next step is for the executive board to write a letter to the Board of Trustees requesting the removal of Biondi as University president and detailing the logic of the Association’s vote.

Following the successful vote of no confidence, senators made a motion “to bar all student body representatives from attending any meetings in an official capacity with Fr. Lawrence Biondi and/or Dr. Manoj Patankar presiding.” This motion was passed with the intention of making clear to senators what was expected of them as representatives following their vote.

Debate on the bill endured for nearly five hours. Most of the discussion centered on the list of grievances to be included with the bill. The list of grievances comprised 24 points that the sponsors of the bill intended as evidence for their drafting a bill to vote no confidence in Biondi and Patankar. The chambers suspended parliamentary rules in order to systematically review and debate any points of contention in the list of grievances.

Multiple senators felt that including a list of grievances directly with the bill left an opportunity for criticism on the basis of the factual value of the statements made. The legislative committee involved in drafting the bill defended the accuracy of the grievances, claiming that all of the points had been fact-checked multiple times over.

Many senators also argued that putting out a vote of no confidence without a document backing up the decision with demonstrable proof put the image of SGA in jeopardy. Sen. Becky Killian further argued that not including the list of grievances would dismiss the fact that hours of work was put into the research and conversation that culminated in a bill of no confidence.

Sen. Andy Wilmes expressed displeasure at requesting the forceful removal of Biondi, citing his excellent history at the school and his long tenure as reasons for respecting his position and making a more docile move to incite his departure. Wilmes moved to amend the bill to request Biondi’s retirement at the end of the academic year. Senators largely disagreed with the motion, and the amendment was voted down.

Another large part of the debate centered on whether to include Manoj Patankar, vice president for academic affairs, in the vote of no confidence. Those against including Patankar on the bill argued that his presence took away from SGA’s focus of removing Biondi. Sen. Nate Klosterman also argued that sending one piece of legislation to Biondi to remove Patankar but then telling the Board of Trustees to remove Biondi sent a mixed message.

“I think we need to just get rid of Dr. Patankar [in the bill] and go after the problem, which is President Biondi,” Klosterman said.

Those for Patankar’s inclusion in the vote of no confidence argued that the actions of Patankar have demonstrated a lack of competence in his position and that SGA needed to make a statement of that effect. Vice President of Student Affairs Richard Joubert called to attention the fact that Patankar had a measurable hand in enacting many of the controversial policies and proposals that SGA has found issue with.

Guests representing various student groups attended the meeting to voice their constituents’ opinions on the vote.

Alex Giltner, a graduate student representing a group of 34 graduate students, presented a signed petition asking SGA to vote no confidence in Biondi. In the statement the students attributed the lack of communication and pervasive fear to a downtrend in SLU’s reputation under Biondi.

Giltner and Sen. Kyle Lincoln stated that the list would have been longer but many students did not include their signature for fear of losing their positions at SLU.

Also in attendance was one of the administrators of the SLU Students for No Confidence Facebook group, first year law student Liz Ramsey, who spoke on behalf of the students that have been vocal about Biondi’s removal through their support of the group. As of 11:23 p.m. Wednesday night, the group had 968 “likes.”

The conclusion of the vote was met with applause throughout the room.

“Overall, [the conversation] was productive,” said McLaughlin, author of the bill of no confidence. “The bill was not passed without scrutiny of the entire senate, which was great.”

There was also an extensive discussion concerning the Student Learning Outcomes earlier in the evening.

There will be a vote as to whether the University will adopt the proposed Student Learning Outcomes on Wednesday, Nov. 7. McLaughlin and Killian expressed hesitation about the learning outcomes due to the lack of time the Senate had to consider the outcomes, as well as the apparent subjectivity of the rubrics suggested and the undue burden of the outcomes.

Vice President Joubert expressed support for Student Learning Outcomes, foremost due to the necessity for outcomes in order for the University to maintain accreditation as well as the ability for outcomes to concretely demonstrate the effectiveness of education at the University. Joubert showed a strong desire for student feedback on the Student Learning Outcomes and their possible implementation.

Assistant Vice President of Student Development Mona Hicks made clear that the group of administrators developing the Student Learning Outcomes has remained open to student feedback and have been receiving and responding to e-mails sent to the group over the past months.

Multiple senators felt that the bill was not properly formed to address the issues the authors expressed.

The bill was tabled for next week’s meeting.