14 Student Senators Removed in Recall Election
May 6, 2002

What happens when the director of a Texas college athletic department wants a new football stadium? The law says he has to take a vote of the students if the plan includes raising tuition.

And what happens if the students vote down the proposal? Play the gender card.

Using Title IX as justification, the University of North Texas Student Government Association passed an athletics fee increase after the student body defeated a similar proposal in an election earlier in the semester.

“Title IX,” short for the Title IX Education Amendments of 1972 was intended to, quite literally, level the playing field— to insure an equal number of women’s and men’s athletic teams if there is demand.

"No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid," the legislation reads.

University of North Texas athletic department, according to Rick Villarreal, athletic director, has been non-compliant for years. Citing evidence from cracked tennis court surfaces to a lack of a women’s softball team, Villarreal said UNT is at risk for a Title IX-based lawsuit if money is not raised to repair courts and start new teams. His ultimatum to the UNT Student Government Association (SGA) Senate: Pass a fee increase or pay later for a legal battle.

Gender equity was not the original selling-point of the fee increase. Villarreal said he wanted to renovate UNT’s football stadium, Fouts Field, with money from student fees at first.

He came to the SGA Senate in the Fall of 2001 with watercolor renditions of how the new stadium would look when completed, which hangs prominently in the office of the SGA president.

This proposal met some serious criticism from students, concerned with the North Texas Eagles’ loosing record and average attendance at home games of 14,000 (with a seating capacity of 30,000).

“I reduced the original [cost estimate of $50 million]. Renovations are needed down the road and we need to do it, but it’s not the most important thing,” Villarreal said. “If students tell me I can have the fee, but I can’t touch Fouts for five years, I’m fine with that.”

The possibility of the students approving a fee increase looked grim. Villarreal was soon “reminded” of the alleged Title IX violations. His regular pitch for the fee increase now had an added feature. Title IX became the focus of the debate surrounding the fee increase proposal.

Convinced that the fee increase is necessary to be compliant with federal law, the Student Senate placed on their spring officer election ballot a referendum. The ballot asked students if they support a fee increase of 4.50 per credit hour (capped at $67).

The students said, “no.” Fifty-five percent of the students did not approve the fee on their ballots. Of roughly 28,000 students, a record 2,208 voted in the election.

“[The election result] is not something that I expected,” Villarreal said.

Anonymous letters to the SGA listserv and urgent appeals from administrators made reference to a pending Title IX non-compliance suit. No evidence could be presented proving such a threat.

Several campus political organizations, both liberal and conservative, passed resolutions condemning the Senate’s decision. Even the feminists were against it.

Sarah Kettelhut, president of the UNT Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance, said she questions the intent of the athletics department’s invocation of Title IX.

“Why are we only now voting on fees that would satisfy federal legislation?,” she said.

Several students asked whether there was a real lawsuit pending at a roundtable discussion the following week. No administrator present, not even the university lawyer, would answer.

“I can’t say one way or the other,” said Richard Rafes, UNT vice-chancellor and general counsel. “An answer either way could incriminate us.”

The mere possibility of such a threat was enough for senator Ben Williams, a graduate student, to re-introduce a moderated, Title IX-specific fee, set at $3.50 per hour. This version of the fee failed previously as an alternative to the $4.50 fee referendum.

“I truly think that passing this compromise fee now will save students money in the long run,” Williams said.

The Senate passed the lower, moderated fee-- This time without a student election. 21 senators, a slim majority, voted in favor of the fee.

A survey of over 200 students was administered the day before the election, narrowly in favor of a lower fee earmarked specifically for Title IX compliance. SGA executives said this survey was a mandate for their decision. Many Senators questioned the reliability of such a random survey.

The SGA Supreme Court met the following Saturday to decide if the Senate violated parliamentary procedure by re-introducing a defeated question during the same legislative session. In a 2-1 decision, the tribunal upheld the Senate’s approval of the modified fee.

The Board of Regents met on Easter Sunday to approve the moderated fee, in time to tack on the fee to early registration Monday.

Then along came the resistance.

Marty O’Neill II, a senior from Longbeach, Miss., created Students for an Accountable SGA (SFA SGA), an SGA watchdog group. Within the first two days of their petition drive, they gathered enough signatures to place 19 of the 21 senators on a recall election ballot.

The UNT SGA constitution gives students the power to initiate a recall election for a student senator by gathering 300 signatures. SFA SGA gathered over 300 signatures for nearly every senator who voted yes to the fee.

A petition for a vote of confidence received over 500 signatures. The petitions, consisting of hundreds of pages, were hurriedly accepted at the last Senate meeting of the semester.

The SGA conducted the recall election at the last minute—the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday before pre-finals week. The vote of confidence headed the ballot.

The vote of confidence failed by 68 percent, stating that the Senate did not represent the interests of the student body. Four senators retained their seats.

About 450 students voted in the recall election.

O’Neill said he hopes the recall will encourage campus representative bodies to better reflect student opinion.

“We feel that the Senate’s actions have tremendously devalued our votes,” he said. “However, it is still not too late to reclaim the value of our votes and our voices. We must continue to send the message to our student representatives that we demand representation.”

SGA president Brandon Daniels said the passage of the modified fee was not handled in the right manner, but that this controversy helped kindle activity on an otherwise apathetic campus.

“We have all learned a lot from this experience... however, I stand 100 percent behind the decision of the senate,” Daniels said. “I am happy that students are now taking a part in what is going on at their university.”

Student senator Jeff Karlson, who voted no to the modified fee, said the petition drive and the resulting election is proof of the power constituents have over their elected leaders.

“The fact is that SGA is scared to death of SFA SGA and will do and say anything to save face with the students,” he said.

Sean Hiatt, a student senator from Fort Worth who was up for recall but retained his seat, defends his decision.

“We're getting a little attention locally for voting [for] a fee that supports women's athletics,” he said. “We all know it's possible to get sued over Title IX, so think what attention we might get if we were sued. Pick your poison.”

An appeal filed with the SGA Supreme Court is still pending. The appeal questions whether or not recalled senators can be re-appointed in the term following a recall.