The Student Union Senate is considering an act that would reinforce the current senatorial attendance policy for meetings and possibly institute a maximum number of meetings senators are allowed to miss with or without an excuse before facing punishments such as censure or impeachment, said Executive Senator and Acting Vice President Andrew Brooks '09, who introduced the act. Senate procedure dictates that bylaws cannot be voted on until the week after they are introduced. The act, titled the Attendance Improvement Act of 2009, was originally introduced at the Feb. 1 Senate meeting, at which it was immediately tabled and set aside for further action during the next meeting. At last Sunday's meeting, the bylaw was again tabled because the language of the act had not been decided.

According to the current rule found in Article IV, Section I of the Student Union bylaws, "Senators shall attend all meetings of the Senate and committees on which they are assigned, except in extenuating circumstances. If a Senator must miss a Senate meeting, s/he must notify the President of the Union Senate in advance of the meeting."

Brooks said he believes some senators have been "abusing the bylaw," and that "they have taken 'extenuating circumstance' to mean any sort of excuse." By instituting the Improvement Act, Brooks said he hopes to clearly define "extenuating circumstance," to place a cap on the number of missed meetings, excused or unexcused, and to put clear punishments such as censure and impeachment in place for senators who violate the bylaw.

The exact language of the bill has not yet been decided, but the cap number Brooks suggested is a maximum of two absences, excused or unexcused, before a senator is subject to punishment in the form of censure or impeachment. This number is only tentative; the exact language is still unclear, and several senators have advocated a higher cap or no cap at all.

Student Union President Jason Gray '10 said, "I think that attendance is important, and the Senate has the prerogative to do what it thinks is appropriate so that we have a system that is set up to serve students as best we can." Beyond this, Gray declined to comment, saying that the issue was outside his purview as president and that he would support whatever decision the senate makes.

Brooks and several other senators cited the Feb. 1 Senate meeting as an example to illustrate the necessity of a stricter attendance policy. At that meeting, the senate had to wait two- and-a-half hours to achieve quorum, the minimum number of senators needed to conduct official Senate business, and had to turn away several clubs seeking charter because the club representatives could not wait until quorum was reached.

Several senators have echoed Brooks' sentiments, saying the lack of attendance impedes the Senate's ability to function and that action must be taken to ensure that a majority of senators are present for all senate sessions.

Other senators have expressed concerns, however, that the proposed cap on absences is too low and that it does not leave enough room for legitimate unforeseen circumstances. Brooks said that an excused absence includes any time "a situation arises which is out of . personal control." Some senators have said that they are worried about the possibility that more than two 'excused absences' could arise in a given semester which, under the proposed act, would lead to punitive action despite the 'excused' label. Castle Quad Senator Nathan Robinson '11 said that he would vote against the bylaw because he feels that it may be used as "a way to remove senators more easily." Robinson added that many senators, including Brooks, are "very, very upset about attendance," and that many have talked about impeachment as a punishment.

As currently proposed, the bill is not retroactive, so if passed, the guidelines it establishes will not effect any senators who may be in violation of the current attendance policy only. Brooks declined to comment about which senators were currently in violation of the attendance policy. He did, however, say that the records are supposed to be public and that when the bylaw comes up for discussion by the Senate, the attendance records of all senators will be read into the public record.