Last Wednesday, the student senate voted to impeach St. Edward’s Hall senator Michael Heffernan in a 22-11 vote.
Heffernan had violated section 4.4 of the student senate bylaws by missing more than seven meetings. Although senators have the option to send in a proxy on account of an expected absence, Heffernan claimed that he had previously made his constituents aware of his absences and that they had supported him. He said at his impeachment hearing that he had acquired 121 St. Edward’s Hall resident signatures on his behalf.
As a two-thirds majority is required to impeach a member, the vote was close. A few senators gave their insight into the matter, sharing reasons why they voted the way they did.
Senator Kyle Lauckner of Dunne Hall recounted his decision-making. “I decided mostly on my own conscience. I definitely could have contacted more of my constituents, given the complex nature of it,” Lauckner said.
Lauckner shared that three or four Dunne Hall members approached him prior to the hearing and attempted to convince him to acquit Heffernan. “And so I had to explain to them, in a relatively methodical fashion, as to why I was going the way I was ... We all signed up for the job. And they respected that,” he said.
Lauckner voted to impeach Heffernan, as he believed that following the rules of the senate that each senator signed off on was his top priority. “We all agreed to the bylaws … It begs the question, if our hall gives us permission to violate any bylaw, then shouldn’t we all just do that? It just sets a bad precedent,” Lauckner said.
In terms of convincing other senators, Lauckner said that he “thought sharing my insight could help other senators make up their mind, because I was given a stress test the week leading up to the impeachment, so I already had a pretty well-formed idea of what should occur.”
Walsh Hall senator Laurel Hamilton shared her uncertainty on which way to vote. “I think I actually came in with a little bit of a skewed opinion. I wasn’t really sure how I was going to vote when I walked in, because I did think that there was something to be said about the fact that so many of the Stedsmen were very intent on Heffernan not coming to the meetings. So, I respected that,” Hamilton said.
She continued, “However there’s a lot of merit behind showing up for things … It applies outside of the dorm, for a plethora of reasons, which is why I didn’t know how I was going to vote.”
Hamilton noted that the “general consensus” of the senate was that Heffernan could have accomplished his self-governance ideal by still showing up to the meetings and abstaining from every vote. “If anything, it probably would have more of an impact,” she said.
Hamilton ultimately decided to vote to impeach Heffernan. “Where do we draw the line of letting people get away with these things?” she asked.
Elaborating on her decision, Hamilton shared her view that Heffernan’s passivity was failing to “foster that sense of community” that Notre Dame prides itself upon.
Alumni Hall senator Michael Camilleri shared that he was actually elected to the student senate due to a situation similar to Heffernan’s. The previous Alumni senator had missed a significant number of meetings, and resigned in the face of potential impeachment.
When asked about his opinion on the impeachment, Camilleri cited that he found Heffernan’s reasoning to be strange. “It is just a little bit weird to say, ‘Our preferred form of representation is to not be represented.’ That just doesn't make sense to me,” Camilleri said.
Camilleri did not contact his constituents before the vote, instead relying on his own conscience.
He also said that he thinks that it “sets a bad precedent for Steds” in terms of their reputation in the senate. “If you are going to sign up for it, just take it seriously,” he said.
Despite this, Camilleri voted to acquit Heffernan, citing his belief that impeachment would lead to further conflict with St. Edward’s that could be avoided by keeping Heffernan.
However, Camilleri said that he had “no problem with the fact that we impeached him. And I think it just sets a bad precedent.”
