In a 9-1-2 vote on Sunday, Student Senate voted to censure Matthew Kaplan, College senior and veteran senator. Kaplan is also president of the class of 2007. According to Senate’s official statement, the reason for reprimanding Kaplan was his repetitive absences to several Senate events this semester and not the legitimacy of those absences. Kaplan was not present to defend himself from censure at the Oct. 29 meeting.

Benjamin Klebanoff, College sophomore and newly elected Senator, initiated the motion to place Kaplan’s censure onto the agenda. College junior and Senator Anthony Osei co-sponsored the action. The motion was not motivated by personal animosity, according to Klebanoff.

“It’s not that we don’t like Matt Kaplan,” Klebanoff said. “It’s that we don’t want Senate to be filled with people too busy to be on Senate.”

Official Senate records show that Kaplan has attended only two of the eight plenary sessions — Senate’s weekly meetings — this fall, though some of these absences have been excused. He has not attended a single plenary session since new senators took office.

Kaplan believes that he can be an effective senator regardless of his attendance at weekly plenary meetings. “I’m still representing the interests of students, even without being at a meeting from 7-10 [p.m.] on Sunday,” Kaplan said. “I still think I represent students and Oberlin and the mission of this great college…and I’ll continue to do that all my life.”

Kaplan also contends that he remains a very active member of Senate. He serves on three committees (including the Admissions Committee), holds office hours weekly, was active in the interviews for the student representative to the Presidential Search Committee and always takes the time to read the minutes from meetings that he has missed.

Further, Kaplan’s reasons for missing meetings are often byproducts of his broader community involvement. For example, he missed the most recent plenary session because he was interviewing Democratic candidate Sherrod Brown.

Nonetheless, at least nine senators believed that the frequency of Kaplan’s absences to Senate meetings warranted censure. Senate’s own bylaws state that “in order to be an effective Senator and student advocate, each senator must attend all committee meetings, plenary sessions and office hours.”

College senior and Senator Matthew Adler, who abstained from voting, describes the plenary sessions as “pretty much crucial.” By not attending plenary meetings, Kaplan has missed the chance to give “input on committee appointments and organizational strategy,” according to Adler.

Kaplan’s absences have also meant that he has yet to officially assume an officer position (one of the requirements for senators) and that he has consistently missed opportunities to give official input on key issues; for example, Adler pointed out that because Kaplan was not present at the Oct. 29 meeting, he did not vote on which student will represent the student body on the Presidential Search Committee.

Some Senators view the censure of Kaplan as a part of Senate’s broader attempt to augment institutional accountability, though they differ on whether Kaplan is accountable to the student body, to Senate or to both.

Shozo Kawaguchi, Senate advisor and Associate Dean of Community Life, declined to comment on the specifics of Kaplan’s censure, but stated that, “Senators are trying to make an effort to be accountable.”

Kawaguchi ties this accountability to legislation proposed by College junior and Student Senator Colin Koffel last spring that cemented Senate’s attendance policy and the ramifications of repeated absences. These policies work similarly to a demerit system; they award points to Senators for missing plenary sessions, office hours and general faculty meetings. After a Senator has earned 20 points, a motion for his or her censure is automatically placed on Senate’s plenary agenda.

At the start of the Oct. 29 meeting, Kaplan had only ten points, just half of what is needed to activate this automatic process. Kaplan expressed frustration that he was singled out for censure when two other senators (College seniors John Weil and Callum Ingram) had also accumulated ten points. According to Kaplan, there was “no official rationale” for his censure.

College junior and senator Colin Koffel, however, explained that Senates bylaws “allow for the Senate to censure its member(s) if [Senate] believes their actions reflect poorly on Senate.”

According to Koffel, the Membership Coordinator whose job is to keep official Senate attendance records, Kaplan had missed more meetings than any other senator. Kaplan also has not attended a plenary meeting since Sept. 10.

Senate will discuss censuring Weil and College junior Kantara Souffrant (whose absences are also frequent) at the Nov. 5 plenary meeting. Why Senate is not considering censuring Ingram, even though he had the same number of points as Kaplan and Weil, is not clear. Weil and Souffrant did not respond to requests for comment.

Adler and Louis Grube, College sophomore and the only senator voting against the censure, also expressed concern that Kaplan never had a chance to defend himself.

“He was told that this [his attendance] was going to be discussed, and then still didn’t attend this meeting,” said Adler. “A lot of senators took this to mean that he had a chance to defend himself but didn’t, whereas I said he hasn’t had a chance yet.”

Grube agreed. “The big reason I voted no is because Matt was not given a chance to defend himself. The reasons for which he missed plenary sessions were not made available to anyone. There was even discussion about the need for adequate explanation from him.”

On Tuesday, Oct. 31, Kaplan appealed his censure in a two-sentence e-mail. He bases his appeal on the fact that there was “no official rationale” behind the censure because he did not have 20 points. As of Nov. 2, however, Kaplan had earned an additional ten points, bringing his total to 20. Senate will hear his appeal at Sunday’s plenary session.