For two weeks in a row, Student Senate’s agenda has included a proposal to censure one of its members. Last week, Senate voted 9-1-2 to censure College senior Matthew Kaplan; on Sunday, Nov. 5, Senate voted 4-1-7 against censuring College senior John Weil.

Kaplan and Weil had each accumulated a substantial number of demerit “points.” Senators acquire these by not attending plenary sessions, general faculty meetings or office hours. Kaplan had ten points by the meeting in which his censure was proposed; Weil had 21 points as of the Nov. 5 meeting.

These censures are widely considered part of Senate’s attempt to augment accountability. Given that the rationale behind both proposed censures was insufficient attendance, some find it troubling that Senate opted to censure Kaplan but not Weil. Senator and College senior Matthew Adler described these actions as “logically inconsistent.”

Kaplan expressed similar concerns.

“I was under the impression, as many people were, that other senators who had equal points or more points who had been questioned about their commitment to Senate would be held equally accountable,” Kaplan said. “But this failed to take place.”

Kaplan believes that Senate’s decisions show “an incredible hypocrisy” and “represent a real sign of illegitimacy and inconsistency.”

Membership Coordinator and College junior Colin Koffel, who abstained from voting on both censure proposals, believes that Kaplan and Weil’s respective situations are “completely different.”

Arbitrary inconsistency, Koffel explained, is not the only way to account for the apparent discrepancy involved in censuring Kaplan but not Weil.

“Senator Kaplan…had not been at a single plenary meeting since the middle of September,” said Koffel, “whereas Weil has been at some of these meetings.”

Official Senate attendance records, for which Koffel is responsible, show that until the Nov. 3 meeting, Kaplan had not been at a single plenary session since the new senators took office.

Koffel also explained the distinction between automatic proposals for censure and censure proposals coming from individual senators. Senate bylaws require the automatic discussion of censuring those senators who have accrued 20 points. Individual senators are permitted to move for censure when another senator “purposely break[s] procedure,” “show[s] disrespect” or “purposely violate[s] any Senate bylaw.”

Senate’s bylaws clearly indicate that attendance at plenary sessions, among other things, is essential to fulfilling the role of Senator. By this logic, Senate might not have been inconsistent in censuring Kaplan but not Weil because Kaplan’s absences have been more frequent that Weil’s.

These two competing perspectives on the censures may butt heads at Senate’s Nov. 12 meeting. Kaplan has appealed his censure and Senate will discuss a proposal, put forth by Adler, to rescind Kaplan’s censure entirely.