Updated Sept. 3 at 9:51 p.m.
Student Government Secretary Colin Meiselman, Class of 2010 Sen. Steve Dalton and Vice President Alex Prescott discussed removing Comptroller Matt Handverger during finals week last semester, according to former Sen. Jordan Boyd.
Boyd, who is on a semester-long leave of absence from AU, informed Handverger of this information via Facebook this morning.
"Meiselman, Dalton, [Senator Eric] Coletta, [Former Sen. Jason] Cunningham, [Former Senator and Vice President Jeff] Hanley, and (to an extent) Prescott were lobbying for your impeachment prior to you assuming office," the e-mail said. "I had dinner with the first four [excluding Prescott] during finals week last semester. They brought up the prospect of impeaching you, and Meiselman encouraged Dalton to bring it up."
Dalton's opinions are significantly different now, Handverger said.
Meiselman refuted the allegations, saying he "never would have had a serious discussion related to that that early, at all."
"It's total hearsay," he added.
However, Boyd's accusations were partially confirmed by Cunningham, one of the senators alleged to have discussed Handverger's impeachment last spring.
"I can confirm that the Senators named were having dinner at the end of the Spring semester after the election," Cunningham wrote in an e-mail to The Eagle. "It was during Mr. Meiselman's time attending the transition meetings with the other members of the cabinet. It came up that Meiselman was concerned about Handverger's dedication to the job ... Meiselman's claims that these revelations are "hearsay" is inaccurate."
Cunningham, while confirming Meiselman's role in the impeachment proceedings, claimed that Boyd's accusations were "misleading and at times patently false."
Boyd also e-mailed the senators informing them that some unnamed SG members had been discussing impeachment even before Handverger took office.
"It is no secret that some of you were looking for reasons to impeach him before he even took office," the e-mail said. "I have to wonder whether this is an true example of the Undergraduate Senate performing its duties as a body of oversight, or an example of several members on a mission to derail an official they have several biases against because of his connections to individuals who were, for a lack of a better word, corrupt."
"I respected former Sen. Boyd when he was in the Senate," Meiselman said. "I'd remind people that he doesn't have the full story, and that it's kind of hard to make judgments when you're not at the location of what's happened."
The Eagle obtained these documents and discussed them some executive SG members.
"The question before the Senate doesn't deal with the intentions of any individuals involved in this trial, but whether or not the charges are true," President Andy MacCracken said when shown the documents. "I don't know if anything was premeditated the way that Mr. Boyd is insinuating. I don't think that anything was premeditated here."
Prescott sent The Eagle this statement, reproduced in whole here:
"The question at hand is negligence and falsification of time sheets. I strongly believe that the evidence presented at the hearing proves these things. Was there a close eye on him, yes, but a conspiracy, no. Furthermore, this e-mail was sent prior to the start of the trial. Mr. Boyd, who is no longer a Senator or at the University, has not been there to hear the evidence and does not address the correct charges. This is a matter of hearsay, and once again the Senate is not addressing the intention or any premeditation but rather the charges of negligence and falsification of time sheets."
Special Counsel Tommy Fijacko sent The Eagle a prepared statement expressing "alarm" at the claims.
"I don't see how the Senate could not now move to allow this information at the trial," Fijacko said. "The allegations of conspiracy plotted against Matthew Handverger, directed at half of the SG Executive Board and a number of SG Senators, bring into question the claims, made by these same individuals, to have a fair trial."
Despite the new evidence, Senate Speaker Anthony Dunham said he would not entertain a motion to allow the evidence to be shown.
"I intend to ensure that the evidence that was subpoenaed and given in the specific time for submission will be the only evidence used for this proceeding," he said. "I feel that it the most fair way to proceed. It is my position that that is a motion [to allow new evidence] I would not entertain at the time."
Staff writer Lindsey Anderson contributed to this report.
You can reach this staff writer at cszold@theeagleonline.com.
