More than four months ago, the Student Services Finance Committee announced their nominations without a spot for Sophia Alzaidi, a member in the previous session.
Now, the case has been picked up by the Student Judiciary and Alzaidi has not backed down.
“I believe [the Associated Students of Madison] should be held accountable for actions that go in direct violation of the ASM constitution,” Alzaidi said. “I felt that the Nominations Board discriminated against me for information that was disclosed during my interview about some of the identities that I hold.”
Days following the start of the 25th Student Council session, Alzaidi announced her plans to file a complaint against the Nominations Board for bias when she was not picked to return to her position.
Alzaidi believes the Nominations Board was conducting interviews and making decisions without any standing rules and procedures, which would make their recommendations subjective and invalid.
“I am doing this because I believe the voices of LGBTQ+ women and people of color matter and deserve to be heard, and I feel my voice has been silenced,” Alzaidi said. “The climate of ASM and specifically SSFC is very white and very male — and that has to change.”
She asked ASM to approve standing rules and procedures for the board and redo all interviews and appointments based on the new rules. ASM confirmed the standing rules and procedures at the previous meeting in September.
The board is officially required to have their nominees by the second meeting, meaning that there is a period of time between the first two meetings where the board operates without approved standing rules, according to Nominations Board Chair Adam Fearing.
Fearing recommended five other candidates to the board. In total, there were 30 applicants for SSFC. Nine of them were returning members, leaving 21 new applicants. Not every candidate, despite being qualified, would be able to attain a position.
“If I thought these nominations were incorrect, I would gladly go back and interview everybody again, do the process over again,” Fearing said at the meeting.
At the time of the decision, the Nominations Board considered three fields for merit,
“I want to fix the conflicting bylaws that create this sort of situation because it's basically impossible to follow them to the letter,” Fearing said.
After deciding to move forward, Student Judiciary will hear the case Oct. 1.
