Last week, ASUO Executive and Senate faced complaints from applicants for vacant positions who were dissatisfied with their interview experiences.

Two people came before Senate in the public forum during last week’s meeting to voice their criticism of how Exec handled interviews. Four other written testimonies were submitted, complaining about a lack of preparation and professionalism on the part of the interview committee and a sense that the applicants were not being considered fairly for the position.

Senate spent some time reviewing the testimonies in a discussion period. Many senators found what they saw to be unsettling.

“Reading these testimonies is incredibly disappointing,” Senator Robin Lilley said.

Haley Wilson was one of the applicants who filed a grievance against the interview committee that handled her application for a spot on the EMU Board. Wilson, who currently sits on the board as a member at large, has history working with the ASUO.

“I can’t stress the word ‘impersonal’ enough,” Wilson said. “I interviewed for a position with Exec my freshman year and I didn’t get it, but that doesn’t even matter. The point was that they were super warm and welcoming. There was a huge difference between the performance I saw versus the performance I expected.”

ASUO Chief of Staff Lamar Wise came before Senate and denied that Exec gave any candidate less than a fair shot, as well as any claims that candidates who were not selected for the Executive nomination were not notified properly.

A few days later, ASUO Communications Director Natalie Quirk said in a phone interview, “We didn’t have any lack of communication on our part. I think they were probably just frustrated with the amount of time that it was taking to get the whole process finished with. It’s a lengthy process. Any formal communication would have happened after interviews had concluded.”

Wilson said she did not receive an email until Nov. 11, almost a week after the Executive-selected nominees were confirmed by the Senate.

In addition to transparency with candidates, the issue of transparency with Senate was also raised in discussion. Some senators, among them Samantha Cohen, Yelin Oh and President Rebecca Rhodes, expressed dissatisfaction with the level of communication between Exec and Senate during the interview process.

There are no rules requiring Exec to directly involve Senate in the interview and initial vetting process for candidates, but intercommunication has existed as somewhat of an unspoken assumption. The degree to which this occurs, however, is not definitive.

The hiring committee did include Abel Cerros, Senate Seat 20 and Academic Chair, during the hiring process. Cerros participated in as many of the interviews as he was able to and served as a liaison between the two branches. Of the five open Senate seats, four were academic, so Cerros thought it appropriate that as academic chair, he be present to interview applicants.

“I feel like if the senators were really committed to being involved with the interviews, then they kind of would have made more of an attempt to pursue that…I don’t know whose fault that is,” Cerros said.

Cerros was absent from Senate on Nov. 5, but in response to the complaints, said, “I did read one of the testimonies. I was there when we interviewed this person…I’m not sure if they were interviewed more than once, but based on what I saw, that testimony was not true. I was there. There were at least four or five of us there. We did have pens and paper. We did shake their hands.”

It seems discrepancies remain between the the testimonies of those applicants and some members of the interview committee.

Though Senate expressed concern over transparency, they confirmed every Executive-selected nominee during the Nov. 5 and Nov. 12 meetings.