Use of discretionary funds by Oliveros-Larsen were also questioned in reference to money that was given to the crew team following under-funding by the Student Finance Committee (SFC).
"Like other branches, [the Executive Board (E-Board) is] having a lot of problems acting constitutionally," said Oliveros-Larsen. "We are trying to get in line with that."
Oliveros-Larsen acknowledged that her use of SGO discretionary funds in the allocation of $2,500 to the crew team was a mistake.
"That was a huge flub on my part. I thought [the SGO] had $4,100 left in its funds," said Oliveros-Larsen. $4,100, in actuality, represented the total SGO discretionary budget, including money that had already been spent.
The expenditure in fact caused the organization to go deeper than $300 into debt.
"I take full responsibility for this; it's not going to happen again," said Oliveros-Larsen.
"The money was spent without [the E-Board's] knowledge and without [its] consideration," said SGO Vice President Amy Summerville '02.
"I found out when a member of the crew team thanked me, and I had to ask, 'for what?'" said Summerville. "I told [Oliveros-Larsen] that I was disappointed and upset about not having been consulted on this."
The SGO exhausted its budget primarily through the crew expenditure and a $1,600 contribution to the College's coeducation celebration.
"It would have been phenomenally detrimental to the SGO's relationship with the administration for the SGO to have failed to meet its commitment," said Summerville.
However, Oliveros-Larsen has yet to disclose where the extra $300 to pay the school came from.
"If we can't afford to fund crew, we can't fund crew, regardless of anyone's opinions. In such a controversial issue, there has to be some type of vote; it really seems like negligence to not have other people discussing how that money is going to be spent," said senate member Ben Baum '03, who led much of the questioning of Oliveros-Larsen's decisions. "That doesn't at all mean the crew [team] shouldn't get money, but there needs to be a more democratic voice here."
The administration is taking an interest in the disordered state of the SGO's finances.
"We are starting to discuss it now," said Dean of Students Ben Lieber. "I have spoken to [Assistant Dean of Students Sam Haynes], who was quite concerned about the situation. We are starting to talk about what level of involvement would be appropriate. It seems clear to us that it has gotten problematic. Dean Haynes is preparing to help out in a direct way sometime soon."
While Baum has the support of some senators, he does not speak for any defined group, and several senators made it clear that Baum's opinions are not shared by the entire body.
"It's the responsibility of the whole body, not just the E-Board or the president, to bring things to the SGO's attention," said senate member Tom Fritzsche '03. "Michelle didn't get a fair shake at the meeting; the atmosphere became incredibly hostile when there was no real need to go outside the SGO or be so antagonistic about proposing improvements."
"It's essential that these problems are fixed to ensure our functioning as a body," said Baum, whose comments also focused on his perceived inactivity of the SGO as a whole.
"We want to discuss our problems with the way [Oliveros-Larsen] has been running the SGO," said Baum. "We're at a point right now where we haven't really done anything; we haven't really discussed anything. I want to find out if there's going to be a change. The way things are going right now is not OK."
While no one denied that the SGO has not been functioning as well as it could, many senators urged a unified effort for improvement, rather then a public censure.
"Some of the criticism was valid," said Fritzsche. "We definitely need to revisit issues that have been brought up in the past and that haven't been followed up. The E-Board could take a larger leadership role in that, but we all need to be more active about returning to important issues like parking on campus."
Both Summerville and Baum stopped short of challenging Oliveros-Larsen's authority, instead emphasizing the need for change.
"Every member of the senate bears some responsibility for having let things get to this point and for not having expressed our concerns sooner," said Summerville.
When Baum was asked whether effective change could be enacted under the current administration, he expressed optimism at the possibility, which he considered contingent upon Oliveros-Larsen taking into greater account how people feel in the Senate.
Oliveros-Larsen challenged the appropriateness of making such allegations on the floor of the senate, as she had not been notified of any of the perceived problems previously.
"I think it's startling to be singled out in front of the Senate when no one has tried to meet with me," said Oliveros-Larsen. "This is the first time I've heard any feedback like this; I haven't had anyone come up to me."
"It is the job of the E-Board to do administrative work and the job of the Senate to bring up new issues," said Oliveros-Larsen, countering Baum's allegations of her ineffectiveness.
"Very often [senators] don't have any new business and just jet," said Oliveros-Larsen. "There are a lot of things we're not doing, and I know I need to set an example."
"The meeting was much more productive than others we've seen this year," said Mike Flood '03. "Even more so if it can result in the consideration of a whole list of things that have not been addressed yet."
Issues including parking, phone service, van purchases and meal plan issues were discussed at a senate retreat this year, but have yet to be extensively debated.
"It would be a positive development for the senate to become more involved and proactive," said Baum. "We may be interested in forming a committee to do some of the work independently."
Several senators expressed specific monetary concerns focusing on the inability of class presidents and the College Council to do their traditional projects.
"It's hard to imagine us establishing an effective SGO agenda without money," said Baum.
However, with SGO funds already depleted, the only potential source of funding is the Student Finance Committee's (SFC) discretionary fund.
"The SGO should be an example of how to run a budget," said SFC Chair Will Johnson. "I don't see any reason to take a different tack in this case. Individual senate members that want to submit a discretionary request may do so."
Issues that are likely to be considered in the next SGO meeting on Dec. 3 include the suggestions that Flood noted were brought up at the Senate retreat earlier this year, continued investigation of the SFC: procedural parliamentary reforms, and problems related to senate attendance and tardiness.
"I'm confident in the ability of the Senate to make changes and move forward productively this year," said Summerville.
"Any specific suggestions on how things can be done better are welcome," said Oliveros-Larsen, prior to tabling the issues for later debate.
Following the meeting, some senate members hoped to put the divisive issues in more realistic perspective.
"The reality is that this is just a college student government," said Fritzsche. "It is a little bit important, but it's not like it's a great organization with a lot of power to effect any great change; so people on the whole shouldn't be as worked up about it as they are."
-Mike Reed contributed to this article