@Columbia (🧵2/20) S&C was asked one question: when Senate leaders call the Senate a "third branch" of Columbia governance, coordinate with the President and Trustees, are they right?
Answer: no. Not contested interpretation. Foreclosed on the face of the primary sources.
@Columbia (🧵3/20) Why this matters: the "third branch" framing has been asserted, repeatedly and publicly, by @CUSenate leaders and Senate-affiliated bodies for over a year.
Seven instances on the record. Each one runs into the same wall.
@Columbia @CUSenate (🧵4/20) Exhibit 1. Student senate leader in @ColumbiaSpec (Feb 20, 2025): the Senate is "the lower chamber to the trustees' upper chamber," and "broad policymaking authority starts with the senate."
@Columbia @CUSenate @ColumbiaSpec (🧵5/20) Exhibit 2. @ColumbiaSpec news (Oct 10, 2024): Columbia "broadly operates under three branches of government, the administration, the board of trustees, and the University Senate."
@Columbia @CUSenate @ColumbiaSpec (🧵6/20) Exhibit 3. Sundial Report (Mar 31, 2025): "The Statutes describe the Senate as a branch of shared government."
No. The Report's NEXT sentence concedes Senate authority "required concurrence from the Board."
@Columbia @CUSenate @ColumbiaSpec (🧵7/20) Exhibit 4. Senate EC Chair D'Armiento @j34bsrisbd6f (Sundial Report): the Senate is "the third branch of University governance, as set out in the Statutes."
The Statutes contain no such language. The "as set out in" is factually false.
@Columbia @CUSenate @ColumbiaSpec @j34bsrisbd6f (🧵8/20) Exhibit 5. Student Affairs co-chairs (@ColumbiaSpec, Apr 23, 2025): "@Columbia's governance structure resembles a triangle... Trustees, the President, and the University Senate... work in tandem."
@Columbia @CUSenate @ColumbiaSpec @j34bsrisbd6f (🧵9/20) Exhibit 6. Two senators (@ColumbiaSpec op-ed, Nov 2, 2025): Trustees "failed" to consult; Statute changes "should have been developed collaboratively."
The authors' own modal verbs ("should have") concede no extant duty exists.
@Columbia @CUSenate @ColumbiaSpec @j34bsrisbd6f (🧵10/20) Exhibit 7. Sen. @jrslaugh, plenary (Jun 13, 2025): Board resolutions "do not have statutory authority on their own."
But, Trustees "might, debatably, be able to change the Statutes unilaterally."
@Columbia @CUSenate @ColumbiaSpec @j34bsrisbd6f @jrslaugh (🧵14/20) Authority 3. NY Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 701. Management of a NY nonprofit is vested in its board.
A bylaw rendering board action contingent on a delegated body's concurrence is beyond scope. The legal floor. Not Columbia-specific.
(🧵 1/5) At tonight's University Senate governance forum, @jrslaugh told the audience @Columbia was "in violation" of its 1810 charter's $20,000 real estate cap. He said he'd "searched through all the archives". Three panelists, including a constitutional law prof, nodded along.
@jrslaugh @Columbia (🧵 2/6) The New York Legislature repealed that provision in 1884. It's on page 55 of Columbia's own published charter documents. Took about five minutes to find.
@jrslaugh @Columbia (🧵 3/6) @jrslaugh also claimed the 1810 charter refers to "the furniture of the mind" as evidence the trustees are misreading archaic language to justify their authority.