• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Thursday, December 5, 1996

POLITICS:

Council's overturning of Board decision sparks disputeBy Ryan Ozimek

Daily Bruin Staff

In a match of governmental strength, two branches of the undergraduate government clashed in a fight over power late Tuesday night.

After receiving what it believed was a punch below the waist from its judicial branch, the Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC) landed a resounding blow to the Judicial Board's (J-Board) jurisdiction.

After two hours of spirited but civil discussion, the council voted with a three-fourths majority to overrule the J-Board's previous decision denying the student government's use of the "Students First!" logo on all USAC materials.

"We needed to take a strong position and establish the jurisdiction that we as USAC have and that they as J-Board have," said Academic Affairs Commissioner Max Espinosa.

"It is not USAC that is hurting the integrity of the institution, it is J-Board itself that has put a blemish on the judicial branch by deciding to step outside its jurisdiction ... and it's our responsibility as USAC to restore that integrity as elected officials," Espinosa added.

J-Board members, who just one day earlier reached their decision, expressed surprise toward the student council's decision.

"I'm initially shocked, but then I become concerned about what this council has done and I don't know if they realize the message they send to the campus community," said J-Board Chief Justice Eric Mah.

At a J-Board hearing Monday night, Jeff Ellis, a fourth-year philosophy and political science student, presented his petition against the undergraduate council to the board, claiming a misuse of mandatory student fees.

Ellis claimed the council wrongly used student money in its anti-Proposition 209 campaign and in the use of "Students First!" logo on government publications and advertising.

In the first part of his petition, Ellis argued that USAC support of the anti-Proposition 209 campaign was against the spirit of the undergraduate constitution's preamble.

"Is it proper for USAC to use students' money to tell them how to vote?" Ellis asked.

Citing the preamble, Ellis noted that it was obvious to him that by using the funds to fight the successful initiative, USAC did not follow what was in the best interests of the diversity of views on the campus.

It was out of the council's bounds to spend money in support of the anti-Proposition 209 campaign, since the proposition did not solely effect the university, he added.

"We elect people to do what they are supposed to do within the set policies ... which (USAC) did not do," Ellis said.

But in their preliminary decision released early Tuesday morning, the Judicial Board wrote, "The board, however, was not convinced that the USAC violated the Preamble of the (undergraduate student government) constitution."

After a short recess, the board reconvened to hear the second part of Ellis' petition, which focused on the use of compulsory student fees to pay for materials printed with the "Students First!" logo.

By using the logo, USAC was publicizing an election slate and making a connection for many students between USAC and Students First!, Ellis contended.

"It's just not right to show one-sided views with the people's money," Ellis said. "If even one student in the next election were swayed by the association between USAC and Students First!, then what they've done is wrong."

During his rebuttal at the J-Board hearing, undergraduate student President John Du explained that there should be an obvious cause-effect relationship in order for the J-Board to find in favor of Ellis.

"There needs to be a clear indication ... that proves that we are infringing on another's rights or something so heinous that we need to put a stop to it," Du said.

Since neither the USAC constitution nor the council's bylaws mention political slates or parties, the issue was out of J-Board's jurisdiction and it could not decide on its constitutionality.

"Anything can be a political slate if you think it is," Du said. "But it must be codified for it to truly be one or the other."

Despite Du's claims, however, the court ruled in Ellis' favor, barring the council from using the "Students First!" logo on its materials.

"The board has found that USAC inappropriately used compulsory student fees to associate itself with the political slate, 'Students First!', and may no longer display, publish, nor print the name 'Students First!' or any associated logo on any official documentation, advertising, or letterhead paid for by compulsory student fees," the J-Board wrote in its preliminary decision Monday night.

Although the board was unanimous in its decision, justices would not point to the exact university bylaws that USAC broke until a complete decision was made.

Less than 24 hours after the Judicial Board's ruling became law, the undergraduate council immediately questioned the bounds of the undergraduate government's judicial branch.

At Tuesday night's USAC meeting, where the council overturned the J-Board's ruling, it seemed as though USAC was not clear as to what it was voting on at one point. It took three calls to vote before the council made its ultimate decision.

The first time, a quick call to question caught some members off guard, and the official, unanimous vote in favor of overturning the vote didn't last more than a minute.

Soon after, the council took a re-vote, where the measure failed 7-3-3. During this vote, Du ­ who had been adamant about repealing the J-Board decision only minutes earlier ­ voted not to override the court, hoping to split and vote on the decision in its respective items.

When he realized he couldn't, Du used parliamentary rules to call the motion back to question for a third vote.

"The administrative representative (Lyle Timmerman) confused a lot of council members when he mentioned that we should split up the parts (of the Judicial Board decision) and that led some of us to believe we could split it," Du said.

After another five-minute recess, the motion to overrule the Judicial Board was voted upon for the final time, passing 10-1-2 ­ an exact three-fourths majority.

Dissenters said that they did not feel USAC had enough time to deal with a situation of this magnitude. Cultural Affairs Commissioner Jaime Nack said that the reason she voted against the motion went beyond the time restraints alone.

"I was disappointed by the low attendance of the council (at the J-Board hearing) and because of the low attendance, I thought they needed more time to make an informed decision," Nack said.

Only five of the council's 13 voting members were in attendance during the court hearing Monday night.

"The short time between (the hearing and the council meeting) made an uninformed council and an uninformed constituency."

She also added that since USAC had only been given the preliminary ruling, the council should have waited to receive the final decision.

"At least it will come out that we don't all vote the same way," Nack added. "Some of us vote with our individual beliefs while others vote for political reasons. The fact that it took two recesses to change the vote from failing to passing is proof of this."

Yet the majority of USAC members disagreed with Nack's idea of holding off on a decision until a later date.

"The action that J-Board took required swift and immediate response by USAC that said we can't allow J-Board the right to violate our constitution," Du said.

"J-Board can't rule on a law that does not exist. If there is no bylaw that addresses the issue of political slates according to the (council's) constitution, USAC is the only body that can write in a new bylaw aside from a referendum or initiative."

But J-Board justices contended that they were acting under the provisions of the very constitution in question.

"The Judicial Board may also question, comment, or rule upon other matters at the request of the council or any member of the Association," the undergraduate constitution states.

Some USAC members have pointed to this line as a possible reason why the J-Board was able to hear the case, but didn't agree with their interpretation of the constitution.

"'Other matters' could be anything, but it doesn't mean that J-Board can hear anything outside the bylaws," Du said.

During discussion on the clause, External Vice President Alberto Retana agreed, asking "Do we want the J-Board to have the right to rule whether or not chickens fly? We need to really think critically about this clause."

But J-Board Chief Justice Mah believed that the section of the constitution in question gave the judicial branch the power to hear this case.

"(This section) refers exactly to what the judicial board's roles are and it is clearly there," Mah said. "Ellis' decision asked for the board to interpret the constitution."

"(USAC) has overturned the J-Board decision only after hearing the preliminary decision ... council would only know the reasons why the J-Board ruled the way it did only after reading the full decision."

After hearing that the motion against the J-Board's decision had passed, Ellis expressed anger at the processes that took place at the meeting.

"J-Board can be asked to rule on any matter by any member of the association," he said. "It's as clear as day in the constitution, and USAC saying that (J-Board) can't rule on this is a blatant abuse of power."

"The name they pride themselves so much on ­ 'Students First!' ­ well, the hypocrisy of what they're doing, to me, has no end."

Ellis also added that he believed students should hold USAC accountable for its actions at the meeting.

"I'm going to make them pay tenfold for their misbehavior," Ellis said. "To me, this says they value their own pride more than the constitution and that they're not serving the students, but serving themselves."