J-Board Justice Noah Hochman impeached

Thursday, April 18, 1996

Kerckhoff showdown foreshadows spring mudslingingBy Brooke
Olson

Daily Bruin Staff

The undergraduate boardroom Tuesday night was standing room
only.

When the predominantly Student First! council announced that
they would reconsider impeaching a presidential appointment, more
than 30 dissenting students attended the meeting.

With upcoming undergraduate government elections on the horizon,
opponents of the impeachment hearing wore matching blue shirts with
"United Students" printed across the front, and repeatedly argued
that the council’s decision was out of order. The administration
steadfastly sided with United Students ­ the slate endorsed by
the greek system ­ and the council was left to defend their
actions.

But after nearly two hours of debate, the council went against
both the words of the United Students and the administration’s
advice. In a 10 to 2 to 1 vote, the council impeached Judicial
Board Justice Noah Hochman.

The vote came just 10 weeks after the council originally
attempted to impeach Hochman for violating Judicial Board bylaws by
discussing a case outside of official meetings. The Feb. 6 vote
fell one short of the two-thirds necessary to impeach the
Justice.

The case was reopened when Frank Sampson, the council’s Cultural
Affairs Commissioner, asked the student government to reconsider
Hochman’s impeachment. Sampson had abstained from voting 10 weeks
ago when the motion first appeared before council.

But to the cheering applause of United Students members, the
administrative advisors to the council said the motion was a clear
violation of bylaws.

"I believe that the motion to reconsider the vote was not …
correct or proper," said Lyle Timmerman, the assistant vice
chancellor for student and campus life and the council’s
administrative advisor.

"I do not believe (the council) complied with their guiding
documents or Robert’s Rules of Order," Timmerman added.

Some council members, though, argued that the undergraduate
government did not violate the bylaws.

"The bylaws are very open to debate, and we interpreted them to
the best of our ability," said York Chang, the undergraduate
president.

According to Robert’s Rules of Order, "a motion can only be
reconsidered by one who voted on the prevailing side," and must be
filed by the next day.

The council, some students said, clearly violated this law.

"Frank Sampson had abstained from the vote and I don’t think an
abstention qualifies as prevailing vote," said Cheryl Chang, an
undergraduate general representative.

Chang, however, maintained that the guidelines did not preclude
him from allowing Sampson to reopen the case.

"Robert’s Rules of Order are opened to interpretation by the
president," he said. "And the book did not specify by what the
prevailing side was. I determined that a person who abstained was
able to reopen the case."

"We hated having to do this but we were constitutionally obliged
to clean up (last year’s president) Rob Greenhalgh’s mess when he
met with justices to rig elections for certain candidates," Chang
added.

But that was not the only violation, some students said. Sampson
failed to reopen the case by the next day.

"This motion was made two months after the original vote,"
Greenhalgh said. "That’s clearly a violation of the bylaws."

Chang, though, said he based his decision on previous
president’s actions.

"It is common practice in student government to allow all votes
the chance to be reconsidered for the entire school year," Chang
said.

But United Students members dismissed Chang’s explanation and
argued that the impeachment was an attempt for the Students First!
slate to retain control of the Judicial Board.

"The council has sold out their integrity to the students,"
Greenhalgh said.

"What happened tonight was completely politically motivated
­ it had nothing to do with justice. It’s two weeks before
election and Students First! will do anything to retain control of
council," he continued.

However, Students First! members said the move was legitimate,
resulting from biases Hochman may have towards the council because
of the Judicial Board investigation.

"Basically I felt that Hochman would not be unable to make
untainted decisions based on what happened," Sampson said. "That
was why I wanted a revote of the impeachment."

The council began investigating Hochman in September, after
charges were brought against him for discussing an election case
last spring with Greenhalgh. On Feb. 6, the council voted that
Hochman had violated Judicial Board bylaws, but failed to impeach
him by one vote.

Although Hochman said he was bothered by the investigation, he
maintains that he does not hold a grudge against the council.

"I believe that I am an impartial person and what happened last
quarter is completely irrelevant this quarter," Hochman said. "I
fought to stay on this board because I believe in fairness and
justice and in practicing impartiality."

Hochman argued that the only reason the council decided to
impeach him was because of election politics.

"(Undergraduate president York Chang) wants a majority of
supporters on the board in case an election case is appealed to the
Judicial Board. If he has a majority, the case will be ruled in his
favor," Hochman said.

Currently there exist seven positions on the board. Chang
appointed three justices this year. With the removal of Hochman,
Chang could appoint one more justice, giving his appointments a 4
to 3 edge.

But Chang contended that he does not plan to appoint another
Justice, and that the impeachment is solely based on Hochman’s
apparent infractions last year.

"I’m not going to appoint a justice in his place to show people
that I’m not trying to control the Judicial Board," Chang said.

"This isn’t a power play or some sort of vendetta that the
United Students are characterizing it as," Chang continued. "This
is the removal of a Judicial Board member who has shown bias in the
past and met behind closed doors with Rob Greenhalgh regarding the
election case," he added.

Despite the council’s vote that Hochman did violate the bylaws,
both Greenhalgh and Hochman continue to deny the conversation.

The dispute over the Judicial Board justice stems from last
spring’s controversy.

During the undergraduate elections, the Bruin Democrats placed a
full-page ad in the Daily Bruin announcing the group’s endorsement
of several candidates.

Marwa Kilani, an undergraduate general representative, filed a
complaint with the Election Board, alleging that the ad was an
illegal endorsement. The Elections Board, however, determined there
was no violation.

Then Matt Weathers, a former council member, filed a petition
with the Judicial Board requesting a review of the Elections
Board’s ruling. The Judicial Board ruled that the ad indeed was an
illegal endorsement and quickly overturned several election
results.

Several days later, the Judicial Board reopened the case,
overturning its decision and gave the Elections Board the power to
resolve the situation.

The Elections Board unanimously voted to keep the original
election results.

Regardless of the controversy surrounding the impeachment, Chang
hopes the council’s move will not affect this year’s undergraduate
elections.

"I just want to reiterate that I want a fair and clean
election," Chang said. " Last year’s elections were very
unprofessional and I hope that this spring will not bring the same
type of controversies that last year’s did."