Judicial process threatened by loss of 4 members

Friday, 4/25/97 Judicial process threatened by loss of 4 members
Citing neutrality needs, USAC failed to appoint new members at
start of year

By Joshua Smith Daily Bruin Contributor With the departure of
three Judicial Board (J-Board) members over the last two weeks, the
judicial branch of the Undergraduate Students Association Council
(USAC) appears to be in serious trouble. Justice Rachel Michael
graduated last quarter and both Justices Jihad Saleh and James
Burkhardt disqualified themselves by running in this spring’s USAC
elections. Because of their departures and a failure to refill the
seats, the board is left with only three out of seven members and
cannot function according to the USAC constitution. The J-Board
requires four members to make quorum. And with the USAC elections
coming up, the government is in even more of a bind since the
elections traditionally breed more cases than usual for the J-Board
to hear. At last Tuesday’s USAC meeting, Du expressed the urgency
of selecting new J-Board members as soon as possible. "We are
making a commitment as council to make sure that the people we
appoint to J-Board are qualified and therefore impartial." Chief
Justice Eric Mah believes USAC is to blame for the board’s
situation in the first place because it failed to make three needed
appointments at the beginning of the year. In fact, Mah noted,
council has made only two appointments all year – at the end of
last quarter. With three appointments that should have happened in
the fall, there would have been four functioning J-Board members to
form a quorum now, Mah said. "If they just would have made four
appointments at the beginning of the year, I would be fine," he
said, "I think it is incompetent to wait this long to make such
important appointments." But USAC President John Du said that the
appointments could have been made in a timely manner if the council
had been informed of the vacancies in a timely manner. "Justice Mah
… put the student government in a very big crunch by giving such
late notice," Du said. "Because he did not notify us until the
second week of this quarter, that really leaves us scrambling for a
replacement … It would be unthinkable to appoint a United States
Supreme Court Justice within a week’s notice." Du maintained that
six of the seven seats were held by functioning justices as of
April 7. "This is the most we have had in the last two years," he
said. But according to Administrative Assistant Lyle Timmerman, who
is the chancellor’s appointee and advisor to USAC and the J-board,
both sides should have seen the problem coming. J-Board’s current
situation may have roots extending as far back as last year, he
said. "I think council and everyone involved needs to look at this
in the entire context of it.," he added. Not only has USAC butted
heads with the J-Board over issues of J-Board competency over the
past year, Timmerman said, but "when John (Du) came into office,
there were only four justices remaining on the board. He did not
fill them until a month ago." Mah agreed, adding that USAC’s delay
in addressing the vacancies is the cause of J-Board’s current ills.
"The issue is that council did not make the appointments until the
last minute," Mah said, "They will not admit to saying they screwed
up." But according to Du, every effort was made at the beginning of
the year to appoint new J-board members. "At the beginning of this
year we put out several ads publicizing that there were four
positions open," he said. "We need a lot of time in order to find
the most qualified justice – an impartial one," he continued. "It
is a very politically sensitive time and we did not just want to
put anyone in there. It is more important to find someone who can
meet the criteria than one who can fill a spot." To that end,
Timmerman said that a justice search could be done reasonably in a
month. However, that did not happen, he said. "I know that Eric
(Mah) prompted John (Du) about it. I have prompted John about it.
Other people have prompted John about it." Even with a lengthy
search, though, the process does not always produce impartial
justices. Du pointed to the resignation of Justices Saleh and
Burkhardt as an example of the need for impartiality. "What is
going on when we have our own justices running for office?" he
said. "Justices need to be free from any type of political
affiliation." But Mah attested to the impartiality of all of his
justices, noting that a resignation does not necessarily mean the
justices had a conflict of interest while serving on the board. In
fact, the justices accused of partiality have actually voted
against the groups they were suspected of being biased toward,
Timmerman said. "I thought they did a good job in that regard," he
added. Du expressed that the council is working hard to secure new
J-Board positions by the elections. "It really requires someone who
can devote the remainder of their undergraduate experience, who is
not biased," he said. DB Archives