Board to hear office case
By Lucy Benz-Rogers
May 12, 2008 11:03 p.m.
The undergraduate student government Judicial Board has decided to hear the case against President Gabe Rose, Facilities Commissioner Sherlyn Mossahebfar and Office Space Allocation Committee Chairwoman Neilda Pacquing.
Rose and Mossahebfar have been accused of holding a meeting with Pacquing and fellow Bruins United-affiliated councilmembers regarding office space allocations, leaving out independents and Students First! affiliates. The petition was submitted to the Judicial Board by Students First! members, Cultural Affairs Commissioner Bernice Shaw and former Internal Vice President Gregory Cendana.
Judicial Board Chairman Aaron Israel said this decision means that after an initial review of the allegations in the petition, a majority of the board decided that it warranted further investigation.
“A petitioner … files a petition, and then (the board) has three business days to decide whether to hear the case or not,” he said. “The justices find some degree of the merit in the argument presented.”
But he said a final decision will not be reached until after the formal hearing on May 21.
“This does not mean that every article is legitimate or that we believe every one,” he said. “Justices will be meeting sometime in the next week to determine the rules of evidence, burden of proof and the time restrictions on witness testimony.”
At the hearing on May 21, the Judicial Board will hear testimonies from witnesses and will review evidence submitted by both sides of the case. Both defendants and plaintiffs will have the opportunity to make statements on their behalf and seek representation from any undergraduate student.
After the hearing, the justices will convene in a closed session until they have reached a decision. They are allowed two weeks to present a full verdict, though Israel said a brief summary of the decision is likely to be released a day or so after the hearing.
In the meantime, an injunction has been issued by the Judicial Board preventing the current Undergraduate Students Association Council from making any legislative decision about office space allocations until the case is settled.
“I issued the injunction pursuant to (the board) rules so that there would not be a legislative pending that my board had yet to rule on,” Israel said.
But for Tuesday’s meeting ““ the last meeting of the current council before the newly elected one takes office ““ Rose will be putting forth a motion to overturn the injunction by the council three-fourths-majority vote and have the proposed office space allocations approved.
Rose said he denies all charges, adding that he welcomes the hearing and is not trying to prevent it; but he still wants his council to be able to complete the allocation process.
“I want the case to go to a full hearing. … What I don’t want is for that to prevent USAC from doing it’s job,” he said. “The case is completely and utterly without merit. I think we’re going to show up and tell Judicial Board what happened, and I think they’ll unanimously rule in our favor.”
Israel said the council does have the ability to overturn the injunction and that Rose is within his rights, but that the injunction will not be lifted by the Judicial Board.
“(Rose) is pursuing it through the proper venue, but I will not lift the injunction,” Israel said.
For her part, Shaw said the case was brought forth not to place blame on individuals, but rather to demand transparency and accountability.
Though Rose has argued that the timing of the case during USAC election season is indicative of partisan maneuvering on the part of Students First!, which won a majority with seven seats on council, Shaw denied this.
“I’m definitely glad (the board) picked up the case; I think it’s only right for the student body to have the understanding of what USAC does inside and out. The issue of transparency in this situation is very important,” she said. “It’s really not our intention to put any one individual at blame.”
