Charges
against A.S.I. to be decided Monday
By Sean Emery
On-line Forty-Niner
Associated
Students, Inc. Judiciary will decide if
A.S.I. Vice President Shahrokh Sheik and
the A.S. Senate are in violation of a court
order and dereliction of duty Monday.
Ed Ober, Cal State Long Beach political
science major and former member of the judiciary
committee, filed the complaint that led
to the hearing. The complaint consisted
of four counts: dereliction of duty and
contempt of court against Sheik, and dereliction
of duty and contempt of court against the
A.S.I. Senate.
Ober, who was unavailable for comment, charges
that Sheik and the A.S. Senate failed to
appoint a student parliamentarian in a timely
manner. In the complaint, Ober states that,
“The A.S. vice president and Senate have
failed to appoint a student parliamentarian
as required in the bylaws, and failed to
assign salary to the position as required
by [an] earlier court order.”
The complaint is based on Chapter 2, Article
I, Section 5 of the A.S.I. bylaws. The rule
states that, “The A.S.I. vice president
shall appoint a parliamentarian who must
be a member of the Associated Students.”
Last spring, the A.S.I. Judiciary, on which
Ober was a member, decided in a ruling that
filling the position was not optional, and
that the vice president had 30 days from
when he took office to fill the position.
If the vice president did not fill the position
before the deadline the A.S. Senate would
then assign a salary to the position, which
was formerly a volunteer position, in order
to get students to apply. The A.S.I Senate
would also take over the duty of appointing
a student to the position.
Ober filed the complaint on Nov. 12, 2002.
Along with his charges, Ober also stated
his requested remedy in the complaint.
Ober’s complaint states that, “Sheik [should]
be referred to the Office of Student Services
by the Judiciary with a recommendation for
disciplinary action including suspension
of all rights, duties and privileges of
his office and a refund of all the salary
received to date by him from A.S.I funds.”
According to Sheik, he was never informed
of the time limit, since it was stated in
a court ruling, and not in the A.S.I. bylaws.
Sheik blames the lack of communication on
the former judiciary committee.
“They made a decision that was going to
have a deep impact on a certain position
in the Senate, but they never notified anyone
about it,” Sheik said. “When I took office,
I was given my duties and the A.S.I. bylaws,
and I followed them, I was never made aware
of [this] ruling.
“I think there are some underlying benefits
to his case, but I don’t appreciate my name
being used, and the A.S.I. Senate being
used because we did nothing wrong,” Sheik
said. “There are many different ways to
go about resolving issues he has problems
with, it’s not to file court cases and take
it to Judiciary.”
Sheik also sees the original court ruling
that led to the rule change to be unfair.
“That [ruling] is overstepping their boundaries
as Judiciary, by trying to change the bylaws,
when their role is only to interpret the
bylaws,” Sheik said.
The hearing was set for on Dec. 9, 2002.
“The A.S.I. public defender, representing
Ober, filed a motion on the day of the hearing
stating that he wanted the case postponed
to a later date,” according to Luis Peña,
chief justice of the A.S.I Judiciary.
On Monday, the A.S.I Judiciary heard the
arguments from both sides regarding the
case. On the day of the hearing, Ober turned
in a supplemental brief to the court.
Due to the arguments taking longer than
expected, and the need for the members of
the committee to go over the new information
that Ober provided, the court will continue
its deliberations next Monday.
The deliberations will be closed to the
public, with only the advisor and members
of A.S.I. Judiciary in attendance.
“Hopefully we can get through the information
that he has provided, along with the arguments
from both sides, and come up with a decision
on Monday,” Peña said.
|
