Sheik
cleared by Judiciary
By Sean Emery
On-line Forty-Niner
In
a decision released Monday, the Associated
Students Judiciary found Associated Students
Inc. Vice President Shahrokh Sheik and A.S.
Senate not guilty of charges of dereliction
of duty and contempt of court.
The case, which was brought to the court
by Ed Ober, political science major, was
based on the fact that the defendant, Vice
President Sheik, had not appointed a parliamentarian
for the A.S. Senate, as required by a court
order. Sheik claimed to have been
unaware of the court order. The deliberation
of the case took place Monday, February
17.
“[We wanted] to take our time and look over
all the documents involved and come up with
the right decision that would be fair to
all the parties involved,” said Luis Pena,
the chief justice of the A.S.I. Judiciary.
In place of a student parliamentarian, an
advisor for the Senate, Stuart Farber, had
been acting as the parliamentarian. According
to the majority opinion of the A.S. Judiciary,
the presence of Farber was enough to protect
the rights of the students, despite the
absence of a student parliamentarian.
“He may not have been the student parliamentarian
as described in the bylaws, but we felt
that the spirit of the law had been adhered
to,” Pena said.
Sheik agreed with the ruling of the court,
citing Farber’s experience as a parliamentarian.
“For us to waste our time and money to go
out and find a student to appoint as a parliamentarian,
who would probably have to spend two or
three years just to become as familiar with
those procedures as Dr. Farber has, is why
we chose not to pursue it at the beginning,
and why in the past 15 years the Senate
board of directors has not chosen [to appoint
a parliamentarian],” Sheik said.
“I am very satisfied with the outcome. I
think the A.S. Judiciary handled the case
very professionally, and I am 100 percent
in agreement with their decision,” Sheik
said. “It’s clear that there was no dereliction
of duty on my part, or the senate’s part.”
Sheik believes that Ober would have been
more successful had he tried to get his
case addressed in a different manner.
“If the plaintiff had brought this up in
a more civil and a more professional manner,
I think the outcome would be more to his
liking.” Sheik said. “The whole process
is supposed to be a collaborative operation,
its not supposed to be [about] people trying
to kick people out of office.”
Ober believes that the case was about more
than the appointment of a parliamentarian.
“It’s not a matter, strictly speaking, of
the parliamentarian,” Ober said. “It’s a
matter of the balance of power in our student
government. When the court makes a
ruling, the other branches are supposed
to follow it.
“The court is basically saying that the
bylaws don’t matter, that whatever is written
is irrelevant, that [they] can go past what’s
written and just pull out the spirit and
change the wording of the bylaws as [they]
see fit,” Ober said. “[The Senate] is basically
above the law at this point. They don’t
have to follow the bylaws, they don’t have
to adhere to proper procedure, and courts
have basically said that that’s fine with
them.”
Ober believes that, despite the courts ruling,
having Farber as the acting parliamentarian
is against the interest of the students.
“The [previous] court had ruled that Dr.
Farber is not qualified because the bylaws
specifically state [the parliamentarian]
has to be a student,” Ober said. “You can’t
be the adviser on content and also be watching
out for procedure.”
Ober is considering appealing the decision,
although he says he may not appeal it directly
to the A.S. Judiciary.
“I don’t think I’m going to bring [the issues]
up in A.S.’s court,” Ober said. “I think
I’m going to have to go to state court,
and have a real judge interpret the law
and apply it to our university.”
|
