A.S. deliberates on petition

The Associate Students Judiciary is now deliberating after Monday's petition hearing. The compliant was filed by A.S. Sen. Steven Negley and Cal State Long Beach student Joseph Thinn against Associated Students Inc.

The petition said mandatory student fees were used to fund a speech given by former Nation of Islam member Khallid Abdul Muhammad during the Black Consciousness Conference in November. Negley and Thinn said the speech was in violation of the 1993 California Supreme Court Smith vs. University of California Board of Regents ruling.

Before the case could be heard, special counsel for A.S.I. Mark Raber, who had replaced A.S. Attorney General Daisy Gonzalez filed a motion for a dismissal. Raber said that no formal complaints had ever been filed against the A.S.I.

Raber's motion was denied, however, Chief Justice Phillip Jordan said Raber could re-file his motion after more evidence had been heard.

Opening statements had already been heard by the prosecution at a previous meeting, but Raber made no opening statement until today.

In presenting his evidence for the prosecution, Negley said, "What it comes down to is that the university policy failed as far as Smith vs. Board of Regents."

In his argument, Negley said Muhammad's speech was ideological, and attacked religious figures and such American icons as George Washington and Santa Claus.

Negley asked for a refund totaling $4,100, which amounts to 17 cents a student. Negley said his chief concern was not financial, but the breech of university policy.

Robert Elders, student counsel for Thinn, said that the A.S.I. is not supposed to fund any organization that supports an activity with ideological views and suggested A.S.I. set policy on mandatory student fees.

"The A.S. should draw up a method to make sure this never happens again," Elders said.

Raber said that only a refund of student fees used for the actual activity can be refunded. The A.S.I. determined the refund would total a little more than $3,000 which would match only the amount used specifically to fund the Muhammad speech, Raber said. The A.S.I.'s figure is substantially less than that determined by Negley.

Only students who protest the use of the fees are entitled to a refund, not the entire student body.

Raber went on to present his case to the judiciary. Before deciding whether to provide funding for the conference, Raber said, the A.S.I. should have examined the program's entire schedule of events. The identity of the speaker had not yet been determined at the time the A.S.I. made its decision to fund the event.

As of Jan. 31, Raber said, there is an official A.S.I. policy concerning funding of campus organizations based on the Smith vs. the UC Board of Regents ruling. When the funding was being decided, however, no official policy had yet been implemented.

The judiciary has five working days to post a decision on the case, Jordan said. Because Spring Break is next week, the latest the decision can be posted is April 17 at 6:10 p.m., he said.