Judiciary
delays judgment in Godina’s case
again
By Joseph Serna and
Daniel Linck Savino
Online Forty-Niner
In a brief session Monday, the Associated Students Judiciary again postponed
making a judgment on the complaint filed by John Kitahara against Associated
Students, Inc. President Jamie Pollock, choosing instead to hear from two key
witnesses next week to help determine the legality of stipends paid to Chief
of Staff Bobby Godina.
The complaint centers around Pollock’s decision to have Godina receive
a $1,322 monthly stipend. The stipend, amounting to an annual total of $15,864,
is traditionally given to the top four executives, including the administrator.
Both sides have been arguing over whether Godina is an “executive officer,” which
would allow him to receive the stipend.
Justin Todoroff, the presiding justice of the case, announced the Judiciary would
be postponing the case until both Sally Bulquerin, ASI administrator, and Godina
can make their statements in person, rather than through affidavits or hearsay.
Through two judiciary meetings, AS Attorney General Kevin Rhodes, acting as Pollock’s
legal counsel, continually questioned the validity of Kitahara’s complaint.
In a new effort to have the case dismissed, he argued that whoever the stipend
goes to does not have a direct effect on Kitahara.
“
None of the evidence supplied by the prosecution has proven…that he has
been personally and directly affected by the actions he brings to the
court,” Rhodes said.
Rhodes also insisted the Judiciary was legally required to dismiss the case.
“
If the Judiciary continues to hear this case, and attempts to make a ruling…they
will be in violation of the bylaws, and my office will treat the violation accordingly,” he
added.
Rhodes later said he intends to have the ASI’s lawyer clarify the matter.
Questioning the validity of the complaint forced the justices to close the session
and discuss Rhodes’ point.
When the hearing reopened and Todoroff announced Kitahara’s complaint would
be heard, Rhodes jumped in with more arguments showing why it should be thrown
out.
Todoroff warned Rhodes if he again questioned why Kitahara is suing, he would
be punished for it.
“
I’m not going to go over this again,” Todoroff told Rhodes. “Do
not make me hold you in contempt.”
In discussion after the hearing was adjourned, Todoroff reiterated his displeasure.
“
The way [Rhodes] approached me, I was about ready to throw my gavel at
him,” he told the other justices. “Kevin is trying to manipulate,
to change things.”
Though the clarity of the bylaws may need to be discussed, a point brought up
by justices Nicholas Mokhlessin and Todoroff after the hearing was adjourned,
even Julie Van Camp, the faculty adviser
to the Judiciary, noted the weakness
of Kitahara’s case.
“
The strongest case is the person who’s losing out on the money,” Van
Camp said.
Talk also moved to Kitahara’s refusal of help from the public defender
last Monday.
“
He’s on his own, and that’s unfortunate,” Mokhlessin
said. “It’s obvious he needs counsel.”
Associate Justice Trevon Williams felt there might be a different motivation
behind his refusal.
“
For him to deny legal counsel, I think he has something up his sleeve,” he
said.
The court has accepted Kitahara’s case under the assumption that he has
a right to bring a lawsuit to the Judiciary because he pays student fees.
After the meeting was adjourned, Van Camp equated their accepting of the case
to “opening Pandora’s box.”
“[The lawsuit] is not to make trouble, not to cause a ruckus…it’s
to get your voice heard,” Kitahara said.
|
