Kitahara
v. Pollock winds down, debate to finish
by next Monday
By Daniel Linck Savino
Online Forty-Niner
Staff Writer
The Associated Students Judiciary ended deliberations Monday without a ruling
in the case against Associated Students, Inc. President Jamie Pollock. The case,
filed by John Kitahara, accused Pollock of violating AS Bylaws by giving a stipend
to her chief of staff. A ruling may be issued as early as Nov. 14, following
further deliberations.
Monday’s hearing focused primarily on testimony from Chief of Staff Bobby
Godina and AS Administrator Sally Bulquerin. The administrator has traditionally
been awarded a large stipend. The stipend this year is $1,322 per month, for
12 months.
Pollock, however, decided shortly after her election last semester to give the
stipend to Godina. Both positions were appointed by Pollock.
Presiding Justice Justin Toderoff recused himself from the case at the start
of Monday’s hearing, citing a 1 p.m. meeting that conflicted with the hearing.
Chief Justice Mandy Reyes presided over the case in his place.
Testifying Monday, Bulquerin said she took the job knowing about changes both
in the stipend and the administrator’s position in AS government.
“
I knew that the pay was going to be different,” she said. She did not,
however, know the specific dollar value.
Bulquerin also confirmed statements she made in an affidavit previously submitted
as evidence.
“
I took the position knowing of the change [Pollock] wanted to make,” she
said.
The biggest issue, Bulquerin said, was a lack of communication or payment. To
date, she has not received any money, an issue Pollock said is part of an ongoing
debate. Bulquerin also repeatedly mentioned Pollock had not been giving her enough
information.
After the hearing, Bulquerin described her ongoing problems with the executive
branch.
“
The only times they would contact me...was only when they would want my support
for the amendment,” she said, referring to an ongoing struggle in the AS
Senate to specifically classify the chief of staff as an “appointed executive
officer.”
“
They wouldn’t keep me informed on a regular basis,” Bulquerin
added.
Pollock disagreed, saying she met with Bulquerin a number of times.
“
Communication was not as strong as it could have been, but I don’t think
it’s completely my fault,” she said. “It takes two to
tango.”
In continued questioning, Reyes asked Bulquerin why she did not file the case
herself, being the person most directly affected.
“
I didn’t understand what exactly was going on or how to address
[the court],” Bulquerin said. She also said she never wanted the matter
to end up being litigated.
Kitahara, who has worked with Bulquerin for several years in student government,
brought the case for his own reasons, she said.
“
We did have discussions...he told me of his concerns about what was happening
to my position,” she said. “He has a good perspective on what’s
going on and valid points to make arguments.”
Godina’s testimony was significantly shorter. He noted the Senate approved
his appointment as chief of staff knowing about the stipend and the position’s
more pronounced role in ASI. A continued side discussion in the case, both in
the
Judiciary hearings and debates in the Senate, centers on a perceived disrespect
for the administrator’s work.
AS Executive Director Richard Haller told the Senate about the change in payment
before they voted on Godina’s appointment.
Godina also said Bulquerin admitted she took the job knowing what she was getting
into.
“
Sally Bulquerin accepted the job as administrator knowing what President
Pollock’s vision for the job was,” he said.
The hearing concluded with arguments on submitted evidence. Kitahara and Attorney
General Kevin Rhodes each gave their opinions on the validity of various documents,
with the most significant point being made by Reyes. The justice questioned Rhodes
as to the lack of signatures on Senate minutes, which he was unable to explain.
Though both prosecution and defense had submitted some of the same minutes, neither
had been formalized with the necessary signatures. Because of that, all copies
of Senate minutes were rejected.
The Judiciary debated the case in closed session until nearly 2 p.m., briefly
re-opening to announce the deliberations will continue until next Monday.
|
