Fee hike controversy heats up

Judiciary to hear complaints against increase

The Associated Students Judiciary decided last Wednesday that it will hear two complaints seeking to nullify a fee increase and define the role of an adviser accused of overstepping his role in the drafting of the fee hike.

Cal State Long Beach student Scott Strichart recently filed a complaint aiming to toss out the Beach Pride Referendum, which raises A.S.I. fees $21 a semester. The complaint also seeks to remove A.S. Senate adviser Stuart Farber from the Senate Bylaws Committee, where the referendum originated.

A hearing on both complaints will be held this Wednesday in Senate Chambers, which was empty at the Judiciary hearing last week.

"Where are these people?" said Tobias Halvarson, A.S.I.'s acting judicial administrator for legal services. "That's what I want to know," he said,  referring to absence of legal representatives for A.S.I.

An attorney general, a public defender or other legal staff should have represented A.S.I., Halvarson argued, but these positions are not filled.

"A.S.I. has not sought to fill them," Halvarson said. "They're looking at a huge lose in revenue and they don't have a legal staff."

In March, students approved the referendum, which will raise $1.2 million for CSULB athletic programs.

Strichart's complaint contends the A.S. Senate violated procedures in the California Education Code when it placed the referendum on the ballot.

He also asserts Farber overstepped his role as A.S. Senate adviser by seconding a motion to approve the referendum's language in the bylaws committee. Strichart questions Farber's status as a voting member of the committee and requests that the Judiciary clarify his position as adviser.

"It seems that over time Farber's position has become somewhat clouded," said Halvarson, Strichart's counsel. "No one's sure exactly how much power he has."

Halvarson requested that the Judiciary legally define Farber's position and that he be mandated to follow that definition.

Chief Justice Terence Pickens said the court would issue a writ that would "clearly define his role."

Farber's "clouded" status within A.S.I. is the subject of another sweeping complaint the Judiciary will hear.

That complaint seeks to limit his role to that of an adviser and prevent him from voting on committee items, in accordance with Title V of California Code of Regulations.

The complaint, filed by Ramiro Cabatbat, A.S.I. executive aide for internal affairs, stems from an incident at an April 12 Senate meeting.

The Senate had unanimously voted to refer an A.S. Judiciary decision defining Senate majority voting rules to the bylaws committee for review when Cabatbat approached the speaker's podium to address the issue.  Farber strongly objected to Cabatbat's right to speak and Cabatbat was denied the opportunity to address the Senate.

Cabatbat contends the Senate infringed on his right as a member of A.S.I. to address the Senate. He also contends Farber does not have the authority to object to a speaker because he is not an actual Senate member.

"I've looked at our documents -- the Articles of Incorporation, the A.S. bylaws -- which lead me to believe that Dr. Farber does not have the standing to justify what he did," Cabatbat said.

Associate Justices Eric Perley and Vince Ammirato expressed concerns that the Judiciary could not issue an injunction restricting Farber's activities unless Cabatbat shows Farber acted illegally or with malice.

"We'd have to prove that Farber knows what he is doing is wrong or illegal, in which case it would prove malice," Ammirato said.

By issuing an injunction, the Judiciary would be punishing Farber for doing what the Senate has requested him to do, Pickens said.

He said the court would instead "examine where Dr. Farber stands in the Associated Students, anywhere he is mentioned, anywhere he has power."