|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 01:38:09 -0400 From: Olivia Brode-Roger <nibr@mit.edu> To: ua-judboard@mit.edu Cc: ua-council@mit.edu, ua-exec@mit.edu In-Reply-To: <20150413053706.GJ44530@mit.edu> Actually CC'd On 2015-04-13 01:37:06, Olivia Brode-Roger wrote: > CC'd: ua-council@, ua-exec@ > > Hi JudBoard, > > First of all, I would like you to review the attached comments made by > John Halloran, this Judicial Board's chair, on the 9th of April. > > The third paragraph states: > "I as Judicial Board Chair have the power to issue a decision alone" > and the reasons given are: > -an obligation for the proper functionning of the UA (Article II) > -an additional power, which I cannot find in the constitution, including > in Article II, Section C, Part 4. > -a conflict of interest of the other JudBoard member, and a failure to > acknowledge it. > > Apart from the first argument, I do not believe that it is > constitutional for a single member, even the chair, to issue a statement > as the Judicial Review Board of the UA. > > As such, I am exercising my right to file a complaint as defined in > Article II, Section C, Item 2. > > I support my case on the constitution of the UA: > -The spirit of Article II, Section C, Item 3.b. is to not allow the > Judicial Board to act on requests until whole. This has been in > violation for a long time now, by only having 2 members. However, having > only 1 member render a judgement is not only breaking this rule, it > breaks the very idea of a board and impartiality. > -Beyond being mentioned in Article II, Section C, Item 3.a.iv. the > Chairman of JudBoard has no additional power. The powers given to chairs > of committees as defined in Article IV, Section B do not apply here > since JudBoard is not a committee, nor does Section C apply since > Judicial Board Chair is not an Assistant Officer enumerated in Article > VI, Section B of the Bylaws of the Council. > -By rendering such a judgement, the Chairman of the Judicial Review > Board has placed in doubt the very credibility and impartiality of the > Judicial Review Process. This is not verbatim a violation of the > constitution, but doing so is against the very idea of a judicial > organization, Article II, Section C, Item 1. > > As thus, I think that the comments sent out on April 9th do not > constitute a Judicial Review Board decision, and as thus do not carry > the weight attributed to them by Article II, Section C, Item a that have > been claimed. > Lacking the approval of JudBoard, the removal of the President can still > not take place. > > I see three outcomes to this complaint: > -JudBoard rules that the chair's statement is a valid JudBoard ruling > -JudBoard rules that the chair's statement is not a valid JudBoard ruling > -JudBoard cannot reach an agreement > In the last case, failure to reach an agreement implies that the > chairman does not have the authority to make such a ruling, rendering the > comments of April 9th not a JudBoard ruling. > > Secondly and separately, I would like to place a request for the Judicial > Review Board to rule on whether the failure of the special search for a > third Judicial Board member is itself sufficient for a vote for removal of > the President on a basis of abuse of power. > The rational for this is multiple: > -Failure to provide the Judicial Board with a third member incapacitates > the judicial power of the Association, resulting in a failure of the > seperation of powers and a violation of the spirit of Article II, > Section C, Item 3.b., both in this special search, and since appointed. > -Failure to follow the demands of Council for the nomination of the > third JudBoard member is a failure to comply with Article II, Section B, > Item 4.e. Given the current political situation, failure to follow with > the timeline imposed by Council, and failure to present a slate that > Council Members could cast an informed vote on represents an abuse of > power: making it hard for a third member to be appointed such that > JudBoard could not reach a decision regarding the removal of the > President. > > I would like both issues to be resolved as fast as possible, as it is > the Judicial Review Board's responsability, as defined in Article II, > Section C, Item 4.c. > > Best, > Olivia Brode-Roger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |