J-Board members charged with election violations
Student government mounts investigation of spring
controversy
By Brooke Olson
Two members of the powerful undergraduate Judicial Board were
formally charged Tuesday for violating student government
guidelines during last spring’s controversial election.
An undergraduate council committee charged Judicial Board
Justice Noah Hochman with discussing the election case outside of
official meetings, and Justice Jacob Rothman was charged with
presiding over the case despite a conflict of interest.
Although Rothman was unavailable for comment, Hochman did not
believe that the charge was validated.
"I presided over the case," Hochman said. "Judicial Board
procedures allow the person who presides over the case to talk to
the media."
However, the charges and the investigation were validated, said
Cynthia Duarte, an investigation committee member and the academic
affairs commissioner.
"The investigation committee was formed in response to a student
inquiry, and the (undergraduate government) needed to act on the
charge," Duarte said.
The committee was formed in response to a complaint by Tristen
Sotomayor, president of the Bruin Democrats. Sotomayor charged that
the board’s actions during the elections were controversial enough
to warrant an investigation.
Two undergraduate council representatives removed themselves
from the case due to time conflicts, dwindling the investigation
committee to only one person. Now controversy over a single-person
committee has arisen among both the justices and the committee.
Recently appointed Chief Justice Eric Mah said a committee
composed solely of one member could pose conflicts of interest.
"Certainly, it is unorthodox to have a committee of just one
(person)," Mah said.
However, remaining committee member Duarte said that biases
would not be apparent in the investigation, since the the only
thing the committee is doing is organizing documents and
investigations.
"In the end, it’s the undergraduate council who interprets the
findings," Duarte said. "I’m simply organizing the documents … I
may make one recommendation, but I may also choose not to say
anything."
But Hochman agreed with Mah, and said that a single person could
present a biased point of view.
"The appropriate thing is to go through a party, a group of
people," Hochman said.
Board members are also upset at the amount of time which has
been spent on the investigation. Nearly four months have passed
since the council announced their investigation of the board.
"I’m disturbed that it’s taken four months," Mah said. "I feel
that the council’s time could’ve been better spent in other
places."
Yet, Duarte said most of the time had been spent waiting for the
Justices to return her phone calls.
"Four months is misleading," Duarte said. "I didn’t want to
present my findings until all of the members could be
contacted."
Hochman, though, countered that he has been in contact with
former committee member John Du since last quarter, and has paged
Duarte twice.
"Last quarter, though, I was in New York, and (the committee)
knew that I was out of state," Hochman said.
Although Duarte only recently was able to contact Hochman, she
said she has yet to hear from Rothman.
Even if Rothman fails to return Duarte’s repeated phone calls,
she plans to present the findings to the undergraduate council next
Tuesday, she said.
"This investigation has gone on long enough, and there has been
more than ample time for (Rothman) to get in touch with me," Duarte
said.
The undergraduate council, upon reviewing the findings next
week, could vote to remove Rothman and Hochman from the Judicial
Board.
The dispute over the Judicial Board justices and their actions
stem from last spring’s controversy.
During the undergraduate elections, the Bruin Democrats placed a
full-page ad in the Daily Bruin announcing the group’s endorsement
of several candidates.
Marwa Kilani, a council general representative, filed a
complaint with the Elections Board, alleging that the ad was an
illegal endorsement. The Elections Board, however, determined there
was no violation.
Then, Matt Weathers, a former council member, filed a petition
with the Judicial Board requesting a review of the Elections
Board’s ruling. The Judicial Board ruled that the ad was an illegal
endorsement and quickly overturned several election results.
However, after considerable campus uproar, the Judicial Board
reopened the case. Citing unspecified new evidence, the Judicial
Board overturned its decision and gave the Elections Board the
power to resolve the situation.
The Elections Board unanimously voted to keep the original
election results.Comments to webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu