Monday, April 22, 1996
Bylaws, justice forgotten in bid for political controlBy
Jennifer Hamel
"Constitutionally obliged" were the words used by York Chang to
justify, or rather defend, the readmittance of the case against
Noah Hochman. However, did the impeachment of Hochman really have
anything to do with upholding the bylaws of the student government?
Should the student body believe that the motivations of the
council, in implementing a revote, were purely to preserve and
uphold justice? A little more credit would be appreciated.
First, if the situation were looked at as it really is, people
would realize that the last thing that has been upheld is adherence
to the Undergraduate Students Association Council bylaws.
Noah Hochman had gone through the "judicial process" once
before. A VOTE WAS TAKEN Â Noah Hochman was allowed to
maintain his position on the Judicial Board. But that wasn’t
enough. Defying procedural policy, the council decided to bring up
the case two months later. And as the administrative advisors told
the council, "the motion was a clear violation of bylaws." However,
the case was reopened anyway.
I find this completely ludicrous. According to the Undergraduate
Students Association Council (USAC) bylaws, one is allowed to file
a motion to reopen a case only one day after a vote has taken
place.
One day … 10 weeks. Adherence to the law?
I ask, was there an introduction of overwhelming evidence that
compelled Frank Sampson, over two months after the fact, to believe
that Noah Hochman would now not serve as an unbiased member of
USAC? York Chang attests that as president, he "determined" that
the case could be reopened.
Even in "real life" government, people accused of illegal
activities have protection against double jeopardy. They can’t be
tried twice without the introduction of new evidence.
Obviously the legality of the situation has been completely
ignored, and even defied.
After having read last Thursday’s article about Noah Hochman’s
impeachment ("J-Board Justice Noah Hochman impeached," April 18), I
thought that the text should have read: "Two groups of school kids
recently fought over control of The Fort. Both groups wanted the
right to the nearby tree house. The group with the better weapons
won. The new kid, Noah Hochman, had a big slingshot. He wasn’t
allowed to play."
Sounds somewhat facetious, but isn’t that what it comes down to
 party politics? Since I’ve been a student here, Students
First! and the United Students, the two dominant parties in the
political sphere, have been ideologically at odds. The sad reality
is that they have allowed their incessant squabbling to convolute
the very premise of government and their roles as participatory
members of that government.
As we have witnessed time and time again, the focus of both
parties hasn’t been the promotion of a well-represented,
fairly-treated student body, but rather scoring more points for
their own team. (Chang’s criticism of Rob Greenhalgh  a guy
on the other side  in Thursday’s article is exemplary of
that.)
If this government wants to be perceived as a credible and valid
institution, all of its members should start focusing on the real
issues and the essential components of those issues.
Noah Hochman was victimized by party politics. He chose to be on
the Judicial Board (how many people at UCLA would even do that?)
and was toyed with under the premise of justice … justice was not
upheld.
But hey, at least for the dominant party in the council, the
tree house has been secured.
Hamel is a third-year political science student.