In an hours-long hearing Thursday, Students for Justice in Palestine representatives and several opposing students debated whether two former undergraduate student government councilmembers had engaged in conflicts of interest this school year.
About 20 individuals, including witnesses and campus administrators, attended the Undergraduate Students Association Council Judicial Board hearing Thursday evening. The Judicial Board is the student-run judicial arm of USAC, and hears cases about violations of council bylaws. It could be as long as two weeks before the board releases a decision in this case.
This Judicial Board case and other events related to controversial divestment-related USAC resolutions have been at the center of heated disputes on campus throughout the school year. Because of safety concerns, Thursday’s hearing was closed to the public.
In April, Students for Justice in Palestine submitted a petition to the board saying that former USAC General Representative Sunny Singh and former USAC Financial Supports Commissioner Lauren Rogers engaged in conflicts of interest in February by voting on a resolution calling for UCLA and the University of California to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
The divestment resolution in question was brought to USAC by Students for Justice in Palestine, along with other student groups. Though councilmembers voted using a secret ballot, Singh and Rogers both spoke against the resolution during discussions prior to the vote.
Students for Justice in Palestine members claimed that Singh and Rogers should have abstained from voting on the resolution because they went on sponsored trips to Israel while in office. The Anti-Defamation League, a pro-Israel lobbying group that aims to stop anti-Semitism, paid for the majority of Singh’s trip and Project Interchange, which aims to increase individuals’ understanding of Israel and is run by the American Jewish Committee, paid for Rogers’ trip.
Counsel representing Singh and Rogers during the Judicial Board hearing called the vast majority of witnesses to the stand, including the former chairman of Project Interchange and the regional director for the Anti-Defamation League.
USAC bylaws state that a conflict of interest arises when councilmembers have any “unauthorized financial interest or obligation which might cause divided loyalty or even the appearance of divided loyalty.” The origin of the financial interest clause came from a 2011 judicial board case.
Rogers and Singh said at the hearing that they did not use any resources from their offices to go on the trips, and they did not have any ongoing ties or obligations to the organizations.
The two former councilmembers said they felt that they were being personally attacked by Students for Justice in Palestine and that they went on the trips for educational reasons.
“I have had nothing to hide throughout the year. I have nothing to hide now,” Singh said in his opening statement.
In her opening statement, Students for Justice in Palestine president Dana Saifan said the case should be about whether any reasonable student would assume that thousands of dollars in gifts could affect the votes and stances of councilmembers. Students for Justice in Palestine members argued during the case that it is important for councilmembers to avoid even the appearance of having divided loyalties when voting at the table.
“It is the appearance (of a conflict of interest that) is sufficient to undermine the integrity of government because it is impossible to prove what a councilmember subjectively intended with their (ties to outside organizations.)” said Laila Riazi, a member of Students for Justice in Palestine and a fourth-year comparative literature and economics student, at the hearing.
Katie Takakjian, a third-year classics student and Singh’s counsel for the case, presented a timeline during the hearing that highlighted the time that passed between the divestment resolution vote in February and the weeks before USAC elections, when the petition was filed.
Singh ran for USAC president with the Bruins United slate, which ran candidates against LET’S ACT! in the highly contentious elections. Students for Justice in Palestine endorsed all of the members of the LET’S ACT! slate this year.
“It’s our contention that there was some bias and this was a smear campaign,” Takakjian said.
During the hearing, Saifan called three witnesses to the stand – Singh, Rogers and USAC President John Joanino.
Saifan questioned Rogers and Singh about the details of their trips, including the costs of the trips and the different commodities provided to them for free by the organizations. Saifan also aimed to show that Rogers and Singh had ongoing relationships with Project Interchange and the Anti-Defamation League, respectively.
Both Rogers and Singh said they did not know the costs of their trips, as the majority of the expenses associated with their trips were covered. Both former councilmembers stated they did not know the organizations were against divestment before voting at the USAC meeting, though they knew the organizations were pro-Israel.
In October, councilmembers voted that Singh’s trip with the Anti-Defamation League did not constitute a conflict of interest and allowed him to sponsor a different divestment-related resolution. Throughout the hearing, students who supported Singh and Rogers argued that councilmembers had set a precedent with the vote and that council has the authority to interpret its bylaws as it sees fit.
In his closing statement, Rogers’ council, Ian Cocroft, said the Students for Justice in Palestine petition was a political move and an attempt go back and change council’s vote against the divestment resolution.
Takakjian said the Judicial Board ruling in favor of Students for Justice in Palestine would discourage future students from educating themselves by going on trips such as those in question while serving in student government.
In her closing remarks, Riazi told Judicial Board members that this case could help draw clearer lines for councilmembers on what actions or favors are appropriate for them to take, clarifying an area of the bylaws that some students say they think is unclear.
“The outcome of this case has serious implications for the future of council,” Riazi said.
Following closing statements, justices extensively questioned the counsel for Students for Justice in Palestine about their arguments, as well as Singh and Rogers and their representatives.
The Judicial Board must release an official decision within two weeks of the hearing.
I think SJP’s actions against Sunny and Lauren are both abusive and hateful. So if a council member did not vote your way lets make sure we torture them to get what we want. Typical hateful rhetoric barfed out of the mouths of SJP.
It was only because Sunny was running for President in a close race that they decided to unleash this disgusting tactic. Takakjian is absolutely right. They did this as dirty politicking for the election.
And it worked. The Bruin refused to endorse Sunny.
I agree with you 100%
SJP needs to be investigated for links to the terrorist group Hamas.
since when is the ADL a “pro-israel lobby group”?? hahaha. laughable and ridiculous. the ADL is aimed at curbing antisemitism. yes, singling out israel and jews holding them to a double standard is antisemitism.
I don’t think ADL is a pro-Israel lobby group. I do however, think that USAC needs to hold hearings into SJP’s affiliation with the terrorist group Hamas. Does Lizzy Naameh condemn terrorism/Hamas or does she support it? She needs to come clean on this.
Or non-Jews that don’t hate Israel.
I have encountered many SJP members in my day. Not a single one of them has been anything close to a good person. Why is that?
Maybe because SJP is associated with the terrorist group Hamas.
I do not understand how you can get away with having a private meeting. Why do we pay these people to act in private?
Dude, the J-Board doesn’t get paid…
It is the judicial arm of USAC, which we pay for with student fees. Also, classic like-your-own-post.
Also, no mention of SJP-backed Devin Murphy going on the SAME trip?
The workings of USAC are pretty confusing to me but this is exactly why I read the DB – to have people who know what’s going on report it to me. Great article.
More proof that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is wasting the time of the student government at UCLA and many other universities while resulting in campus tension and a rise in anti-Semitism. Campus brown shirts in action.
Yup. Been saying it all along. What happened to USAC providing syllabi to students before enrollment in classes? Why is Winter Break shortened next year?
Winter Break is also shortened because of the Jews, but a different set of Jews.
These trips constituted a very clear conflict of interest and the council members need to be held accountable.
The ADL and AJC are not impartial organizations, their mission is to defend Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies. One of the most prominent links on the ADL’s website is “What you can do to support Israel.” If the ADL is focused on combating racism, why hasn’t it challenged the more than 50 discriminatory laws on the books in Israel, including the existence of Sundown Towns?
If these two council members had taken an all expense paid trip to Saudi Arabia right before a divestment vote related to that country’s human rights record, there is no doubt that all the people commenting on this piece would be calling for the maximum punishment possible.
We know the SJP gives all sorts of benefits and info to council members interested in BDS. Is that also a bribe? Trips are understood as not being financial inducements to vote a certain way, but as lobbying. That is not just the university consensus, but also the consensus of the US Laws. Contrary to the SJP council, these laws are not “unclear”. They just do not say what these people want them to say.
The ADL is indeed pro-Israel. And what you hear on the trip iOS probably pro-Israel. That does not mean the trip should be unjustly singled out among all other lobbying efforts as a financial inducement. It just isn’t. It doesn’t mean that a vote on a bill written months after the trip is now tainted.
Next it will be anyone with a Jewish friend cannot run for council.
I’m sure none of the comments here are biased towards any particular side.
“Because of safety concerns, Thursday’s hearing was closed to the public.”
If they’re concerned about safety they shouldn’t invite Palestinians.
I came across this story in another news source and am appalled. Are students to be denied experiences over foreign nations political disputes. This read like the Salem witch trials.