UCLA Judicial Board votes to impeach one justice
Decision based on alleged discussion of election case
By Brooke Olson
Daily Bruin Contributor
After four hours of heated debate Tuesday night, the
undergraduate council voted to impeach Judicial Board Justice Noah
Hochman for discussing last year’s election case outside of
official meetings.
During the discussions, the university’s administrative advisors
left without an explanation, while critics charged the impeachment
hearing was invalid under undergraduate government bylaws .
Hochman, who at the beginning of the hearing asked the council
to postpone the debate until next week, attempted to resign from
the board when his request was denied.
Undergraduate President York Chang refused to accept Hochman’s
resignation because he said it would be seen as an "easy way
out."
"I thought that the violation was severe enough where I wanted
to hear the merits of the case," Chang said. "If violations had
occurred, it was necessary that the council take action and hold
(Hochman) responsible for his actions."
The charges brought against Hochman were based on the testimony
of Nikki Vivion, who served on the Elections Board last year.
Vivion, in a statement to Cynthia Duarte, the sole remaining
member of the Judicial Board Investigation Committee, said she
witnessed Hochman discussing the case with last year’s
undergraduate President Rob Greenhalgh.
Both Greenhalgh and Hochman denied that the discussion, which
occurred on May 8, 1995, concerned the election case.
"There is absolutely no evidence that Noah (Hochman) sacrificed
his integrity nor the integrity of the Judicial Board when he
talked to me," Greenhalgh said.
Moreover, both Hochman and Greenhalgh alleged that the
undergraduate council violated removal procedures.
According to undergraduate government bylaws pertaining to the
Judicial Board, a justice may be removed following approval by
three-fourths of all voting members on the council.
Although there are 13 voting seats on the council, only 12 were
filled Tuesday night. Of those 12, only nine voted to impeach
Hochman: one vote short of three-fourths of the council.
But, investigation committee member Cynthia Duarte, citing
another section of the bylaws, said only a two-thirds vote of
present council members was needed to remove a presidential
appointee.
"When (the council) looked at the procedures, the one we saw was
that a presidential appointment needed two-thirds of a vote to
remove him," Duarte said.
Hochman and Greenhalgh said they were also upset because Vivion
was not present at the council to answer their questions.
"What kind of fair trial is that when the only witness to this
conversation wasn’t even here to answer any questions about her
accusations," Greenhalgh asked.
Hochman also argued that he was not given enough time to prepare
a defense. He said he did not receive the documents concerning the
case until Monday afternoon.
"I didn’t feel like I was prepared to defend myself," Hochman
said. "That’s why I asked for one week to read everything and
prepare my rebuttal."
But Duarte said that she had made repeated attempts to
accommodate Hochman, claiming that "council members and I have bent
over backwards in giving Noah Hochman enough time to prepare for
this hearing.
"We are not to blame for Noah’s hide-and-seek tactics in this
case," she added
The dispute over the Judicial Board justice and his actions
resulted from last spring’s elections. 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, the Judicial Board reopened the case and overturned its
original decision by giving 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