Undergraduate council decision overturned
Dispute over codes leads to reversal
of impeachment
By Brooke Olson
Daily Bruin Staff
The Judicial Board defied an undergraduate council decision last
week, overturning the impeachment of presidential appointee Noah
Hochman.
In a unanimous 5-0-0 decision, the Judicial Board ruled that the
undergraduate council needed 10 votes to impeach Justice Hochman.
Only nine council members voted to approved the impeachment on Feb.
7.
Chief Justice Eric Mah said the vote was more significant then
simply disagreeing with the impeachment procedures in Hochman’s
case.
"The issue here isn’t just with the removal of one justice," Mah
said. "The issue is about the (undergraduate) council being
responsible and abiding to its own constitution. Once they violate
this aspect, it opens the doors to other avenues of
lawbreaking."
On Feb. 7, nine members of the council voted to remove Hochman
from the Judicial Board for allegedly discussing last year’s
election case outside of official meetings – a charge which is
grounds for impeachment.
The council’s already controversial decision was complicated by
an apparent dispute over two different sections of student
government codes. The sections of the undergraduate guidelines
conflict over how many council votes are needed to remove a justice
from the board.
According to undergraduate government bylaws pertaining to the
Judicial Board, a justice may be removed following the approval by
three-fourths of all voting members on the council, which would
have been 10 votes the day Hochman was impeached.
However, Academic Affairs Commissioner and councilmember Cynthia
Duarte said the council followed another section of student
government bylaws. This law stated that only a two-thirds vote of
present council members are needed to impeach a justice, which
would make nine votes enough.
But after the Judicial Board ruling, council members said they
agreed with the decision.
"The Judicial Board ruled and that’s fine. (The council) is
going to respect that ruling," said undergraduate President York
Chang. "The whole incident was a matter of interpretation and the
board has determined that three-fourths is needed to impeach a
justice."
The Judicial Board’s statement, which struck down the council’s
ruling, was issued after last year’s undergraduate President Rob
Greenhalgh filed a petition asking for a clarification of the
rules.
As a result of the latest Judicial Board ruling, Hochman is
still officially a member of the board.
"I plan to remain a member of the board until I graduate,"
Hochman, a senior, said.
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 Duarte, said she witnessed Hochman
discussing the case with Greenhalgh.
Both Greenhalgh and Hochman denied that the discussion, which
occurred on May 8, 1995, concerned the election case.
At the beginning of the investigation, the committee consisted
of three members, including Chang and external Vice President John
Du. However, both Du and Chang removed themselves from the
committee due to time conflicts. By the beginning of winter
quarter, only Duarte remained on the committee.
"Duarte acted as the instigator, the police, prosecutor, judge
and jury of the whole affair," Hochman said.
Duarte has continually said that it is not necessary to have
more than one member on the committee because all the person needed
to do was gather information and present it to the council for
interpretation. But critics questioned the undergraduate council’s
actions at the Feb. 7, meeting when Hochman was impeached.
"I felt that what was going on was so far out of bounds (that) I
could not be associated with it," said administrative undergraduate
Gov. Lyle Timmerman, explaining why he left in the middle of the
meeting. "It was very clear to me … that the (council) wasn’t
listening to me. They knew exactly where they wanted to go."
The council never asked Greenhalgh to testify about his
conversation with Hochman, and although the council asked Vivion to
attend the meeting, she was not present.
"The council’s whole basis for impeachment rested on a person
who may have overheard and misinterpreted something," Greenhalgh
said. "And she wasn’t even there to answer any questions about her
statement."
Vivion was immediately unavailable for comment.
Hochman said the council members should be "embarrassed by their
actions."
"For seven months they have been screwing around with this whole
affair and making a mountain out of a mole hill," Hochman said.
"It’s ridiculous that this is what the student fees are being used
for."
Chang acknowledged that student fees had been used in the
process. He said that though the investigation was necessary, it
was not something the council wanted to do.
"Any sort of violation of the bylaws needs to be addressed and
followed," Chang said. "And anyone who possibly violated that law
needs to be held accountable."Comments to
webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu