Two drastically different rulings from the ASUO Constitution Court during the last two ASUO elections have influenced the ASUO Executive to push for an overhaul of the court system.
The rulings, each stemming from grievances filed against key political players in ASUO elections, may have shifted the elections’ outcome.

“We’re proposing comprehensive reform to the ASUO constitution,” ASUO Senior Policy Advisor Athan Papailiou said. Papailiou, the primary architect of the changes, was ASUO Senate president during the 2007-08 school year.
The changes are set to fix what Papailiou called a “broken culture left behind by previous administrations,” and are the biggest changes proposed.
Currently, grievances against the ASUO or its members do not have to be filed in person.
The proposed changes would alter that process, requiring grievances filed against the ASUO president or any member of the ASUO Senate regarding non-fulfillment of duties to be made in person. In addition, should a grievance be appealed to the court, the changes would allow for those named in the grievance to speak their case before the court before a ruling is decided upon.
Controversial rulings
The court is the judicial body of the ASUO, and five justices sit on the court. It provides clarification of ASUO Senate and Constitutional rules and serves as the ultimate court of appeals for grievances filed against the ASUO. The court does not have a regular meeting schedule, but rather meets as the need arises.
The changes to the court and the grievance process come partially in response to two controversial grievances, both of which were filed during ASUO election seasons.
The first, in 2007, resulted in then-ASUO Senate President Sara Hamilton being removed from the Senate for failing to fulfill her duties as president. The grievance was filed against Hamilton by then-Senator Erica Reiko Anderson because Hamilton had, on three occasions, failed to file Senate agendas within 48 hours of regular meetings.
The court’s decision to remove Hamilton was seen by many at the time as overly-harsh, but the court defended its choice, stating in a per curium opinion published in July 2007: “… The only way that equity under the law can be guaranteed is if the rules of law are followed. If this court took it upon itself to decide what rules to follow and when, it would be creating a situation by which its unbridled discretion would allow for abuse.”
“The rules were clear, anything else would have been tinkering with the logic and would have been improper,” said Shon Bogar, chief justice of the court, who emphasized that however harsh the ruling seemed, it was according to the ASUO Constitution.
The second grievance, in 2008, removed then-ASUO President Emily McLain’s stipend for her failure to appoint a student to the EMU Board of Directors. Despite the court having removed Hamilton from office for failure to fulfill duties one year earlier, McLain’s tenure as ASUO president was nearing an end, which caused the court to seek an alternative resolution. In this case, however, the court’s ruling was overturned by the administration.
According to Robin Holmes, vice president for Student Affairs, student groups aren’t allowed to levy punishments on other students, and the ruling was a violation of University policy.
The grievance was filed by University student Caroline Beranek, who was not involved in student government in any capacity and did not respond to Emerald inquiries after filing the grievance, which raised questions of political puppeteering.
In both cases, the court clearly applied different logic to similar circumstances, which is one reason the present administration wants to overhaul the court.
“I think the process has been manipulated for political purposes in the past. It’s unfortunate that the court is constrained by a few things,” Bogar said.
Among those reasons, Bogar said, is the fact that the court is not a discretionary court, which means the members are unable to pick and choose which grievances come before them. Also, scheduling differences between the law school, which runs on a semester system, and the University, which runs on a quarter system, can be a source of delays for court rulings.
The proposed changes would mandate that the court hear questions within seven days of their presentation (10 days during summer session), and rule on the questions within 10 days of their presentation. Ideally, this decision would prevent stalling in the ASUO Senate during critical times because there is no court ruling or opinion.
It would also expand the number of court justices from five to seven, to make it easier for the court to meet.
“Con Court shouldn’t be used as a means of stalling the operation of the ASUO,” Papailiou said.
Bogar promised the court has never sat on a case.
“We want to make the system more equitable and fair,” ASUO President Sam Dotters-Katz said. “We want to make it a more neutral document.”
The proposed changes, which are currently being reviewed by the University General Counsel, will be presented to the Senate for their input in early November, Dotters-Katz said.
“It needs to be reformed. It’s a great idea; there have been grievances filed in the past that were unnecessary and were taking advantage of a lenient system. It’s good the changes are coming before the Senate,” ASUO Senator Tyler Scandalios said.
[email protected]