The ASUO Constitution Court made a ruling last Friday on the second grievance filed by University student Caroline Beranek against President Emily McLain – nearly six weeks after it was originally filed.
Beranek submitted her second grievance against McLain on April 8, three weeks after her first grievance was dismissed. Beranek alleged that McLain’s failure to fill a seat on the EMU Board of Directors amounted to a non-fulfillment of duties, and that she should be removed from office as a result.
The second grievance was virtually the same as the first, save for two key differences: The first grievance included Vice-President Chii-San SunOwen, while the second did not. Additionally, the first grievance was filed and decided within eight days; the second grievance took 38 days.
And yet the ruling this time was vastly different. The Court decided McLain failed to fulfill her duties. Furthermore, in their ruling it was stated that she should be removed from office; however, with less than a week remaining until President-elect Sam Dotters-Katz takes office, they will instead cancel her final stipend. These inconsistencies in the Beranek v. McLain cases only serve to remind us that Con Court’s members are students, and cannot handle their responsibilities.
Blame for this shouldn’t be directed entirely at the members of Con Court. They are just students, after all, and must juggle the dual roles of student and Court Justice. But the duties of the Con Court call for an unparalleled sense of obligation. According to the ASUO Web site, “The five-member Court has the authority to rule on any question arising under the ASUO Constitution… This review power covers almost any action by ASUO government bodies, programs, and in special cases such as elections, actions by individual students within programs.” This is a great deal of responsibility for anyone.
Yet Con Court has no oversight. They could completely misinterpret their duties laid out by the Green Tape Notebook, and no one (save maybe for the Emerald) could reprimand them.
“The Court has broad powers to impose sanctions in order to compel compliance with its rulings,” the ASUO Web site continues. Because no higher body exists to levy criticism against the Court, the Emerald editorial board feels it is necessary to point out when they fail to uphold a strict interpretation of the Green Tape Notebook.
Justices serve on the court until they graduate. So it is valid to look back to last year, at the Court’s decision to dismiss ASUO Senate President Sara Hamilton, for a precedent. The Court made that same allusion in its Beranek ruling, pointing out that Hamilton’s failure to send out a senate meeting agenda resulted in a similar non-fulfillment of duties charge. It is interesting that these two contentious rulings would each come near the end of the school year – the same time Justices may be feeling the pressure of law school finals. In each case, the Court has taken it upon itself to interpret minor rules infractions as offenses worthy of ejection from office. It is only fair for us, for the ASUO and for all students to take a hard look at the Constitution Court and the way it is structured. It is time for a change. It’s time for administrative oversight of Con Court.
Editor in Chief Laura Powers has recused herself from all deliberation of this matter because she has filed a grievance currently under consideration by the court.