Former ASUO president Sam Dotters-Katz and ASUO President Ben Eckstein spoke in front of the Constitution Court and several dozen of their peers in a tense courtroom Sunday afternoon. Dotters-Katz was calling for both Eckstein’s and ASUO Vice President Katie Taylor’s removal from office. @@http://asuo.uoregon.edu/executive.php?a=12@@
Each party had 15 minutes to state their case, and Dotters-Katz began. He claimed that the Ben and Katie campaign engaged in fraudulent behavior regarding checks during the 2011 ASUO elections. Former Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group board chair Charles Denson allegedly donated money to the campaign but requested his name be kept off the final budget.
Reportedly, he wrote two checks to Ben and Katie campaign manager Sophie Luthin, who then wrote two checks to Eckstein. Luthin’s name was the only one to go into the budget. @@http://www.uoregon.edu/findpeople/person/sophie*luthin@@
“The student government is standing at a precipice,” Dotters-Katz said.
Dotters-Katz went on to state his case, while the justices, wearing black robes, interrupted with questions. They discussed if Eckstein should be held accountable for the actions of his campaign manager at the time, and whether intent could be proved.
When it was Eckstein’s turn to speak, he explained that he should not be held accountable for the actions of Luthin. He said the campaign accurately disclosed all transactions the candidates directly received.
“I wasn’t aware the transaction had taken place until after Luthin gave the check to me,” Eckstein said. “I was never approached by Charles Denson.”
ASUO Vice President Katie Taylor, who was also in attendance, was asked when she found out about the donation made by Denson.
“I found out when I read the paper like everyone else,” Taylor said. “I was working on fundraising with my family.”
The second half of the hearing allowed for both Eckstein and Dotters-Katz to speak about ways to remedy the alleged problem. Dotters-Katz suggested that since the alleged actions took place during an election this would be an elections rules violation and therefore Eckstein and Taylor should be removed and Sinjin Carey and Kaitlyn Lange, who ran in opposition to Ben and Katie, should take office. @@http://www.uoregon.edu/findpeople/person/kaitlyn*lange@@  @@http://www.uoregon.edu/findpeople/person/sinjin*carey@@
“There is a clear reason why removal from office is a reasonable remedy,” Dotters-Katz said. “If they are not removed, then no rule is held sacred, and you are setting a horrible precedent.”
Eckstein disagreed, saying Dotters-Katz’s argument isn’t a mechanism to remove elected officials from office and that going through this process is not appropriate. He then brought up previous court cases in order to show how previous justices have ruled.
Associate Justice Megan Melka-Benevento explained that it is hard to look at past court cases with Con Court because the court itself changes so much. @@http://asuo.uoregon.edu/concourt.php?a=33@@
Should Eckstein and Taylor be removed, the court will find a replacement who will serve until the ASUO term of office ends May 24. After, the winners of the recent election will take office.
The hearing ended after about an hour. The justices convened at a location off campus to deliberate. They will provide a decision by Friday.