A motion filed by former Student Senate President Sara Hamilton to have her removal from the Senate reconsidered has been granted by the ASUO Constitution Court.
The ASUO Constitution Court ruled Friday that because Hamilton said she did not receive a copy of the original grievance, the court will rehear the case May 24. Hamilton was removed from the Senate April 18 after the court ruled she had failed to fulfill her duties.
Sen. Erica Reiko Anderson filed a grievance against Hamilton April 9, alleging she had violated Senate rules and her duties as Senate president by failing to send out agendas at least 48 hours prior to meetings.
Hamilton filed a motion for reconsideration April 25 – when the court was in recess – writing the court had violated several rules when making its ruling. The court approved the motion based on one of three rule violations alleged by Hamilton.
Hamilton said she hopes the decision to remove her from Senate will be reversed. The term of the current Senate ends Wednesday, so Hamilton would not return to work if the decision is reversed. However, she said she wants the decision reversed to prevent future senators from being affected by this decision.
The court’s original decision, Hamilton said, sets a precedent where any member of the Senate could use the ruling as justification for filing grievances against one another for petty violations that would qualify as failure to perform duties.
Friday’s ruling denied the two other allegations in Hamilton’s motion.
Hamilton’s complaint accuses Chief Justice Matt Greene of “ex parte” contact with her and ASUO President Jared Axelrod prior to making the ruling available to the public. Friday’s ruling says this was found to be false.
In a statement to the court, Axelrod writes that the conversation with Greene, which Hamilton’s motion alleges occurred on April 17, did not happen that day. Axelrod writes he was in Salem that day and did not speak with Greene either by phone or in person. Axelrod told the Emerald he did speak with Greene about the case but did know at the time of the conversation whether the ruling had already happened.
The court’s ruling states phone records submitted by Green and Axelrod show no phone calls between the two on the date in question. It also states contact between Greene and Hamilton on the day the ruling was released did not violate “ex parte” rules because the ruling had already been made and had simply not been released yet.
Hamilton said she hopes the court will overturn the original decision after it re-hears the case. She said she is upset there is no procedure outlined for filing appeals based on court members’ conduct.
“I’m extremely disappointed that my options for appeal do not exist,” she said. “Two of the three things we brought into question (were) the actual behavior of the court. Typically, in order to grant due process, if you call into question the behavior of the court you get a different body to do that. In this case, the same body got to rule on their own conduct.”
The motion also states the court members “overstepped judicial boundaries” by going outside of the submitted material to find additional violations of her duties – although Anderson’s grievance alleged only three instances, the court found seven.
Friday’s ruling reads: “The (outside) material in this case in no way affected the Court’s decision. Whether the Petitioner did not fulfill her duties three times or seven, the outcome would have been the same.”
She also said the original decision is affecting her future career because potential employers have learned of the ruling through Internet searches and have asked her about it.
Hamilton said a reversal of the decision would “be setting the record straight and making sure this injustice doesn’t happen to anyone else.”
Greene is not allowed to comment on ongoing cases.
Contact the campus and federal politics reporter at [email protected]