ASUC Judicial Council Overrides Chancellor

Just four days after the university lifted a spending ban on the "No on 54" campaign funds, the Graduate Assembly has found its pockets sealed yet again because of an ASUC Judicial Council mandate yesterday.

The council froze the $31,000 improperly allocated by the assembly for a campaign against Proposition 54 and imposed a gag order barring ASUC officials from publicly discussing the case.

Issued by Judicial Council Chair Mike Davis, the emergency injunction stood until late last night when the council agreed on the decision and planned to hear the case questioning reimbursement for the controversial allocation after Thanksgiving break.

The mandate overrides Chancellor Robert Berdahl's decision last week to allow the ASUC to use its monies to pay back the $31,000.

The administration made a "one-time exception" to university rules, allowing the student government to spend money on a ballot initiative campaign.

But because ASUC rules bar using association coffers to fund off-campus political activities, the council can step in when there is a possible violation.

"The university has some say, but so do our internal procedures and rules," Davis said.

The university's decision is only a guideline, said Dean of Students Karen Kenney.

"The chancellor does not want to intervene-he sees this as being internal to ASUC," Kenney said.

The injunction follows a suit by APPLE Senator Paul LaFata against the Graduate Assembly, questioning its allocation for the "No on 54" campaign.

Davis said he had to issue the injunction to prevent any "irreparable harm from occurring."

"Any money going out to vendors that violates the ASUC constitution would be irreparable harm," Davis said. "If a vendor is paid using ASUC funds, we can't sue them to get the money back."

The decision comes as a blow to some ASUC officials, who thought the administration's decision put the $31,000 in the clear to pay back vendors.

"We've already waited so long for vendors to get paid. This is out of line and it is ridiculous to file the case," said Graduate Assembly President Jessica Quindel.

Until the council decides whether to hear the case or to strike down Davis' injunction, vendors will have to wait before getting their money.

On top of holding back funds, the gag order threw ASUC officials into a frenzy by threatening senators who speak on the topic with an automatic disqualification from spring elections.

It is the first order of its kind, since the power to issue a gag order was approved by the senate only weeks ago.

Afraid of the consequences, some senators refused to speak.

"I don't know what I can say, so I'm not going to say anything," said Student Action Senator Suken Vakil.

The far-reaching injunction rankled other senators, who said the council had overstepped its bounds.

"This injunction is the judicial council's use of bureaucratic means to substitute for the GA's and ASUC's elected officials and to smother free speech," said Defend Affirmative Action Party Senator Yvette Felarca.

But LaFata, who filed the suit, sided with the council's decision.

"You can't believe that the ASUC is an autonomous entity from the university and then be angry at the Judicial Council's injunction to step in," LaFata said. "These are contradictory beliefs."

Tags: