Former Officials Question Bill’s Legitimacy

A bill to pay legal fees incurred by ASUC President Oren Gabriel has raised concerns among current and former ASUC officials as to whether covering the costs would be legitimate and whether the ASUC Senate would debate the bill publicly before voting.

The bill, which the senate sent to its finance and constitutional review committees Wednesday night, asks the senate to pay up to $22,679 to Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, a San Francisco-based firm hired by Gabriel in July as part of a suit challenging the Judicial Council’s decision to disqualify the Student Action executive slate in June.

ASUC records indicate the senate has already discussed the bill in closed session. Minutes from the Oct. 4 meeting say the senate moved to closed session to discuss “matters involving litigation in the association.”

In an e-mail, Student Action Senator Curtis Lee did acknowledge that the bill had been discussed by the senate in closed session, but did not confirm it was at the Oct. 4 meeting. He declined to elaborate on the substance of the senate’s discussions.

But former Judicial Council chair Robert Gregg said there was no constitutional basis for the senate to enter into closed session.

The ASUC Constitution allows the senate to enter into closed session—but not to vote on agenda items—if the discussion includes “matters involving litigation.”

However, because the legal case initiated by Gabriel was dismissed in July, it is not clear that the appropriations bill meets the constitutional standard.

“One of the reasons is pending litigation, but there’s no longer any pending litigation,” Gregg said.

Neither Gabriel nor his attorney responded to repeated requests for comment. His chief of staff, Sheena Sharma, declined to comment.

The bill may be discussed in closed session at next week’s senate meeting before a vote is taken, said Student Action Senator Jane Park.

“I know a lot of people have questions that deserve to be answered and that’s why it’s unfortunate that the student body will not be able to witness debate over the bill,” Park said.

Another former Judicial Council chair, Mike Davis, questioned the legitimacy of drawing from the association’s legal defense fund to cover Gabriel’s legal fees.

According to the ASUC Constitution, the fund is intended solely for use in emergency legal action.

According to Davis, the fund is an important resource for the ASUC, as it provides them with the financial backing to mount a defense against any outside person or group suing the association.

It is intended as a reliable source of money at the disposal of the senate, he said.

“The whole point of the legal defense fund is that it’s a slush fund in case the university ever comes after (the ASUC),” Davis said. “It’s a tremendous financial resource that would be used to protect the ASUC’s autonomy in a legal encroachment of the university.”

Gabriel said Wednesday that the suit was absolutely necessary to guarantee what he said was the “will of the students.”

“The ASUC was in a constitutional crisis,” he said.

ASUC Auxiliary Director Nadesan Permaul said that the fund has been used in the past to reimburse a party’s legal costs.

In 2005, DAAP party member Yvette Felarca was reimbursed for the costs incurred in a case filed against the ASUC, claiming the DAAP candidates were unfairly disqualified in the 2004 elections.

“Fifteen thousand dollars was ultimately refunded to cover the cost of (DAAP’s) lawyers, so this is not something out of the blue,” Permaul said.

But others point to what they say could be considered a crucial difference between the current bill and the DAAP settlement.

Whereas funds released to the DAAP party were granted as a formal settlement, the current bill would pay for Gabriel’s legal counsel after charges have already been dismissed, Gregg said.

“This would not be any sort of settlement, this would be a payoff, a sympathetic payoff,” he said.

Emma Radovich of The Daily Californian contributed to this report.

Tags: