-------------------------------------------------------
Findings of SA Special Investigation
On October 12th, I was appointed by Vice President for Judicial and Legislative Affairs Jordan Chapman to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Ms. Goldstein's appointment and confirmation as the Student Court Chief Justice, her appointment as the Program Board Political Activities Chair, as well as those members of the SA Senate and Executive who were aware of her conflict of interest.The following findings were the result of the sworn statements and questioning of numerous members of the SA Senate and Executive.
Timeline of Events
- Mar. 29th – Ms. Goldstein applies to be Justice on the Student Court.
- Apr. 7th – Ms. Goldstein applies to be the Program Board Political Activities Chair.
- Apr. 18th – Ms. Goldstein is nominated to the Student Court by former SA President Aswani.
- Apr. 21st – Ms. Goldstein is confirmed as a Justice on Student Court by acclimation.
- Early Sept. – Senator Komo is the first Senator to become aware of Ms. Goldstein’s conflict and notifies Senator Baker.
- Late Sept. – Senator Baker notifies the rest of the Senate leadership including Senators Ashida, Walsh, and Executive Vice President Lifton. Chief of Staff Curran is also notified.
- Early Oct. – Mr. Curran notifies President Bindelglass of conflict.
- Oct. 9th – Ms. Goldstein resigns her Program Board position.
Neither Ms. Goldstein nor Program Board Chair Tiffany Meehan could provide the official date that Ms. Goldstein became Political Affairs Chair. This date is one of significance due to the possibility that if Ms. Goldstein accepted the position before her confirmation as Chief Justice, she was not eligible to be confirmed in the first place. Therefore, depending on that date, Ms. Goldstein may or may not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate.
Despite learning of Ms. Goldstein’s conflict of interest in mid-September of the 2009-2010 Academic Year, none of the Senate leadership, including Senators Baker, Ashida, Walsh, or Komo, as well Executive Vice President Lifton, acted to rectify the situation.
It is apparent from several statements, that Senator Komo seemed in favor of the status quo because of his personal friendship with Ms. Goldstein.
Both Senator Baker and Ms. Goldstein seemed to justify her conflict of interest by relying on a provision of the SA Charter that doesn’t permit the SA to discriminate based on an individuals’ membership in other student organizations. However, VPLJA Chapman argued that the Charter is moot in regards to whether a student could be a part of the leadership of another organization. This investigation cannot say definitely which interpretation is correct. The Board of Trustees it the only body with the jurisdiction to interpret the SA Charter.
None of the aforementioned actors appeared to be concerned with the “technical” violation until several Senators began discussing impeachment proceeding against Senator Dobson. The situation was further compounded when Senator Marenna sued the Senate leadership after his suspension. Their concern stemmed from whether or not Ms. Goldstein (who would preside over the impeachment proceeding and the lawsuit) was eligible to serving on the Court.
For better or for worse, President Bindelglass seemed largely unaware of Ms. Goldstein’s conflict of interest until notified by Chief of Staff Curran in early October. However, upon learning of Ms. Goldstein’s conflict, Ms. Bindelglass took the position Ms. Goldstein should resign regardless of whether or not the Charter permitted her to serve in both capacities.
Based on this investigation, there seems to be a board sense of unwillingness to take action, despite the apparent violation of standard operating procedure. While some would note that Mr. Brand Kroeger openly served simultaneously as both the Chairman of the College Republicans and as a Justice on the Student Court, that is not a justification. Failure to enforce rules in the past is no excuse to not enforce the rules in the present. The failure to act was not one of coincidence or chance, but one of deliberate knowledge.
On the whole, it would appear the SA, particularly the Senate, follows their own rules when it best suites them, and disregards or reinterprets them when it does not. That said however, none of the members of the Senate or Executive at any time appeared to act with any malicious intent or intent to harm the student body.
Pleasantly,
James Bonneau
Special Investigator