The ASUC Page

Student Action, with a vengeance

By Christopher Page
From the December 2006 Print Edition

Proposition 209 doesn’t apply here

It would be reasonable to assume a proposition passed by California voters ten years ago would be accepted as law. As is so often the case, reason is left outside the senate chambers of Eshleman Hall. The ASUC Senate passed a bill which officially condemns the proposition which outlaws discrimination or preferential treatment on the basis of race. Apparently, we should grow up in a state where we are judged by the color of our skin and not the content of our intellect.

Impeachment for doing your job

The political machine of campus politics known as Student Action is up to its usual tricks. This time instead of trying to extort money, they are impeaching an official in the ASUC who actually does her job. The reason is political revenge. Sonya Banerjee led the Judicial Council when it issued scathing rulings against Student Action. She has not been afraid to punish Student Action when they break the bylaws. Even though the disqualification of their executive candidates has been lifted, Student Action wants blood.

After the election debacle over the summer, there were many calls to rewrite the bylaws to prevent future controversies. The election bylaws are ambiguous and everyone agreed they are badly in need of revision. Instead of making these important changes, some members of the senate are pursuing vendettas.

The trial

The impeachment hearing of Judicial Council chair Banerjee began around 10 p.m. on a Wednesday night. When the senators walked into the room, only a few — if any — were unsure of how they would vote. Before the trial even began, minds were made up.

During pre-trial motions the Student Action prosecution team — also known as the political hit squad — made a few mistakes involving affidavits and filing documents within the standard timeline. From this breach of procedure, some evidence was disallowed as the defense did not have a fair opportunity to review it. There was also a charge that both the defendant (Banerjee) and the plaintiff (the speakers for impeachment) agreed to drop. The change had to officially be approved by the Senators who were the jurors in the case. Even though both sides wanted to drop the charge, many Student Action senators voted to keep the charge officially in the case.

The plaintiffs for the case who argued for impeachment gave an ironic speech. They said Banerjee had to be removed because of her disregard for the ASUC constitution and bylaws. If they are going to apply that standard, they should have filed charges against their own President Oren Gabriel.

The liar takes the stand

Former Student Action party chair Suken Vakil was held in contempt of Council during the summer for his deceitful testimony as a witness. For this he was barred from ever testifying before the Judicial Council. In their infinite wisdom, the ASUC Senate — mostly the Student Action majority — voted to allow Vakil to give testimony. According to a participant I spoke with who was at the previous trial, Vakil had not changed his ways of equivocation and deceit.

The defense responds

Banerjee started her defense. One person she called to the stand was Dimitri Garcia, the Defend Affirmative Action Party senator. Since Garcia was one of the five senators who filed charges for her impeachment, she wanted to confront her accuser. First Banerjee asked Garcia to name the other senators who filed the charge sheet with him. He could not name one of them (two of them, Brandon Chen and Donald Rizzo had been arguing the case in front of him for the past several hours). Second, Banerjee asked Garcia how long she had been on the Judicial Council (Amaris White had testified only a few minutes before that length of time). Third, of central importance to why it was Banerjee on trial instead of a different person, Banerjee asked when she became the chair of the Judicial Council. Garcia had no idea (it was discussed earlier between which cases she assumed the chair). As if Garcia’s stupidity was not comical enough, he later asserted Banerjee assassinated his character while he was on the stand. Actually, it was Garcia committing character suicide by not knowing basic facts about a case he had filed and had sat through for the past five hours.

The verdict

Throughout the entire trial, Banerjee rebutted every argument and destroyed the case against her. In a 12-8 decision, Banerjee narrowly kept her position. The final voting was strictly along party lines with Student Action and DAAP voting for removal and CalSERVE, SQUELCH!, Berkeley College Republicans Party, and the independent voting against. The only person who broke with Student Action and stood up to its witch-hunt was Jeff Mannassero. I admire Mannassero’s courage and principle. He took a stand against a party machine that takes every offense personally.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot