“There is a lot at stake in ASM — millions of student fee dollars — and this means there are many ASM politicos with their hands in the cookie jar. These special interest representatives have banded together and will do just about anything to keep objectors out. They delight in the apathy that typifies most students; it sustains their grip on power.” — Brad Vogel, former Vice Chief Justice of ASM Student Judiciary, Sept. 16, 2004.

In officially resigning his position as Vice Chief Justice of the Associated Students of Madison (ASM) Student Judiciary (SJ), Brad Vogel chose to end the dispute between himself, Chief Justice Nate Romano and Nominations Board Chairman Adam Schlicht over whether his term expired. Individuals involved with the case have suggested that Vogel should have simply reapplied for appointment to another term on SJ if he wanted to stay on. While one can make reasonable arguments as to whether Vogel’s term expired, Vogel made clear in his letter of resignation that the more important aspect of this dispute was the crooked process in which ASM SJ handled the case and the prevalent corruption existing throughout ASM that allows it.

ASM exists as our student government here on campus, and SJ exists as the branch with jurisdiction over, “[A]ll cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, Bylaws, Rules or laws of the ASM,” as noted in Article X, Section 3(c) of the ASM Constitution.

Unfortunately, this language fails to provide for independent review involving disputes directly involving SJ or its members. In this case, the dispute involves the same Article X of the ASM Constitution. Section One mandates that ASM Student Council appoint four student justices each year for a two year term, and Section Two mandates that the Council fill vacancies, with the appointed person to fill out the remainder of the term.

Vogel argued in his resignation letter that, “In a blatant conflict of interest, Chief Justice Nathaniel Romano unilaterally took himself off the defendants list in a case filed on Sept. 13, 2004 and replaced it with a party the complainant had not requested.” Perhaps Romano can explain himself with intricate legal reasoning, but more revealing is how SJ members handled a similar case involving another justice also completing his term this fall.

In spring 2002, the ASM Nominations Board chose Jordan Green to fill a vacancy on SJ. Instead of filling the vacancy until it ended in fall 2002, the Nominations Board drafted the legislation to appoint Green to a term of two years, ending fall 2004. Student Council approved this appointment by voice vote.

In approving this appointment, ASM Student Council blatantly violated Article X of the Constitution, which permits Student Council to appoint justices for two years only, and in the case of a vacancy, only to the end of that vacant term. Unfortunately, not one student raised objections to this unconstitutional action until fall 2002 when the next session of ASM realized they had only three SJ positions to fill.

In an outrageous stunt, SJ ended discussion on this matter while ruling on the appeal of a viewpoint neutrality case before them. The UW Infoshop filed a complaint alleging SSFC violated viewpoint neutrality in denying that organization funding. UW Infoshop appealed SJ’s initial finding of no violation.

The viewpoint neutrality appeal had no connection to the question of Green’s appointment, other than timing — SJ heard the appeal at exactly the same time students challenged Green’s appointment. When hearing an appeal, all justices on SJ hear the case, and then write a final decision, never again open to review.

With this authority, the justices on SJ, including Green himself, wrote in the appeal that, “All representatives of ASM, therefore, are bound to uphold the previous decisions and actions of past ASM sessions, as they are binding and beyond review.” In this same paragraph, SJ specifically listed, “[B]ill (sic) introduced and approved, appointments to committees within the branches of ASM, Justice appointments and the processes involved with the appointment ….”

Without even hearing the case, SJ ended discussion, and Green continued to occupy his seat. Apparently Green had enough friends on Student Judiciary; Vogel did not.

Recently, ASM Chair Emily McWilliams questioned how this dispute could be considered news. Perhaps, unintentionally, McWilliams makes a point. After all, this story shows once again what a farce our student government has become, and for those following ASM, that certainly is not news.

Mark Baumgardner ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.