The Associated Students of Madison’s Student Judiciary heard arguments Sunday in the case of SSFC member Matt Modell.
Modell claims some members of the ASM Nominations Board discriminated against him illegally when they chose not to appoint him to Student Judiciary in September.
Modell submitted a complaint early this month alleging that Nominations Board Chair Joseph Laskowski “failed to keep the [nominations] process fair,” and that ASM Chair Carl Camacho took “discrimination and violating due process to a new level.”
“Based on the evidence I examined, I feel I should have been appointed,” Modell said.
Laskowski testified Sunday that viewpoint neutrality was simply jargon for “as fair as possible,” and had nothing to do with the consideration of political affiliations. In addition, he said this definition “was discussed by everyone on the board.”
Laskowski said he did not support Modell’s candidacy because Modell has manipulated the student government system previously, even using Student Judiciary to push his own agenda in the past. This, Laskowski said, would damage Modell’s ability to make impartial decisions on the committee.
Laskowski also claimed Modell’s interview was not the best he had heard.
Modell refuted Laskowski’s argument.
“Every member of the Nominations Board thought I had a great interview,” Modell said.
According to Modell, documents obtained from the interviews Modell did with the Nominations Board in September show that Laskowski wrote “‘Modell, good interview,'” he said. “To me that implies I had a good interview.”
Camacho countered Modell’s complaint by saying Modell has lied about his activities with Student Judiciary.
According to Camacho, Modell withheld “extensive information” about a prior case.
“[Modell has] a tendency to not give … the full truth,” Camacho said.
Modell called on two major witnesses, both members of the Nominations Board, who claimed the process was suspect.
Elizabeth Stinebaugh testified that she believed she had to sign a document assuring viewpoint neutrality.
Stinebaugh also confessed to having a “pretty vague idea” of what viewpoint-neutral meant.
Jeff Schmidt also testified saying he was confused as to what viewpoint neutrality meant, and that “specific criteria were not necessarily outlined.”
Stinebaugh also said she felt some questions were written “to target certain individuals.”
There were other factors involved in the case, some of which focused on flaws in the open-records bylaws of ASM. According to Laskowski, in many places, there are “significant internal inconsistencies.”
According to ASM student representative Jeff Pertl, these bylaws are currently in the process of being rewritten.
The defense raised other issues. Pertl said, contrary to court’s orders, not all questions were completely answered. Each side, the court pointed out, sent e-mails to the court, but did not include a copy for the opposite party, a violation of procedure. Laskowski stated that the defendants had received “quasi-harassing e-mails” from Modell.
Laskowski and Camacho have filed a counter-suit against Modell, alleging his actions could be classified as harassment. They allege Modell targeted them, excluding other members of the Nominations Board, because of whom they are and their political views. Laskowski said he thinks this may be because he is the only homosexual member of the board and Camacho is the only student of color. Modell countered that he can easily name many students of color and LGBT students among his friends.
The court will release a decision within two weeks, pending further review of the material.