Student Election Commission, Petitioner

v.

Robbie Earl for ASM, A Registered Student Organization, Respondent

JUDGMENT
Cite As: 2005 ASM SJ 4

Before Collins, VJC, and Fox, SJ.
Mssrs. Timothy Leonard, Kent Heberling, and Eric Lensmire for Petitioners.
Mssrs. John Shen and Dan Hammer for Respondent.
Justice Fox announced the Opinion of the Panel.

 NICHOLAS J. FOX, Student Justice.  The Student Election Commission (SEC) brings forth this suit to the Student Judiciary alleging that Robbie Earl for ASM, a Registered Student Organization (RSO) on campus, improperly used student segregated fee monies from the Finance Committee’s Open Fund.  Petitioner alleges that said funds were used to support the election campaign of ASM member Robbie Earl, [1] and therefore the usage of funds is in violation of ASM Financial Policies and Procedures and the ASM Bylaws.  Respondent argues that the contract they signed with the Finance Committee in no way indicated that the money could not be used for elections or campaigning.

I 

            The Court asserts its jurisdiction in this matter, despite that in an oral pretrial motion, Respondents argued that the Finance Committee was the proper authority to resolve the issue in the case at bar.  The Court rejects Respondent's argument for several reasons.  Firstly, the SEC by right has the authority to file a charge against Respondents, in their capacity as a RSO on campus.  The ASM Bylaws state at 5.04(A)(I), "Any ASM member or RSO may file a complaint alleging an election violation, a case or controversy arising under the Constitution, Bylaws, rules and laws of the ASM, or issue over discipline of a RSO."  The case at bar clearly is an issue regarding an election violation, a case under the ASM Bylaws, and an issue regarding the potential discipline of a RSO.  Moreover, the SEC is charged by the Student Judiciary to run the elections (see ASM Constitution, Article 10, Section 3(a); ASM Bylaws Section 6).  As a matter regarding election rules and procedures, the SEC has the right to file this case with the Student Judiciary for judgment and sanction, if appropriate.

II 

            The second issue of contention for the Court is whether or not Robbie Earl for ASM is an RSO which campaigns and solicits support for the election of an ASM member to a student government position.  There is no doubt in the Court’s mind that the RSO solely serves this purpose.  We begin by examining the RSO’s online registration form, as found on the Student Organization Office’s website (Exhibit L).  The stated purpose of the RSO is “To provide a backbone of support for Robert Wayne Earl’s candidacy for general member of the Associated Students of Madison during the spring 2005 election” (emphasis added).  In addition, the registration form indicates that keywords for the RSO are “Elections, Voting, Campaigns, Candidates, […] Spring 2005 Elections.”

            The distributed fliers and website for the RSO also indicate that their primary purpose is to campaign and elect Robbie Earl to a seat on the ASM student government.  The quarter-sheet fliers (Exhibit H) direct their readers to Robbie Earl for ASM’s website.  On the website (Exhibit F), various hockey statistics and quotations about Robbie Earl are posted.  More importantly, the website specifically shows its readers a step-by-step procedure for voting for Robbie Earl as a write-in candidate in multiple election seats.  The Court is quite convinced that Robbie Earl for ASM is a campaign organization for the election of Robbie Earl to a seat in the ASM student government.

III

            The third issue of contention, and the central issue to this case, is whether or not ASM funds were improperly used by the RSO.  The ASM Financial Policies and Procedures for the Finance Committee (Exhibit C) specifically state at 12.5, “The Open Fund cannot be used to fund […] elections.”  To further this notion, the ASM Bylaws specifically state at 6.02(F), “[N]o ASM funds may be used for election purposes without specific approval and authorization of the Student Judiciary.  This specifically prohibits any use of ASM resources, equipment or grant money for election activities without prior approval of the Student Judiciary.  For the purposes of this section, ASM funds include all funds that the ASM has control over” (emphasis added).

            Clearly the Open Fund of the Finance Committee falls under the jurisdiction of the ASM Financial Policies and the ASM Bylaws.  However, Respondent argues that the contract they signed with the ASM Finance Committee only pertains to the Open Fund Guidelines for 2004 – 2005 (Exhibit I).  When on the ASM website under the funding section, the website indicates that the Open Fund provides RSOs—on a first come, first served basis—a maximum of $200 for their organization, provided that such monies are used in accordance with the Open Fund Guidelines.  There is a consequent link to those Guidelines on the website.  However, Respondent argues, in Criteria 7 of the Guidelines, “elections” or its equivalent is not listed as a prohibited use of ASM funds.  Therefore, when signing the Statement of Agreement (Exhibit J), which reads, “I have read and understand the ASM Open Fund Grant Guidelines,” Respondent argues they were only bound by the Guidelines.

            As a financial note in this matter, both parties agree that $78.00 was spent by Respondents to print the fliers promoting Robbie Earl for election to an ASM seat (Exhibit B).  Moreover, Respondent affirms that an additional sum of money was spent on sidewalk chalk.  The amount spent for the chalk was not known at the hearing.  After some brief outside research into this matter, the Court assigns a value to the chalk of $10.00.  The Court consequently will assume that the monetary value in question is $88.00.

            While it is unfortunate that the Open Fund Guidelines do not specifically mention elections as a prohibited use of ASM funds, the Court cannot accept an excuse of ignorance of the law in this matter.  On the website where Open Fund information is displayed, and where the link to the Open Fund Guidelines is located, there is another link at the top of the webpage which redirects the user to the ASM Financial Policies and Procedures.  While Respondent may argue that there was a link to the Open Fund Guidelines, there is also a link to the ASM Financial Policies and Procedures on the same page, in the same vicinity.  If Respondent wants to make the argument about the link leading to the Open Fund Guidelines, they can not disregard the fact that there is another link leading to more financial policies.  The Court feels that Respondents could have reasonably known about the ASM Financial Policies and Procedures because the links were within the general vicinity of one another.

            Moreover, the Open Fund Guidelines specifically state at Criterion 4, “A statement of agreement must be signed, declaring that the applicant understands and agrees to all ASM Grant and Open Fund rules and procedures” (emphasis added).  “All” is indicative of each and every rule and procedure regarding the distribution and usage of ASM funds, not solely those listed in the Open Fund Guidelines.  Consequently, the ASM Financial Policies and Procedures and the ASM Bylaws are also included in “all ASM Grant and Open Fund rules and Procedures.”  Finally, it should be noted that “guidelines” are not necessarily rules.  In the hierarchy of laws, the ASM Constitution supercedes everything.  The ASM Constitution is followed by the ASM Bylaws, which are in turn followed by rules and laws of the ASM.  Guidelines are mere summaries of rules, laws, and bylaws. See United States v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549), Schober v. Evans (2004 ASM SJ 14), MCSC v. Greenbaum (2004 ASM SJ 9).

            Respondent argues that it is impractical for an RSO to read and become familiar with almost 50 pages of ASM Bylaws, 10 pages of the ASM Constitution, and 11 pages of ASM Financial Policies and Procedures.  The Court has never accepted this argument and completely rejects it now.  The Bylaws and ASM Financial Policies and Procedures are established for a reason.  To claim that there are too many rules and laws to know fails at at least two counts.  Firstly, there are limited sections which actually pertain to finance.  It does not make sense that the entire sections dedicated to the Shared Governance Committee or to the duties of the Chair of ASM would be included in the “insurmountable” pages of rules and laws.  Secondly, every other member of ASM and all RSOs are bound by all laws and rules of ASM regarding areas of ASM jurisdiction.  It is no fault of this Court’s that Respondents did not read Bylaws and ASM Financial Policies and Procedures which were directly pertinent to their objectives.

            For the aforementioned reasons, in finding that 1) Robbie Earl for ASM is an RSO whose sole purpose was to campaign for the election of a member of ASM, 2) Robbie Earl for ASM received funds from the Finance Committee’s Open Fund, 3) Robbie Earl for ASM, in violation of the ASM Bylaws and ASM Financial Policies and Procedures, used monies from the Finance Committee’s Open Fund to engage in election activities, the Court hereby enters judgment for Petitioner Student Election Commission, and renders sanctions upon Respondent Robbie Earl for ASM.

Orders of the Court.

1.  IT IS ORDERED that Judgment in this matter is entered for Petitioner Student Election Commission.

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Robbie Earl for ASM, either through its primary contacts or its general membership, reimburse the Finance Committee's Open Fund with $88.00 to cover the cost of printing and chalk used in for campaigning in the Spring 2005 Elections.  The Chair of the Finance Committee shall notify the Court when said reimbursement is complete.

3.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court in this matter be forwarded on to the Office of the Dean of Students to ensure compliance with all Orders of the Court.

4.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Finance Committee be ENJOINED from distributing any further Open Fund monies to Robbie Earl for ASM.  All remaining funds originally appropriated to Robbie Earl for ASM are suspended.

5.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court in this matter be forwarded on to the Director of the Student Organization Office.  A copy of this judgment is to be placed in the file for Robbie Earl for ASM.  The Director of the Student Organization Office may take measures he or she deems necessary in this matter for further sanction, pursuant to the appropriate rules and procedures of the Student Organization Office.

6.  IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this Court reserve for itself jurisdiction over any subsequent actions in this matter, to ensure full compliance with all Orders of the Court.

 

By the Court, it is so ORDERED.

______________________                                  ______________________

Grant Collins                                                     Nicholas J. Fox

Vice Chief Justice                                              Student Justice

 

Published: 1:30PM April 24, 2005

Attest: /s/ NVR (Nathaniel Romano, Chief Justice)