Before Collins, VCJ, Romano and Leonard, S.JJ.
Both Parties Appear pro se
CHIEF JUSTICE EMERITUS ROMANO delivers the Unanimous Judgment and Opinion of the Panel
On Motion for Summary Judgment.
CHIEF JUSTICE EMERITUS ROMANO delivers the Unanimous Judgment of the Court.

 

NATHANIEL ROMANO, Chief Justice Emeritus. 1 Petitioner Devron Zyvix, has appealed a decision by the Committee on Student Organizations to dismiss his misconduct complaint against the Chinese Student & Scholar Association, a Registered Student Organization to which Mr. Zyvix belongs. See, ASM By-laws § 5.04(5)(A) (2005). The Respondent is Chair of the Committee; in this position, he determined that the complaint did not allege any acts that could be found to violate the Code of Conduct. We now review that decision.

2 Our first requirement is to set forth a standard of review. We have never before been required to review a decision of the Committee on the merits. In Schober v. Evans, 2004 ASM SJ 14, we dealt with the due process aspects of the Committee's jurisdiction, but we explicitly avoided the merits of the review, because it was not yet ripe. Schober v. Evans - Order on Summary Dismissal, 2004 SJ Ord. 17 at 2. In fact, the By-law establishing the cause of action Petitioner relies upon was adopted by the Student Council on recommendation of the Court after our decision in that matter. See, ASM Const., Art. X, § 3(e) (2005) (authority of the Student Judiciary to recommend by-laws). Because this is a case of first impression, there is neither caselaw nor substantial statutory law for us to rely upon.

3 In denying Chair Fox's motion for summary dismissal, we noted that the sole guidance offered by the by-laws was a limit the type of review we are authorized to engage in. "Essentially, the By-laws have established a statutory form of the ancient common law writ of certiorari …[t]The scope of such review is generally limited to the question of jurisdiction and integrity of the process." Zyvix v. Fox - Order on Summary Dismissal, 2005 SJ Ord. 12 (internal citations omitted). The By-law clearly limits our review to ensuring the integrity of the process and protecting the rights guaranteed by the ASM Const. By-laws § 5.04(5)(A).

4 Within these limits, we note that the major issue under review is not whether the Chair followed the steps required of him; all parties admit that he did so. The question presented for us is whether, in following those steps, he properly interpreted the Code he was to follow. Clearly, while we have authority to say what the law of ASM is, Richards v. Student Council, 1997 ASM SJ 1, our review here is far more limited.

5 We can find authority to replace the Committee's interpretation of its own Code with our preferences neither in the Code nor in the By-laws. However, that does not end the inquiry. In protecting due process, we must ensure that the law has truly been followed. Due process generally requires that, if power is to be exercised, it be exercised according to previously established rules. It cannot be arbitrary. Robbie Earl 4 ASM v. Finance Committee, 2005 ASM SJ 7. The process may be imperfect, and lead to imperfect results, but there must be a previously established process to be followed. Id.

6 Due process, under the ASM Constitution, has no substantive element; it is limited solely to ensuring the integrity of process. Id.. However, this does not mean that this Court will simply defer without any inquiry to the Committee's internal definitions. We should ensure that the interpretations given are reasonable. The interpretations do not necessarily need to be the interpretations we would adopt, if we were writing on a clean slate. The Code by which we judge the Committee is not our Code, it is the Committee's Code. We are asked merely to review, to ensure that the Committee has not acted unreasonably.

7 At the same time, we are charged, by our Constitution and By-laws, with protecting the rights of students, ensuring that they have been afforded due process under the law. There is no due process when a Committee follows an unreasonable view of its own laws; in that case, the Committee will have simply acted arbitrarily, using the Code as a façade. It will have failed to follow a process. See, e.g. McCabe v. Evans, 2004 ASM SJ 3. (voiding Student Council appointments when made under a procedure that was unreasonable given By-law requirements). If the Committee interprets its Code unreasonably, it will not have followed that Code. Any statute though, may be susceptible to multiple reasonable meanings. If the Code provisions under review have multiple reasonable conclusions, we will affirm any such reasonable view, even if it is not the view we would have adopted ourselves.

8 Our standard of review then, faithful to the By-laws and respectful of the Committee's own standing as a coordinate branch of the University government, see, Wis. Stat. § 36.09(5), is limited to the following question. Is there any reasonable interpretation of the Code of Conduct that supports the action of the Committee? If there is any reasonable interpretation, though we may disagree, we will affirm its judgment. We will only reverse if there is absolutely no reasonable interpretation of the Code supporting the action.

9 Mr. Zyvix believes that the Code of Conduct should be read broadly to allow the Committee to look into actions of a Registered Student Organization that all parties agree are inherently internal; in this case, the actions that are the basis of the misconduct involve potential misconduct in the RSO's officer elections. Chair Fox, on the other hand, read the Code narrowly to prohibit inquiry into internal matters.

10 As a matter of law, we cannot say that Chair Fox's interpretation of the Code is unreasonable. Nowhere within the Code does it command a broad reading of its provisions. Neither does it require a narrow reading. The Code is completely silent on the scope of ambiguous language. In that case, it is entirely reasonable for the Committee to read it narrowly. Accordingly, we do not believe the dismissal was unreasonable.

11 In closing, we note, however, that Mr. Zyvix's allegations against the Chinese Student & Scholar Association are troubling. If true, they illustrate a group of students conspiring to undermine the independence and autonomy of a Registered Student Organization. Such acts may indeed be outside the scope of the Committee and Code of Conduct. We note, though, that Chair Fox has the discretion to forward this cause to this Court for investigation under our own disciplinary authority. Code of Conduct § II.11; cf. Const. Art. X, § 3(d). This panel believes that this case illustrates a proper time for the Chair to exercise such discretion. Thus, we will remand the case to the Committee to take further action that may be appropriate, given this opinion.

12 WHEREFORE, the Student Judiciary finds that Chair Fox's actions constituted a reasonable interpretation of the Code of Conduct and Judgment is entered for the Respondent to wit:

1. The Judgment of the Committee on Student Organizations is AFFIRMED.

2. The Cause is REMANDED to the Committee on Student Organizations for further actions consistent with this Opinion.

By the StudentJudiciary,
IT IS SO ORDERED

Published:
Attest: