Sigma Alpha Epsilon
v.
Committee on Student Organizations
2006ASM SJ 2
JUDGEMENT
Before, Hodgson VCJ, Leonard & Tyack, S.JJ
Mr. Frey for the Petitioner
Chair Fox for the Respondent
JUSTICE Leonard delivers the Majority Opinion of the Court, in which Tyack joins and delivers a concurring opinion and Hodgson dissents and delivers an opinion.
TIMOTHY R LEONARD, JUSTICE. 1. Registered Student Organization Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) filed an appeal of a decision made by the Committee on Student Organizations (CSO), in accordance with ASM Bylaws 5.04(A)(IV). SAE alleges that the CSO violated timelines and bylaws, as stated in their “Policy on the Conduct and Discipline of Registered Student Organizations,” for filing complaints against an RSO. SAE asks this Court to appeal the decision of the CSO based upon this alleged violation and for harm done to the organization in expenses incurred by the collection of dues from its members and debts owed to their national organization despite their revocation of status as a Registered Student Organization (RSO).
2. We will first address the alleged harm done to SAE by the CSO’s decision. SAE is a social fraternity chapter on campus. In order to be recognized by the University, a fraternity must be a member of one of the recognized fraternal organization. SAE was a registered member of the Interfraternal Council (IFC). Full membership in the IFC is dependant on, among other things, recognition from the University as a “student organization in good standing with the University.” IFC Constitution Article III, Section (1)(A)(i)(a). Revocation of that status by the CSO made SAE ineligible for membership in the IFC (SAE’s membership from the IFC was revoked by the Greek Judicial Board for the same incident, but will not be addressed in this opinion since the Student Judiciary does not have jurisdiction in matters of the Greek Judicial Board). As a result, the National Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon revoked their local charter. Still, SAE collected $250 in dues from each of its member for the spring semester. In their argumentation, SAE said harm was done to the members of its organization because they were forced to pay these dues because the revocation occurred after being billed by the National organization. SAE alleges that had the CSO followed its own timelines, the organization would have known well in advance the fate of their status and would not have collected dues from its members and paid its national office.
3. The merits of Appeals from the Committee on Student Organizations are considered by this Court under ASM Bylaws. 2 Student Judiciary Digest 6 in reference to Zyvix v. Fox. In considering the matter of the alleged harm, this court must rule in favor of Respondent, quoting former Chief Justice Nathaniel Romano in Zyvix v. Fox, “Due process, under the ASM Constitution, has no substantive element; it is limited solely to ensuring the integrity of the process.” 2005 ASM SJ 8 Section 6. This Court reaffirms the former Chief Justice’s statement in this matter. This court cannot consider the alleged harm to the organization in considering this appeal, therefore dismissing that element.
4. This Court, however, has the authority to review the procedural elements of due process. 3 Student Judiciary Digest 2. In its Petition for Appeal, SAE alleges that the CSO violated its own timelines for receiving and hearing complaints against an RSO as established in its Code. While Chair Fox cited several examples of ASM case law where deference was given to an organization in interpreting its own bylaws (Schober v. Evans, Zyvix v. Huang, UWRCF v. SSFC II) we feel that the same principle cannot be applied when considering appeals from the Committee on Student Organization. When considering the violations of procedural due process under ASM law, the Court must be allowed to review the CSO’s interpretation of its own bylaws. As the designated appellate body of the CSO, we are awarded the power to overturn the decision of the CSO only when “the CSO failed to comply by its own rules and procedures to the extent that due process and fairness were potentially violated,” or when “the application of the CSO decision would violate an affirmative law or policy of the ASM.” This Court reviews the actions of the CSO in the matter of this appeal on both grounds, that the CSO did violated its own rules when considering the timeline of the complaint filed against SAE and by infringing on SAE’s procedural due process rights as guaranteed by the ASM Constitution.
5. In order for this Court to fully evaluate an alleged
violation of the CSO in complying with its own rules, we must be able to
determine whether or not the actions of the CSO were “fair,” including whether
or not their interpretation of its own bylaws are “fair,” and not necessarily
give deference to them in this matter. The Student Judiciary cannot make
accurate judgment or give serious consideration in CSO appeals if it is not
allowed to do so. This Court, however, is careful to use restraint when
reviewing the CSO’s interpretation of its own rules, since the CSO and ASM have
different standards in reviewing complaints and different standards of
reviewing laws and rules. One cannot compare the two procedurally or
ideologically, as the Student Judiciary uses indisputable presentation of fact and
jurisprudentia, holding strong to the
philosophy of law. The Student Judiciary is a judicial body in its strongest
traditions. As soon as the CSO allowed the Student Judiciary to be its
appellate body, it gave this Court the ability to review its actions with all
jurisprudence. This includes, and is not limited to, reviewing the CSO’s
interpretations of its own rules and bylaws, affirming what their laws are, and
what their laws ought to be. This Court, however, will review only matters
brought to it through the CSO’s appeals process, as our ability to intervene in
CSO matters are “limited solely to the grounds on which the appeal was
granted.” ASM Bylaws Subsection
5.04(A)(IV)(5)(c). This is drastically different than the position this Court
has taken on RSO’s and other organizations and committees under its
jurisdiction, only because the CSO has given its consent in its rules for the
Student Judiciary to act as an appellant body, and the Student Judiciary has,
in turn, asserted itself as the CSO’s appellant body in our own Bylaws.
6. Article IX, Section 3(d) of the ASM Constitution gives the Student Judiciary jurisdiction over the discipline of Registered Student Organizations. The Student Judiciary has interpreted this broadly, intervening only when an RSO violates ASM law. The CSO, under the purview of the Dean of Students Office, reviews the behavior of RSO’s under its Code of Conduct. It is important to solidify the Court’s role in this particular appeal only to the merits of the alleged violation, and not the merits of the events surrounding the original complaint, including any alleged violations of substantive due process.
7. The majority will now consider the merits of the first part of the appeal and determine whether or not the Committee on Student Organizations 1) Violated its own timelines set in its own rules and 2) whether or not the CSO reasonably interpret its rules when defining when the “incident” at bar occurred.
8. The events this Court considers as fact are these: 1) Sigma
Alpha Epsilon hosted an event on October 28, 2005. 2) A complaint was filed
against SAE on
9. According to the Policy on the Conduct and Discipline of Registered Student Organizations (RSO Policy), a complaint must be submitted to the “Director of the Student Organization Office within four weeks of the incident as determined by the Committee.” RSO Policy Section (II)(3). The Complaint was filed on December 21. Mr. Fox argues that the “incident” occurred when the police report was made public on December 16, making the filing date of December 21 well within the four weeks required. Mr. Frey argues that the “incident” should have been considered when indeed the event in question happened on October 28, making the filing date of December 21 well outside the four weeks required. In considering whether or not the CSO followed its own timelines, this Court must consider how the CSO interprets when the “incident” occurred, and determine if their reading of their own rules are reasonable.
10. Chair Fox claims his interpretation of “incident,” in considering specifically the matter with SAE, is indeed when the police report was made public because there was no other way for reliable evidence to be discovered until, in fact, the police report was made public. Vice-Chief Justice Hodgson, in her dissent, will argue that this Court should give Chair Fox deference in his interpretation, regardless of whether or not we believe his interpretation is unreasonable, based on past decisions of this Court in matters dealing with RSO’s. As stated above, however, the majority believes that we do not need to give Chair Fox deference because of the special relationship between the CSO and Student Judiciary. The majority, therefore, will take into consideration Chair Fox’s interpretation, and does consider his reading of “incident” to be unreasonable.
11. The majority of this Court believes that “incident” can be defined only so broadly under the strongest scrutiny of jurisprudence. “Incident” cannot mean when the best evidence is readily available. If this was to be the case, the RSO Policies would state so in a more explicit manner; it does not. It says “within four weeks of the incident as determined by the Committee.” Ibid. We feel the Committee’s determination of the time of the incident in this matter is unreasonable. Chair Fox claims that the CSO’s due process would be violated by restricting it from waiting until the police report was published. The CSO’s policies, however, gives provisions for timelines to be extended (see RSO Policy Section (II)(1)).
12. Furthermore, while Hodgson in her dissent will argue that we cannot reasonably consider when and if evidence was readily available, the majority feels it is safe to say that the CSO and the Complainant Barb Kautz had ample opportunity to collect evidence within the four weeks, as this Court shall assert should have started at the time of the event on October 28th. Mr. Frey reports that a guest list of over 600 individuals was submitted to the Interfraternal Council, the convening authority of SAE and other social fraternities. The police report was filed November 6, and parties wishing to file a complaint could have reasonably requested testimony from police officials involved in the incident and the report.
13. While the majority will agree that it stands on shaky ground in giving examples of other means of gathering evidence, we feel that we have reasonably shown that the due process rights of the CSO and the Complainant would not have, in any way, been substantially infringed upon if it did not wait for the public release of the police report. While a police report can stand alone as evidence from a strong, legitimate, and reliable place of authority, it is not the only source and standard of collecting evidence. Any individual has the due process right to present a case to the CSO, within the timelines as reasonably established according to the CSO’s rules, but that individual does not have the right to present a case whenever, at what ever date or time, the strongest evidence is available.
12. When applying ASM laws and standards to the appeal at
hand, this Court finds the CSO’s interpretation of their timelines in this case
to be imprudent, thereby accepting a complaint after the deadline and
effectively violating its own rules. The “incident” occurred on
Judgment & Orders
12. WHEREFORE, we hereby conclude that original complaint was not filed within the timelines set forth by rules of the Committee on Student Organization. Accordingly,
1. IT IS ORDERED that Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s Appeal is GRANTED.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment of the Committee on Student Organizations on the matter of Kautz v. SAE be, VACATED
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s status as a Registered Student Organization is, by default of granting the appeal, REINSTATED.
Timothy R. Leonard, Student Justice
Joshua Tyack, Student Justice
*****************************************************
Amber Hodgson, Vice-Chief Justice, Dissents
*****************************************************
Published:
Attest:
JOSHUA TYACK, JUSTICE, Concurring. 13. While I agree with the majority opinion, I have different reasoning than given by Justice Leonard. To me this case rests on three things: the interpretation of the RSO’s disciplinary procedure by Chair Fox, how he carried out this interpretation, and the degree and nature of the Student Judiciary’s ability to review RSO decisions. Chair Fox has interpreted the Disciplinary Procedure so as to “begin timelines for filing of a complaint when parties could reasonably know of the potential violation,” (Brief for Respondent). Leaving the issue of the reasonability of this interpretation aside for the moment, the actions of Chair Fox to start the four week window at the publishing of the police report is still highly questionable. It is incorrect that parties could only reasonably know about potential violations at the publishing of the police report. As outlined in the majority opinion, Barb Kautz had ample opportunity to file the complaint in the four weeks after the “incident” on October 28th. The window for filing complaints cannot be seen as starting when a preponderance of evidence presented, or when the complainant has the best possible case, especially when the Discipline Procedures give ample opportunity of extending the timeline upon request to the Dean of Students (RSO Policy).
14. But is the respondent’s interpretation of the policy reasonable? It seems fair to use a reasonable discovery test for when to start the timeline to file complaint, as ASM bodies do, but this is not necessarily the case for the CSO. The CSO Disciplinary Procedure states that complaints must be submitted “within four weeks of the incident.” The only reasonable interpretation of this rule is to take “incident” as literal, especially considering there is a mechanism to extend the timeline process by petitioning the Dean of Students. If the CSO wishes to take a reasonable notification standard as a matter of policy they should amend their rules to reflect that wish.
15. But this all leads to a discussion of the Student Judiciary’s standard of review. In Zyvix v. Fox a very limited standard is presented—to affirm any reasonable interpretation of the policies of the CSO. But this standard, if taken to the extreme by which Chair Fox implies, would be nothing but a rubber stamp on the CSO. Any interpretation, so long as it is reasonably justified, would be allowed. Because of the special relationship between the two bodies, as described in the majority opinion, there must be an expanded standard—The Student Judiciary must be able to protect student’s due process while still respecting the independence of the CSO.
Joshua Tyack, Justice
AMBER HODGSON, VICE-CHIEF JUSTICE, Dissenting. 16. In this case, the only way to find the CSO guilty of a due process violation, the Court would have to say that they violated their own rules of procedure and code of conduct, resulting in a due process violation against Petitioner. The majority aims to argue that the CSO’s interpretation of their own rules of procedure and code of conduct was “unreasonable.” I do not believe this to be so. There is much speculation in this case to say what could or should have been done by someone bringing the complaint against SAE.
17. The Court has no way of knowing what was actually done
to find evidence, and thus forth bring the complaint. We have a line of case law, wherein dealing
with a non-ASM body, the Court must give deference to the organization to
interpret their own rules as they wish, as long as that interpretation is
reasonable. It is not the Court’s right
to push its own policy views on organizations.
While I agree with the majority and Petitioner that there is no question
the “incident” in question took place on
18. While I agree that a police report can not be used as evidence in every single complaint, with an event such as this where the police report will carry great weight as evidence and is, more likely than not, the only way of knowing what actual events took place, I see nothing wrong with waiting until that information is reasonably discoverable. The CSO, like this Court, is a reactive body. It cannot go out looking for complaints to bring before it; it has to wait for the complaint to be brought to them. Chair Fox, acting in his capacity as Chair of the CSO, reacted when the complaint was brought, and I do not believe his actions, especially his interpretation of “incident,” to be unreasonable. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
Amber Hodgson, Vice-Chief Justice