Student Association Treasurer Mazin Kased had good reason to joke around last week. On Tuesday, several charges against him were dismissed because the student plaintiffs failed to file the basic paperwork for a trial.
Matthew Pelkey, the lead plaintiff, said his party didn't receive notice until after the deadline.
"Only unless the postal service didn't want to send Matt Pelkey his mail," Kased said in jest. "Maybe that's a controversy."
Controversy? Yes. Conspiracy? Not quite.
Co-plaintiff Elizabeth Salzman shed some light on her party's quiet stance Thursday, calling the notification process unfair and saying the dimissal will be challenged.
"I didn't even know I was supposed to be receiving letter," Salzman said, adding she was out of town that weekend. "Unless I'm expecting something that day, I don't have the time to check my mailbox every day of the week."
Under Student-wide Judiciary guidelines, each of the parties involved had three business days to respond to their letters and file a basic summary brief. The three plaintiffs of the Reform Our Campus party -- Pelkey, Salzman, and Francisco Baiocchi -- are the only involved persons whose letters were sent to home addresses on campus. The seven defendants were notified in time at office mailboxes. That group includes Kased, the rest of the SA E-board, and the SUNY SA delegates.
Two professional staff members at SA and Student Life were also sent notices. Salzman said the judiciary had plenty of better ways to contact her.
"The timing should've been more than just that Friday," she said.
Earlier this week, Pelkey said the case was improperly dismissed and he would challenge the decision, even though the ruling was final without appeal. Salzman said Reform Our Campus would draw up an appeal this week to hopefully submit on Monday.
"It's a waste to see our government is taking so much time to handle a simple matter," she said. "The facts are there, and the paperwork as been filed repeatedly."
Student-wide Judiciary Chief Justice William Sherlock said he could not comment on Pelkey's claim of improper dismissal until a complaint is filed.
"He could file a motion if he had some sort of proof," Sherlock said.
Pelkey could not be reached for comment.
Sherlock rejected claims that anyone did not receive a letter in their mailbox in a timely manner.
"The only way that that would be possible," Sherlock said, "was if their student information wasn't correct."
Even then, the letters would have been a day late. Baiocchi says he did not receive a letter at all.
"I worked for University Residence Halls for three years," Sherlock said, "so that's what I did. I sorted mail and I delivered it. I'm very well-versed in how the campus system works."
If Pelkey does file a complaint, Sherlock will be the one to decide the case's future.
"I will reiterate that any decision from the Student Supreme Court is final and there is no appeal process," Sherlock said.
"I have had no formal communication with (Pelkey)," Sherlock added, "so I don't know what he's going to try to do."
SUNY SA delegate Peter Rizzo said the failure to hand in a simple summary brief, which Pelkey party attributed to his busy schedule, showed a lack of initiative.
"He had a whole week to hand it in," Rizzo said. "For someone who has that much passion, as Matthew has, it really shows a lack of responsibility."
Photo: Courtesy of Matthew Messina, from the RMBERS' Instagram page
