During the past year, UB students have seen a number of student organizations stumble in their responsibilities; this week, the Student Wide Judiciary took its turn by embarrassing itself in front of university as well as the New York State Supreme Court.
Friday, the State Supreme Court handed down a memorandum decision saying SWJ had acted inappropriately and violated a student's right to fair due process in a case that began in fall of 2000. In that case, a student who was charged with computer tampering was left waiting over five months for a pre-trial hearing. His adviser, Group Legal Services Defender John Menard, filed a motion for dismissal based on the extended wait; that motion was dismissed, and instead a motion of summary judgment, unprecedented in SWJ history, was passed, leaving the student with 120 hours of community service and Internet suspension until August 2003.
Menard, for filing for dismissal, was suspended from his position as adviser. According to Menard, Chief Justice Trevor Torcello believed Menard tried to subvert the court by not filing the motion with the appropriate justice, while Menard says that he was unfamiliar with filing procedure, and that the procedural rules for filing policies are often changed without updated rules being given to GLS in a timely manner, if at all.
According to SWJ procedure, Torcello had no business being at the pre-trial or viewing the motion to dismiss. As an appellate justice, Torcello must distance himself from initial hearings so as to view a possibly appealed case without prior knowledge or prejudice. The benefit to this separation would have been in exactly this type of case, where Torcello should have been the justice to oversee the appeals process. Torcello acted inappropriately on both counts and hurt his organization in the process.
The actions taken by SWJ were unprofessional; no matter how localized the court's actions may be, the members do not have a license to act as they wish and contrary to their own operating rules. SWJ disregarded the student's constitutionally protected rights to a prompt and fair trial. The justices must remember that their actions affect real students and real lives; the five-month moratorium placed on the student's Internet access had a very real effect on his life and his studies.
SWJ is a part of student government. While not elected directly by the student body, the members still have a responsibility to those they serve. The student court must take care to ensure that students' constitutional rights are protected - and that should not include protection from the court itself. If the SWJ justices lose sight of this purpose, they lose their legitimacy as representatives in the judicial field, and not necessarily only in the eyes of the Supreme Court but in the university they serve.
At the same time, the members of SWJ and GLS are students and still learning the intricacies of the law. For their own interest - what good will learning incorrect judicial practices do in future dealings? - they must adhere to the letter of the law. If no precedents existed prior to this time for SWJ to follow, this is clearly a golden opportunity for the current staff to revise the Rules of Procedure by which they operate. As with all other student organizations, turnover rate is high and experience is an unpredictable variable in proceedings; documentation and written history will be an invaluable tool for future justices to reference.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
