Letters to the Editor

    Complaints about ERC J-Board not justified

    Dear Editor:

    After reading the articles about the elections at Eleanor Roosevelt College, it is necessary to defend what went on, as a member of Student Council at ERC and the Judicial Board chair and as an ERC student. I find it surprising and unfortunate that students at this university behave so childishly about these matters, and, in this situation, find it flat-out offensive considering we went through the correct process, per both our elections and Judicial Board bylaws.

    The hearing was open to all members of the public and closed to members of the press, as requested by vice chair candidate Roger Chin. Who showed up to the hearings was beyond my control but it was not just members of Onka present at the hearing. Ignorance is no excuse for negligence. My job as Judicial Board chair is to provide students with a fair trial, providing them the means necessary to their rights, which I ensured. Because I am not a voting member on the Judicial Board and all the voting members are not members of SCERC, the so-called SCERC bias cannot have existed.

    Further, if the Judicial Board is biased, then how was the Dynamite slate previously granted the right to reinstate former ERC at-large representative Michael Stockin after the Elections Committee deemed him ineligible to participate in the election in a hearing prior to the one concerning the disqualification? Also, the Judicial Board granted the Dynamite slate a temporary restraining order, which allowed it to keep its campaign material up and leave its candidates’ names on the election ballot until we heard the evidence and fully deliberated and made our decision. I find the articles published to be hypocritical and one-sided — not to mention inaccurate — so I am not trying to attack either “side”; but no one is a winner in this matter.

    The Judicial Board does not take sides; it simply interprets ERC’s bylaws in light of the facts presented. What is discussed in the deliberation among Judicial Board members is not made public to protect the students involved, and it is not the obligation of the Judicial Board to make public anything more than the votes based on the facts. It is not the responsibility of the Judicial Board to decide why or how something is the way it is but rather to make a decision based on the information offered and the pre-existing bylaws, which is exactly what was done and will continue to be done.

    — Marissa Saatchi

    ERC Judicial Board chair

    More to Discover
    Donate to The UCSD Guardian
    $210
    $500
    Contributed
    Our Goal

    Your donation will support the student journalists at University of California, San Diego. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment, keep printing our papers, and cover our annual website hosting costs.

    Donate to The UCSD Guardian
    $210
    $500
    Contributed
    Our Goal