IN THE CONSTITUTION COURT OF THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON _________________________________________ Ben Ordonez, Petitioner, v.

Ben Eckstein, PRESIDENT, ASUO

ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW COMPLAINT OF: Ben Ordonez, Concerned Student _________________________________________ IN FAVOR OF RE-PLACEMENT OF EMU RENOVATION BALLOT MEASURE ON THE FALL 2011 SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT IN FAVOR OF REMOVAL OF BEN ECKSTEIN FROM THE OFFICE OF ASUO PRESIDENT

1. Name of person against whom the complaint is filed.

Ben Eckstein ASUO President

2. The questions presented for review.

Whether or not the ASUO President has the constitutional authority to obstruct specially-scheduled and Constitution Court approved elections already underway, or to remove Constitution Court approved ballot measures from scheduled elections. Whether or not the ASUO President has obstructed the ability of the upcoming election to be conducted in a manner that was fair, orderly, and consistent with the best interests of the student body. Whether or not the ASUO President violated the ASUO Constitution by usurping the power expressly granted to the ASUO Elections Board, and by interfering with the Election Boards direction of an ASUO Election.

3. The specific constitutional provision, rule, policy, or resolution relevant to the controversy.
Jurisdiction
Pursuant to Article 11 9 of the ASUO Constitution, any member of the ASUO may refer any question regarding correct interpretation of any part of the Constitution or any rule promulgated under it to the ASUO Constitution Court. If the Constitution Court deems this to be an elections grievance: Elections Rules: 6.4.b The Constitution Court retains appellate jurisdiction over all matters arising under the ASUO

Election Rules. Moreover, the Constitution Court may entertain complaints that implicate the immediate removal of candidate(s) and ballot measures. Upon receipt of such complaints, the Elections Board must immediately forward all materials to the Constitution Court. 7.4. In order to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest, election grievances against the ASUO Elections Board or the ASUO Executive shall not be heard by the Elections Board. Instead, they shall be filed directly with the ASUO Constitution Court using the grievance form provided for this purpose.

Rules Relative to Controversy

Rules of the ASUO Constitution 5.18 Rulings of the ASUO Constitution Court shall be enforced by the President. Failure to enforce such a ruling shall constitute nonfulfillment of duties. 11.2 The Constitution Court shall have supreme and final authority on all questions of interpretation of this Constitution and any rules promulgated under it, including elections rules and complaints. 13.1 The ASUO Elections shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of the student body. The elections shall be conducted in a fair, orderly and impartial manner, and the educational atmosphere of the University shall not be compromised, by any member of the ASUO involved in the electoral process. 13.5 The ASUO President shall appoint an Elections Board Chair and, no later than November 1st each year; appoint four members to the Elections Board upon recommendation of the Elections Board Chair. The Chair and Board are subject to confirmation by a majority of the Student Senate. The Elections Board shall be responsible for promulgation of election rules and procedures, and for the overall direction of the elections. The Elections Board shall interpret the Election Rules on request and shall have the authority to hear complaints of violations. The Elections Board shall have the authority to act as hearings officers and form a Hearings Committee that must

include but is not limited to three Elections Board members. All rule interpretations and Hearings Committee decisions may be appealed to the Constitution Court. 15.3 The ASUO President may place an amendment or other initiative on the ballot without petition.

4. A brief statement of facts giving rise to the complaint.

General Facts A. In the spring of 2011, the ASUO Executive announced that a referendum would be held in the fall of 2011, regarding two construction projects (EMU, SRC). B. In the fall of 2011, the ASUO Executive announced that the special election would take place on November 14-18, 2011. C. In the Courts opinion 8 C.C. 2011/12, two ballot measures were approved for the fall special election already determined to be held on Nov. 14-18, 2011. D. On November 3rd, ASUO President Eckstein announced he was removing a ballot measure from the special election.

A. Whether or not the ASUO President has the Constitutional Authority to obstruct speciallyscheduled and Constitution Court-approved elections already underway, or to remove Constitution Court approved ballot measures from scheduled elections.
The ASUO President has explicit authority to: 1. Place an initiative on the ballot without petition.1 2. Appoint an election board and board chair, subject to senate confirmation.2
1 2

Green Tape Notebook 15.3 Green Tape Notebook 13.5

The ASUO Elections Board has the explicit authority to: 1. Be responsible for the direction of elections.3 ASUO President Eckstein has no authority to remove ballot measures from a scheduled election. Once the election was scheduled, and the ballot measures for said election were approved by the Constitution Court, the elections process was under the control of the Elections Board. Maintaining a separation between the Executive and the Elections Board during any election is not only required, it is fundamental to our democratic process. Further, the consequences of allowing the ASUO President to control what ballot measures or initiatives were or were not allowed in an election would be monumental and incredibly dangerous. If the intent were to allow such a power, it would have been expressly stated in the Constitution, as opposed to be expressly outlawed.

B. Whether or not the ASUO President has obstructed the ability of the upcoming election to be conducted in a manner which was fair, orderly, and consistent with the best interests of the student body. C. Whether or not the ASUO President violated the ASUO Constitution by usurping the power expressly granted to the ASUO Elections Board, and by interfering with the Election Boards direction of an ASUO Election.
13.1 The ASUO Elections shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of the student body. The elections shall be conducted in a fair, orderly and impartial manner
3

Green Tape Notebook 13.5

The ASUO 2011 Fall Election has been scheduled and promulgated for a considerable amount of time. The manner in which the ASUO Executive removed the EMU Ballot Measure from its rightful place in the fall election was neither fair, nor orderly, nor consistent with the best interests of the student body. Eckstein gave no prior notice even to the possibility that the EMU Ballot Measure might be removed from this falls election. Several university administrators and other figures central to this issue have stated on the record that they had no prior indication that this was possibility4. Student leaders, along with a host of administrators and staff members have been working to inform students of the issues of this election for months. The amount of money, time, and effort that went into this is enormous and incalculable. Eckstein himself submitted the ballot measure language, agreed to the election dates, and instructed his Elections Coordinator to conduct this special election. For the Executive to remove a measure from the ballot 11 days before an election is not orderly, is not fair, and is not in the best interest of the student body. The ASUO Constitution clearly mandates all elections be conducted under these principles. The obstruction of this, which was directly due to the actions of Eckstein, is in violation of the ASUO Constitution. Violations of the ASUO Constitution by the Chief Executive Officer are not to be taken lightly. Further, when the nature of a constitutional violation involves the ASUOs Chief Executive Officer obstructing critical election procedures and principles, the offense is equal to or itself the most severe possible.

5. The Remedy Requested

1. Petitioner requests the Constitution Court order the EMU http://dailyemerald.com/2011/11/06/editorial-postponing-thereferendum-impedes-the-conversation/
4

Ballot Measure approved in 8. C.C. 2011 to be placed on the ballot of the fall 2011 special election, to be held from Nov. 1418. The ASUO President lacked the authority to remove an approved and scheduled ballot measure from the fall election. Therefore, the Constitution Court should hold the ballot measure pertaining to the EMU Renovation be placed on the ballot of the special election, dated Nov. 14-18. 2. Petitioner requests the Constitution Court to instruct the Office of the ASUO Executive to maintain its required separation from the Elections Board during the course of a scheduled election. The Office of the ASUO Executive has egregiously violated the core tenant of separation between itself and the Elections Board. Petitioner requests the Constitutional Court officially notify the office of the ASUO Executive of its duty to not interfere with the operations of the Elections Board. 3. Petitioner requests the Constitution Court remove Ben Eckstein from the office of ASUO President, effective immediately. In the ASUO, the system of elections mandates explicitly that the ASUO President must not interfere with the process of elections, during elections. More importantly, the notion that the Executive should not usurp the power of the Elections Board during the electoral process is woven into very fabric of our democratic process. President Eckstein intentionally violated both of these ideals. By removing a ballot measure from a scheduled election, which had already been approved by the Constitution Court, he not only committed an act that he is not constitutionally allowed, but also broke through that crucial barrier

between Executive and Elections Board. Also, the manner in which he removed the EMU Ballot Measure from the fall election ballot obstructed the Election Boards ability to conduct the election in a manner that is fair, orderly, and in the best interest of the student body. Removing an elected officer from his or her position is the strongest punishment afforded to the Constitution Court. Therefore, the question must be asked, if removal from office is the strongest punishment, what violation is most severe? Petitioner believes that there is no greater violation than corruption of the electoral process, and that the violation was committed by the individual in the ASUO with the most power and influence only makes it that more egregious. The consequences of allowing an ASUO President to control what issues are or are not to be allowed on the ballot are monumental. The precedent set by such a holding grants the Executive almost sole power over who could run for office, what issues could be discussed and when or how elections could take place. There is a reason for an elections board, and there is a reason it always has been and always must be separated from the Executive during elections. Just because you are the most powerful player, doesnt mean you should be able to change or break the rules in the middle of the game. These direct, intentional violations committed by ASUO President Ben Eckstein must be considered the most serious possible, and require the strongest sanction: removal from office. Impeachment of the President requires that the grounds for removal be stated. ASUO Constitution 11.2 11.2 The Constitution Court shall have supreme and final authority on all questions of interpretation of this Constitution and any rules promulgated under it, including elections rules and complaints.

6. Any exigent circumstances that require the Constitution Court to hear this complaint with dispatch.
The election in question will take place on Nov. 14-18, which is rapidly approaching. Petitioner requests the Constitution Court review specifically the first remedy requested, placement of the EMU Ballot Measure back on the Fall 2011 Special Election ballot, with the greatest possible haste.

Appendix 1 http://dailyemerald.com/2011/11/06/editorial-postponing-thereferendum-impedes-the-conversation/

Editorial: Postponing EMU referendum was unprofessional

By EDITORIAL BOARD Published November 6, 2011
A shroud of confusion covered the EMU Friday, as students and leaders tried to react to what just happened. On Thursday, ASUO President Ben Eckstein chose, after consulting with various student groups, to postpone what would have been the student vote on refurbishing the EMU. And while we understand why Eckstein and others had grievances, the way they went about responding to it was inappropriate and not in keeping with a professional body. The story breaks We knew this was going to be a big story Thursday evening when Outdoor Program coordinator Dan Geiger came to our office to speak to us after finding out about the postponement on our website. Geiger took on an additional role as a renovation director when the discussions started with architects for the new EMU he has acted as a primary communicator between the architects and the students, faculty and staff that make up the User Group. We got no info at all that Ben had decided I received it at three (on Thursday) when it was posted to the ODE, Geiger said. The situation, as it stands, is that students will still vote on the Student Recreation Center fee starting one week from today, Nov. 14-18, and the EMU vote is tentatively taking place in spring term along with the general ASUO elections. Developing agreements Vice President for Student Affairs Robin Holmes shared the experience of learning about the postponement. Holmes told the Emerald that she, Eckstein and ASUO Vice President Katie Taylor have been working since August on a variety of understandings. She added that the collaboration seemed to come up with an agreement early on as to the language of the referendum. Over time, Holmes and Eckstein continued to have several conversations on the topic, while Ecksteins common concern was about a lack of student involvement. During the process, the pair was working on a memorandum of understanding which detailed the terms of their agreement on the issue. However, they couldnt come to an agreement on the issue of governance. We were working on an agreement for several months; we did not agree to several parts of the student involvement in the design process, Eckstein said. A couple of weeks ago, Holmes said, Eckstein was concerned enough about the EMU part of the question that he felt he should split it. So they resubmitted it as two questions one for the EMU and one for the Student Recreation Center. This was about the same time Eckstein said his meetings with student groups raised the issue of postponing the question until later in the year. The idea came from consultation with those groups. They asked if that was an option we had, Eckstein said. At (that) time, we prioritized other options.

Communication issues Eckstein had three primary concerns that caused him to finally pull the trigger student involvement, the issue of student space (which has been mostly resolved) and a possible mid-year tuition hike as a result of shortfalls in the state budget. Recent numbers indicated that income tax revenues might be down in the middle of the year, likely prompting cuts in higher education, which cause tuition increases. But before those numbers surfaced, it is clear factions were thinking about postponing the vote as a possibility. And not mentioning that in discussions with high-level administrators is irresponsible. This is about more than just respecting their authority. Its about gaining your own respect in the eyes of the professional world were trying to establish here. And in this professional world, its not fair to announce something to the media before informing a leader on the project. It is Bens decision, (but) it would have been nice if he would have communicated a little bit earlier that he had those concerns, ASUO Sen. Vania Loredo said. I think students should be more aware of the renovation. It does affect how students are going to pay. They should be aware of what is happening, because it is a pressing issue. Its unfortunate project leaders now have to react, but now students should definitely make themselves aware of this project because it aint over.

Appendix 2 To ASUO President Ben Eckstein and Executive Staff, The student staff members of the EMU Outdoor Program oppose ASUO President Ben Ecksteins decision to remove the EMU renovation from the November referendum ballot, and we demand that the EMU vote be reinstated. The decision to deny students a vote in the process was rushed, shortsighted, and was made without the consultation of many student groups. Facts have been misconstrued and personal opinion has taken precedence over the rights of students. By removing the EMU renovation from the ballot, Eckstein is silencing students' voices at a time when they need to be heard most. Many concerns are voiced in the press release issued by the ASUO Executive, but when examined closely they simply dont hold weight. The letter brings up the possibility of mid-year tuition increases, but there is absolutely no proof that such unprecedented increases are being considered. Eckstein also seems concerned about a lack of student control over the renovation projects. We are proud to place our trust in the long-standing process of EMU space allocation, which is overseen by students on the EMU Board. Many students, including those within the Outdoor Program, have spent countless hours informing the campus community about the upcoming referendum. The negative reactions to Bens decision from Club Sports, the Craft Center, the SRC Advisory Board and the EMU Board among others, illustrate this point well. For him to postpone the vote only discredits our work and slows the momentum the promotional efforts have achieved for both of these projects. Students have been anticipating this vote since last spring. Members of our staff have attended numerous events related to the referendum. At town halls, forums, and open houses we have asked very critical questions about the process, and we were strongly anticipating the opportunity to be able to vote on the project. Eckstein fails to mention the huge financial impact a delayed vote would have on this very time-sensitive project. To delay the process 12-18 months would mean millions of dollars lost to inflation and rising construction costs, and millions more to keep our architects on retainer for that length of time. What is of further concern is Eckstein's decision to postpone only the EMU portion of the vote. If he feels students aren't able to weigh in yet on the EMU, then why would we be they ready to vote on the SRC? These two projects are part of the same process, and splitting them apart makes little sense. The basic bond of trust between students and our representatives in the ASUO has been broken. By taking away our right to vote on the EMU renovation, Ben Eckstein has silenced the voices of the students on this campus. In the last sentence of his published letter, he states ...it is your student union, your money, and your choice. Then why not let us decide? While we acknowledge that Ben is entitled to his own opinion on these projects, we remind him that as an elected official he must speak for the entire student body, not just himself. President Eckstein, we implore you to reinstate the EMU vote, with the original language, on the agreed upon dates, and let students decide. -Student Employees of the Outdoor Program: Adam Tirella, Tanner VanLeuven,

Stephan Semansky, Elle Natchke, Sarah Onyschuk, Rafael Arroyo, Karissa Wilburn, Jazzelyn Bradbury, Rithy Khut, Ted Sweeney, Kalie Wilburn, Claire Stewart Appendix 3 To ASUO Executive, This letter is written in response to the decision of ASUO President Ben Eckstein to postpone the EMU referendum. It is our firm belief that this decision was not made in the name of students, as it was made without the appropriate input of students and we, the Interfraternity Council and Panhellenic Council of the University of Oregon, stand with the Club Sports Executive, SRC Advisory Board, and the EMU Board of Directors in opposing this decision. ASUO President Ben Eckstein emphasizes the importance of being fiscally responsible so that student dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly yet by postponing the EMU referendum, students will have to continually pay for the existing and future costs of keeping architects on retainer. The ASUO Executive has failed to release findings of any study or survey to give support to their claim of a student body unprepared to vote on this issue. Additionally, we find it insulting that the ASUO Executive assumes the student body is ignorant of the EMU referendum when it has been discussed broadly on campus for the last year. The ASUO Executive claims to represent student voice on campus yet the effort has been lacking thus far from the ASUO Executive this year to inform and educate our community of the referendum. Information sessions leading up to the November 14th vote thus far have largely been organized by individuals outside the ASUO Executive. For example, the Interfraternity and Panhellenic Councils set up their own Town Hall Meeting in Columbia 150 to further educate our members on the EMU and SRC Renovation Vote. Furthermore, ASUO President Ben Eckstein claims to have postponed the EMU vote because consultations with various student groups, who use the EMU daily, have raised concerns regarding the vote and input on the project. However, neither the Interfraternity Council nor the Panhellenic Council (constituting over 12% of the student population) have been contacted by the ASUO Executive to discuss the referendum. As other groups have also reached out to the ASUO Executive regarding the referendum and received no reply, it is questionable how the ASUO Executive bases their decision to postpone the EMU vote on concerns for student groups who use the EMU. The University of Oregon Interfraternity Council and Panhellenic Council call on the ASUO Executive to give the students of the University of Oregon a voice and include the EMU renovation on the upcoming referendum ballot. Regards, University of Oregon Interfraternity Council & Panhellenic Council

Appendix 4

ASUO Constitution Court

RECONSIDERATION FOR REVIEW OF: REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FALL BALLOT MEASURES BY ASUO PRESIDENT ECKSTEIN 8 C.C. (2011/12).
OPINION By Chief Justice Washington. PER CURIAM. I On October 21, 2011, ASUO President Ben Eckstein requested the Court to review two potential versions of a fall ballot measure. After the courts ruling in 7 C.C. President Eckstein petitioned the court for reconsideration. II Pursuant to Article 15 5 of the ASUO Constitution, the Constitution Court has jurisdiction to review and approve all proposed ballot measures. This provision of the Constitution stipulates that [t]he wording of all proposals to be placed on the ballot must be reviewed and approved by the Constitution Court. III President Ecksteins ballot measures were denied because his previous request stated, There has not been a final decision yet on whether the question will be placed as a single question or as two separate questions. IV The ballot measures could not be reviewed pursuant to Article 15 5 of the ASUO Constitution because they had not been finalized; therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review them. President Eckstein has resubmitted the two proposals to the court and emphasized that they are finalized proposals. Accordingly, we can now examine them for review. The proposals do not raise any constitutional issues, so they are approved for placement on the Fall 2011 ballot for the November 2011 elections. This ruling shall neither limit nor prejudice the Court in any future proceedings before the Court. It is so ordered.