„
Official Complaint Regarding Student Gove rnme nt Association Regarding: misuse of public monies, fraud, embezzlement and subsequent cover-up
As a Senator in the SGA, I submit this complaint to the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Center For Student Development, and the Student Government Association seeking adequate redress of allegations as demonstrated. I also submit this complaint to the UMASS Police Department, as I am requesting that all individuals implicated be the subject of a thorough investigation to result in criminal charges.
Derek Satya Khanna 9/21/2009
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
To whom it may concern, As an elected Student Senator in the Student Government at UMASS Amherst for three years, it has come to my attention that the Justice for Jason group (www.justiceforjason.org/) (also known as CJJV or J4J) operates a desk within the UMASS Amherst's Student Government office that they use for their illicit t-shirt selling operation. To clarify, this is not conjecture, as I have seen the t-shirts (as you will below) I have seen the money and the advertisements for the program. But beyond my testimony, I have provided the receipts of the money trail. The t-shirts are bought with student fees allocated for other purposes, then resold with the proceeds going to the J4J defense fund. I am officially informing all involved parties, that this activity is unethical and illegal. Also, it is a potential violation of the Code of Student Conduct, http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/, as well as inconsistent with the current SGA Constitution and By-laws. The SGA recommends the Student Activities Trust Fund Budget (a budget of approximately twomillion dollars) as an official request, but it is ultimately up to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, the Campus Budget Officers, the Chancellor and the University President for review and Trustee approval. The budget is also under the Trustees' jurisdiction. Therefore, while the following may have been what certain members of the student government intended to be done with SATF monies, if it was not specifically detailed in the presented package to the Trustees, or to the SGA body, it is a violation of the statutory understanding in the Wellman document that established the SGA to begin with. This is such a violation. As Speaker, Modesto, and as elected officials, Emily and Ngozi, and as appointed officials with this as an area of responsibility, Sakeema Kazmi, I assume that this notice will enact a compliance with the law. I feel that this is a violation of the public's trust and good will, and hope that this e -mail will resolve the situation. I further included the Coordinating Council on this e-mail, as they are in a position to stop this as well and are actively complicit if they fail to intervene. I also included the Secretary of Finance, Rick Pierre, perhaps the most important involved person in this situation, but since the SGA releases almost none of its information it has been impossible for myself to determine if Rick has had this position over the past year. Enclosed is a series of allegations, with provided evidence and then legal analysis. I am acknowledging that not all the allegations are fully demonstrated in this letter, but I provide ample evidence to suggest that the law way broken, and to start an investigation. I acknowledge that I do not have all the applicable information relevant to a full an exhaustive information, as finding this information requires confidential student information. This letter will demonstrate several facts as incontrovertible, and several other allegations as likely suspicions. A full investigation will determine right from wrong and determine who is ultimately to be held to account. It is ultimately up to the SGA leadership to change their behavior for the future such that the enclosed situation never happens again. I request that this letter be provided to every incoming Senator, to demonstrate the new system of accountability within the SGA. In addition, I will remind all recipients that as myself and other signatories are reporting on violations of the law, we qualify under whistleblower statutes protecting disclosures of such information. Specifically, we as Whistleblowers of violations of the Internal Revenue Code, as well as other laws, qualify for multiple whistleblower statute protection from reprisal. 2| P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Carbon Copy List:
I have CC'ed the Vice Chancellor who has primary oversight over the SGA in situations of misuse of monies and other ethical violations with the recommendation that steps be put into place to stop such activity in the future.
I have CC‟ed JoAnne Vanin of the DOS office who has primary oversight regarding disciplinary proceedings and violation of the CSC with the expectation that involved students will be immediately held to account within the disciplinary process.
I have CC‟ed the Chief of Police of the UMPD. To be clear to the police, UMASS student fees are public monies, and therefore qualify under relevant federal and state jurisdiction, which therefore changes the situation quite drastically.
I have CC‟ed Associate Counsel Brian Burke.
I have CC‟ed Byron Bullock the Center for Student Development where all relevant documents not disclosed can be obtained.
I have CC‟d members of the Faculty senate including Ernest May
Should this letter not enact necessary compliance within 21 days, media venues across the country will be informed and the State and District Attorney shall be provided all relevant materials for their criminal prosecution. Upon exhaustion of these measures, further actions will be taken.
3| P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Allegations: Seven things have been done this past semester on UMASS campus by the leadership of the student government that violates the CSC and potentially the law, not to mention ethical improprieties: 1. SGA funds have been used to pay for the Justice For Jason (J4J) campaign. 2. Commuter area Government funds were allocated for the J4J campaign by Vanessa Snow. 3. Student Bridges funds were allocated for the J4J campaign. These funds make up a large amount of the $15,000 that has been raised for Jason Vassell's Defense fund. 4. SGA office space has been allocated to the J4J worker who is running the illicit t-shirt operation. 5. The T-shirt operation violated the Internal Revenue Code. 6. Previous SGA President Malcolm Chu used SGA funds to pay for a page advertisement for the J4J perspective. 7. The SGA intimidated and threatened to shut down the newspaper that disseminated this information. I want to first explain that I have no personal allegiance on the question of J4J, but the allocation of public monies to a non-student's defense fund, even one that is technically an alumnus, is clearly not what students expected from their student activities fees.
4| P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Whose Student Activities Fee money? The student activities fee may have the name student fee, but it is not legally, the SGA‟s money. Recently the Office of Civil Rights has come to this determination, but the most relevant case law is actually from Student Legal Services. In “The Student Government Association v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Massachusetts” as heard in 1988 (868 F.2d 473) the argument was laid out quite clearly. The SGA provides a recommendation of how the fees should be used, this recommendation is then overseen by the Vice Chancellor and other University actors. These individuals provide the formal recommendation and can, and have, rewritten what students have asked. It is ultimately, however, the Board of Trustees that allocates the money and provides the budget itself. They have the statutory authority to do so, no one else. This decision notes: Student activity fees do not „belong‟ to students. They are collected by UMASS under authority of state law [Mass Ann Law: Ch. 15A § 10]… payment of fees is voluntary only in the sense that one may choose not to enroll; apart from that, payment is a contractual condition of enrollment as a residential student… those fees are placed in the Student Activity Trust fund. See id. That Fund is administered by UMASS officers, see id., subject to the direction of the Board of Trustees, who are authorized by status to determine how the fees are to be spent. (Westlaw) The case references Mass General Law: Chapter 75: Section 11. Special trusts, etc.; management, this leaves little doubt, as it states: The trustees may, from time to time, establish and manage trust funds for self-amortizing projects and student-supported or self-supporting activities including, but not limited to, the operation of the boarding halls, student-supported legal service, student health service, research institutes and foundations, dormitories and student and faculty apartments. All income received from such projects or activities shall be held in trust by the trustees and expended for the purpose for which the trust fund was established... All receipts from student activities, including the operation of the university stores, student union, student operation of the home economics practice house, dramatics, debating, musical clubs, band, athletics and other like activities, shall be retained by the trustees in a trust fund or trust funds and shall be expended as the trustees shall direct in furthering the activities from which the receipts were derived. Thus both the law, and the legal interpretation of the application of the law by the Court of Appeals demonstrates that SATF monies are not student monies at all. Therefore, the SGA cannot change their mind after the request without going through the Board of Trustees. Also, this means that misuse of these resources constitutes a serious crime. 5| P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Evidence: In each individual charge I provide evidence as I have obtained. In addition to the receipts provided below, the following websites mention the t-shirts, which sold for $10:
From the website http://www.justiceforjason.org/dayofshame
From the Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8053969667&topic=4954
From the website: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/students_faculty_rally_for_uma.html
6| P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
To demonstrate that this operation was not some side operation, separate from the SGA members of the J4J movement, the following are the minutes from the J4J meeting, whereby the idea was proposed:
7| P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
This is a picture of one of the t-shirts that was being sold in the SGA office:
8| P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Allegation #1: SGA funds have been used to pay for the Justice For Jason (J4J) campaign.
Student Government funds (SGA funds) are to be allocated for the maintenance of the office (ie. Supplies) and in paying for relevant necessities of the Senate, not for a personal defense fund. Within the SGA's own By-laws it states: All appropriations and disbursements by the SGA shall be in accordance with Title VI or the By-laws of the SGA and duly established University financial and operational policies and campus procedures. (Title VI, Chapter 1, Section 3) The funds allocation as shown below is violation of this section. By allocated, I mean that these funds were used to buy t-shirts that were then sold for profit. In Title VI, Chapter 1, Section 6, Section 2 it states that “All RSO-generated revenue shall be deposited in the RSO‟s Revenue Account.” The SGA counts as in RSO in this situation under Title VI, Chapter 1, Section 2. Yet these funds were never deposited back into the SGA Revenue account, rather they were directly donated to the Jason Vassell campaign. This is also a violation of Mass General law as quoted above. That Mass General Law is incorporated into Title VII, Chapter 4, Section 1, 3 which states, “All equipment purchased with SATF funding is the property of the SGA and is subject to all SGA, University, State, and Federal inventory procedures and audits.” In addition, the t-shirts were kept in the SGA office. The funds garnered were kept in the office. And the advertisements were kept in the office and perhaps even printed in the office. I have provided some of the receipts that I have in my possession which demonstrate the first two allegations as incontrovertible facts. This is a violation of numerous portions of the Code of Student Conduct, not limited to: No student group may represent itself as acting for or on behalf of the University in any commercial enterprise or in the solicitation or collection of funds for any purpose whatsoever without approval in advance by the appropriate University agency. (This applies to all means of communication including, but not limited to, mail, telephone, or other means.) (2, A, 4) By SGA members using Trustees funds to buy t-shirts and then sell those t-shirts, the collected funds are the Trustees‟ money, and what was done was without approval in advance. This was a misuse of purchasing authority. Which is listed in the Code of Student Conduct. Misrepresentation. This includes, but is not limited to, misuse of purchasing authority, accepting unearned funds, and submitting false time sheets. (2, A, 10) For the Dean‟s office, these activities were done with the full knowledge of the officials and leaders within the SGA. But if the defense of such individuals is that they did not consent, then the individuals who were involved also broke this provision: 9| P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Representing the University, any Registered Student Organization or chartered group, or any official University group without the explicit prior consent of the officials of that group. (2, A, 3) There is ample evidence for level 3 charges by the Dean‟s Office. Below is the receipt for four such transactions as discussed by the SGA. The invoice is contrasted so it can be properly read. Also, confidential student information has been blacked out since students will obtain copies of this complaint. Notice the SGA on the upper left hand corner, and the “Justice For Jason” design in the bottom right corner. A trace on the phone numbers involved, shows that Tracy Kelly, Jasmin Torrejon were the involved parties bellow:
10 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
11 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
12 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
13 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations 
9/17/2009
Allegation #2: Commuter area Government funds were allocated for the J4J campaign by Vanessa Snow.
Fees allocated to Commuter Government are required by statute to be, allocated to activities that directly benefit Commuter students. Jason Vassell was not a commuter student. Title V, Chapter 5, Section 3 states:
Area Government shall not allocate funding to any of the following: 1. Organizations or programs whose primary functions are not directly beneficial to their respective residential area. 2. Organizations or programs, which are not primarily initiated, organized, funded or managed by SGA members. J4J organization is not primarily initiated, organization, funded, or managed by SGA members... well maybe funded, but certainly not legally as such. Records indicate that the following PO was for J4J t-shirts. The following is also not consistent with the SATF allocation:
14 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations 
9/17/2009
Allegation #3: Student Bridges funds were allocated for the J4J campaign. These funds make up a large amount of the $15,000 that has been raised for Jason Vassell's Defense fund.
There is other evidence that can be obtained, specifically invoices, however such information is privileged since it involved students. There is no shortage of evidence to indicate these undeniable, grievous, and outrageous facts. FOIA request documents substantiate that Student Bridges funds were used to buy T-shirts from Silver Screen. However, without the receipts or purchase orders I cannot determine for a fact that these funds were used for the J4J t-shirts. However, this is what I have been informed of. While such information cannot be obtained by me at present as it regards confidential student information, such information can be obtained by the Dean of Students Office, the CSD and the UMPD. Just to clarify, whether the funds in question were eventually returned is irrelevant. If such funds were reimbursed or returned in another way, which there is no documentation of, this is still unethical and a violation. The SGA cannot provide an interest free loan to someone's defense fund, or to an organization, that eventually funnels its money to such a defense fund. Student Bridges funds are directed to their mandate: their mission statement: The mission of Student Bridges is to increase college access and success for underrepresented students by building partnerships with local schools and community organizations; offering college awareness, preparation and success activities; and advocating for enhanced institut ional and public policies and practices. (http://alturl.com/wm89) Taking Student Bridges funds to buy t-shirts for J4J is not within their mission statement, and does not directly benefit their interests as approved by the SGA. Furthermore, this activity, if this activity as alleged is true, and the activity in the first allegation likely constitutes fraud. Individuals involved presented a fact as true when it was not (that these t-shirt sales were pursuant to their direct mandate). They knew it was false, and the CSD relied upon this falsehood to allow the transaction. Fraud requires damages, the damages were felt by all UMASS students.
15 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Allegation #4: SGA office space has been allocated to the J4J worker who is running the illicit t-shirt operation. This is a violation of the SGA's obligation to be the main overseer of space allocation. The space allocation request included nothing of this sort. In addition, this is a violation of the Code of Student Conduct because the Code of Student Conduct states: C. Property is defined as University or Commonwealth-owned or leased property, equipment, programs or materials; owned or leased property, equipment, programs or materials of students, faculty, staff, University or student guests, vendors, contractors, or anyone doing business at or visiting the University. The following shall constitute violations of the CSC concerning property: 1.Unauthorized presence in or use of University premises, facilities or property. (Section B, Chapter 14, Subsection C, Part 2) The J4J worker, Dan Keefe, is an unauthorized presence and his desk is a misuse of the University premises, facilities and property. Selling t-shirts and being based in that room and keeping the proceeds and t-shirts in that room create all sorts of other violations such as but not limited to "unauthorized vendor." All functions of the SGA should be overseen by UMASS and the students, but the J4J worker has no oversight as he is not technically an SGA member, therefore he should not be in the SGA room. If the SGA chooses to create such a position, then they can and will have to deal with the legalities as mentioned, but because he is not an SGA ex-officio member, he is not authorized to be in that room full time or to use it for a staging area for a defense fund. The following evidence demonstrates as an incontrovertible fact that the SGA office was a staging ground for the t-shirt operation:
16 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
17 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
18 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
19 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
In addition to collecting revenues for the t-shirt operation in the SGA Office, (41 Campus Center way room 420 Student Union) as listed above, and in addition to accepting donations to the SGA Fee account, the J4J campaign regularly met in the SGA office. Minutes from those meetings demonstrate that that room was regularly used for such meetings, meetings coordinated directly with SGA President Malcolm Chu:
20 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
And before anyone claim that the t-shirt selling operation was a „side-ventureâ€&#x; not sponsored by the SGA or J4J campaign, the flyers from the J4J campaign should validate that this was a well known revenue system, but this agenda further demonstrates that this operation was well known:
21 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Using the SGA for this operation is a violation of many parts of the Code of Student Conduct, including section B, 13 which states, “Violations of University policies and regulations, including but not limited to, the Alcoholic Beverage and Smoke-Free policies.” This is the section used to prosecute, within the confines of the Dean‟s office, for criminal offenses on or off campus. University policy and regulation requires an adherence to the law, and breaking Massachusetts General Law or Federal Law would be a violation of B, 13. The above evidence demonstrates the violation of this by the J4J campaign, (and the SGA leadership is violating by their complicity in such activities), G.L. c. 268A, §23(b)(2) which states: (b) No current officer or employee of a state, county or municipal agency shall knowingly, or with reason to know: (2) use or attempt to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals; The J4J campaign was using the President's (and other officials) “official position” through the use of public resources. Massachusetts Ethics Commission has explained this further. The Commission has interpreted this provision to prohibit public employees from using public resources for political or other private purposes. E.g., Commission Advisory No. 4 (Political Activity) (1992) (public resources “are intended for the conduct of public business, not for advancing the personal, private or political interests of public employees”); Public Enforcement Letter 92-3 (“public resources may only be allocated for public business, and may not be utilized to address individual concerns of public employees, even if those concerns are public-spirited in nature). The decisions of EC-COI-85-29, EC-COI-82-112, and Anderson v. City of Boston (1978) help add clarity to this provision. EC-COI-85-29 established that student interns are prohibited from election activities on behalf of their candidate from state property. EC-COI-82-112 prohibited a state Representative from using a word processor for personal or campaign purposes. Anderson v. City of Boston (1978) tested the Constitutionality of this law and further elucidated that public employees are prohibited from using any public resources for political campaign purposes, including the promotion of a candidate or any political committee or party. The “Official Position,” is not just the job title, but also the place of work on state property. “Official Position” has been interpreted to include "Public resources," as mentioned Commission Advisory No. 4. “Public resources” are defined as anything that is paid for with public money, whether raised through taxes or fees. The Office Of Campaign and Political Finance has issued regulations, as shown on http://www.mass.gov/ocpf/topic_pubemp_facts.htm, explaining that: Public resources (government vehicles, office equipment and supplies and the paid time of public employees) may not be used for political campaign purposes, such as the election of a candidate or the passage or defeat of a ballot question. For example, a public employee may not, 22 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
during his work day, render campaign service to a candidate or ballot question committee or use office postage or equipment to distribute campaign materia l. Technically, as demonstrated by EC-COI-85-29 even unpaid interns are held to account by G.L. c. 268A, §23(b)(2). The SGA operates under the authority granted to it by the state in the Wellman Document T73098 as amended. Section 1, D, 1 states that: Students may be organized into governing bodies… the constitutions of the major governing bodies must be approved by the Board of Trustees. The Trustees have the power to also revoke this entire system, thus the elected Senators are therefore officers of the state. Their power is granted to it by the MA Legislature to the Board of Trustees. Therefore, Senators cannot use state property, even if it is their property, which they rightly were given access to, for the purposes of a political campaign or even personal activities. Even if they were not officers of the state, as shown in EC-COI-85-29 as unpaid „interns‟ they would still be held to account by G.L. c. 268A, §23(b)(2). By the President of the SGA, who is de facto in charge of the Office of the SGA, allowing (passively or actively) for J4J to operate freely in the office he or she is violating the law by using a public resource for a personal activity. But as we know, Malcolm Chu was not indirectly, and passively involved, rather he was part in parcel to the illegal activity. He was, in fact, the ringleader of this operation within the SGA.
23 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations 
9/17/2009
Allegation #5: The T-shirt operation violated the Internal Revenue Code
With members of the SGA illegally, and immorally selling t-shirts and garnering thousands of dollars in funds to donate to the J4J campaign we can be sure that they did not pay tax on such illegal profits. Unless they are a 501c3, they must pay tax on such proceeds. Is they a 501c3? All you have to do is go to: http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/ to see a list of EVERY 501c3 in the country. Needless to say, they are not listed. This is the list of the 501c3â€&#x;s located in Amherst, MA:
This is the list of Northampton, MA:
24 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Searching under terms also does not provide any hits. Therefore, I think itâ€&#x;s logical to conclude that they were not a 501c3. It should be noted that the involved quantities are not small as tax is calculated not on the value of the t-shirts when ordered, but the value when sold. The t-shirts listed in the receipts above go well beyond the level of assets that is not required to be filed by the IRS as a gift. In fact, the SGA KNEW THIS. Yes, Malcolm Chu and others realized that this was a tax violation, and willfully ignored the law anyway. How do we know that they knew? The minutes from a J4J meeting show the following:
They realized that they did not have 501c3 tax-exempt status, or as they put it tax deductible. They didnâ€&#x;t even bother to think of what they were doing with the SGA money but rather about tax deduction for the donator. This agenda demonstrates an attempt to evade tax laws by piggy-banking upon a tax-exempt organization. All individuals involved should be investigated for violation of the Internal Revenue Code.
25 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Allegation #6: Previous SGA President Malcolm Chu used SGA funds to pay for a page advertisement for the J4J perspective.
All financial transactions of the SGA are supposed to go through Malcolm Chu. They may have been signed off by the Secretary of the Registry and Secretary of Finance, but Malcolm Chu was in a position where he actively knew and either signed off or instructed others to sign off. This means that the above allegations directly implicate Malcolm Chu for all the transactions therein. But above that, it appears as though he was intimately involved in this operation. He was a member of the coalition of J4J members and was apparently very highly involved in that organization in a position of leadership (he is listed on some of the memos as the personal contact with Jason Vassell). He utilized the SGA office for the meetings of J4J, and used their resources in various ways. In addition, after Alana Goodman wrote an editorial regarding Jason Vassell‟s arrest, on the side that it was legal, Malcolm Chu wrote an editorial from the opposite perspective. After the Collegian refused to publish it on account of it lacking even basic factual evidence or legitimacy in its allegations, Malcolm Chu signed off hundreds of SGA money to pay for his half page advertisement with his editorial. The transaction was done digitally, meaning that I can‟t get a copy of the receipt, but the first hand evidence of Collegian Editors S.P. Sullivan, Will McGuiness, and Joe Maloni demonstrate this as a likely fact. Evidence obtains shows that this was “from an anonymous contributor.” But few people from the Collegian believe this to be true. If it turns out that SGA money was used to pay for such an advertisement it would clearly be a violation along the lines of everything mentioned in this complaint. Those monies were not allocated for this purpose, and we are not talking about staples and pens, we are talking about hundreds of dollars as a half page advertisement is very expensive. The next page has a page of the editorial, is that pursuant to the SGA‟s mandate?
26 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
27 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Allegation #7: The SGA intimidated and threatened to shut down the newspaper that disseminated some of the information presented here.
The Silent Majority, a RSO at UMASS Amherst, has put out a provocative newspaper called The Minuteman. This newspaper has written many controversial things that I am not sanctioning, however, I take their side on this matter. In the midst of the J4J t-shirt operation, The Minuteman published an article about this activity. On approximately February 18, the Minuteman published “UMass Funds Disgraced: ex-student's lawyers - the facts” (http://alturl.com/fnr7). Among other charges it alleged that: Records indicate that the UMass Student Government Association (SGA) has used university money to help finance the legal defense of accused stabber and ex-UMass student, Jason Vassell, the Minuteman has learned. According to management at Silver Screen Design in Greenfield, Mass., at least one university purchase order made by the SGA was used there to buy a bulk shipment of "Justice for Jason" t-shirts last semester-- the same shirts being sold by the Committee for Justice for Jason Vassell (CJJV) to raise money for Vassell's attorney fees. (http://alturl.com/fnr7) The article wisely explains that: The CJJV-- an organization lobbying for the immediate dismissal of Vassell's legal charges-- has no affiliation with UMass and is not a 501(c)(3) non-profit group, says school officials. This would make any donations the CJJV has received from the SGA-- t-shirt or otherwise-highly unethical and a violation of state funding regulations. Even after this article was published, these activities continued unabated with the J4J worker, Dan Keefe, operating with impunity in the office. Instead of the SGA taking the responsible course of admitting culpability, and stopping the continuing violations, they expanded their activities. Legally speaking this changes their activity from simply operating under ignorance to the law to the equivalent of “willful infringement.” The leadership of the SGA then tried to shut down the newspaper through a number of methods of intimidation, harassment, persecution and even outright theft. Because The Minuteman was providing information regarding illegal activity by a governmental body (the SGA), it qua lifies under whistleblower statutes, not to mention other statutes that protect the press from retribution. Any form of intimidation in these circumstances because of the content published, is against the law. I should mention that after a thorough examina tion of the Minuteman newspapers, it has been determined that not a single fact regarding the SGA is incorrect. Members of the student government and student bridges (which in this case are one and the same) circulated a petition to shut down the newspaper. In an intimidation campaign led by Malcolm Chu, 28 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Lindsey McCluskey, Vanessa Snow and Ben Thompson they began with the petition and worked their way to more nefarious activities. They started to steal newspapers out of the bins and keep them in the SGA offices. The Minuteman newspaperâ€&#x;s parent organization, Silent Majority, has very few resources, and in one day the SGAâ€&#x;s stealing of their newspapers cost them over $400 in stolen papers. That these papers were horded is a well verified fact that while I do not have pictures of, is incontrovertible. Sean McNair, Erica Nyer, myself and others can all verify that this was the case. Then members of the SGA stole thousands of copies while a police officer on scene sat and watched (and then lied in a police report about it). The SGA then passed a resolution for the newspaper to be shut down by the Secretary of registry. These members that did both of these were directly involved with the t-shirt operation. They were trying to punish The Minuteman for releasing this information. This is a SERIOUS violation of whistleblower statutes, and those individuals should face significant legal charges. Censoring dissenting speech was something America got rid of in 1776. Censoring a newspaper for providing information regarding your illegal activity is a big deal. In the addendum, you can clearly see that Ben Thompson and Vanessa Snow were the two kingpins in the forced censorship of this newspaper. Those individuals are the two most complicit individuals to the illegal activity. Vanessa Snow was Commuter Governor who bought t-shirts, and Ben Thompson was a leader in Student Bridges. Both were Senators are one point, Thompson at that time still a Senator. Not only did the SGA break the law, but then it tried to silence this information when it was made public. At this point, the Vice Chancellor stepped in and stopped this resolution from taking effect by issuing the following statement: Please be advised that Enactment of the Student Government Association 2000-S54, bearing the date 04-08-2009, has not been accepted for the administration and does not bear my signature. As the enactment does not reflect an appreciation of the Silent Majority's constitutional right to the exercise of free speech, I reject it altogether and recommend that it be rescinded in its entirety. (http://blog.masslive.com/umass101/2009/04/umass_admin_rejects_sgas _suspe.html) This demonstrates the importance of a vigilant leadership from the Student Affairs Office that is willing to intervene when the SGA is actively breaking the law. You can read the entire story of The Minuteman intimidation in the addendum including the SGA members involved. But even after all of this, it appears that the t-shirt sales continued unabated.
29 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Resolution: To be clear, this is not some activity that was perpetrated by a side cabal operating on their own. The SGA Executive up to the highest level has been actively involved in the J4J defense fund including the selling of the t-shirts. SGA President Malcolm Chu and Student Trustee Lindsey McClusky were both involved with Senators Ben Thompson, and Senator/Commuter Governor Vanessa Snow. These individuals are still actively influencing events within the SGA, and led the campaigns to elect the current SGA President and Trustee. The allegations as enclosed are quite grievous and unless the SGA regains compliance with ethical guidelines, the law, the CSC and their own SGA Constitution I will be forced to pursue this to higher levels. This is not my primary interest in this situation. I think the situation is quite silly and hope that it will be resolved amicably within short order. I should remind you that in addition to the listed violations, misuse of public monies and embezzlement are also charges that come to mind. If the SGA student activities fees are public monies, and since UMASS is partially funded by the state I argue that it is, this is a misuse of public monies. This month the Office of Civil Rights has determined that UMASS SGA falls under its jurisdiction under federal public monies. Thus, the J4J is a misuse of public monies, not just student fees. In addition to misuse of public monies, the actions could also be considered embezzlement because the individuals involved wrongfully, and willfully took public monies and used it for their own purposes (it is irrelevant that they did not pocket the money, legally it's the same). In Title VII, Chapter 4, Section 1 of the By-laws states, "all equipment purchased with SATF funding is the property of the SGA and is subject to all SGA, University, State, and Federal inventory procedures and audits." Thus, t-shirts purchased with SATF funds, were the property of the state. And selling this property of the state and giving the proceeds to a third party, is a mis-allocation of monies. Under the MASS General law, all individuals involved in this situation likely committed various crimes. The case Mass General Law: Chapter 75: Section 11. Special trusts, etc.; management, states: All income received from such projects or activities shall be held in trust by the trustees and expended for the purpose for which the trust fund was established... All receipts from student activities, including the operation of the university stores, student union, student operation of the home economics practice house, dramatics, debating, musical clubs, band, athletics and other like activities, shall be retained by the trustees in a trust fund or trust funds and shall be expended as the trustees shall direct in furthering the activities from which the receipts were derived. The SGA fees are applicable to this special trust provision. All earnings from the t-shirts which were resold are to be given back to the state, not to the SGA. As members of the SGA we are pleading for the administration to fulfill its required role for oversight. I feared retaliation from the involved individuals for this complaint in the same fashion that The Minuteman was attacked, but after being approached by various other members of the SGA and various Area Governors, I knew that I had a responsibility and obligation to bring this letter about. As it is a necessary action to change the Student Government Association. 30 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
A meaningful resolution of this situation would mean that within 21 days: The SGA should (Coordinating Counsel, SGA President, Senate and Secretary of the Registry) within 21 days: A. Investigate Student Bridges and providing appropriate remedy such that this does not happen again, specifically creating a University director in a position to oversee financial transactions. Under Title VI, Chapter 12 Section 1 it states that organizations that "Failure to comply with the provisions set forth in Title VI of the By-laws of the SGA may result in the suspension of the Charter of the Offending RSO." If Student Bridges failed to comply with their allocation requirements under Title VI and therefore should be placed on probation or suspended as an Agency. SR members sign a statement saying that if they misuse their funds that their RSO will be shut down, this should be followed through with action. Title II, Chapter 9, holds the Secretary of Finance responsible for nearly all the listed activity in this memo. Such an individual, if he/she still retains the post should resign, or the SGA should impeach said officer. The new Secretary of Finance shall, with the authority granted to him/her under Title II, Chapter 9, 6, E, II, “The Secretary of Finance will have the authority to freeze student group accounts on the SATF,” shall utilize this authority, or he/she shall also be removed. B. Advise the DOS regarding disciplinary hearings for all students that were directly involved by providing full cooperation in a strong investigation. C. Immediately force the J4J representative to vacate the office, with all J4J materials. D. Provide to the CSD and UMPD all relevant information, and documentation. E. Seek impeachment charges for all Senators directly, or indirectly complicit to this fraudulent activity. F. Sever all ties with Malcolm Chu and Lindsey McCluskey until disciplinary and legal hearings can determine culpability. G. Official Report to be given to the SGA regarding this matter with an explanation and apology provided to the Daily Collegian, H. Provide a list of recommendations for this to be prevented in the future. The Dean‟s Office should: A. Investigate all individuals as listed in this documentation, and as brought up by subsequent investigation.
31 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
B. Charge individuals or provide a reason as to why they cannot be charged, the Dean‟s Office must intervene in a situation of such grievance impropriety. C. Advise recommendations to revise the CDC to hold RSO‟s and Agency‟s to account. The Center for Student Development should within 21 days: A. Conduct an exhaustive report of all records in their office related to this incident, but not limited to the J4J t-shirts donations (including receipts from Malcolm Chu‟s editorial) B. Perform an audit of all funds involved. C. Provide to the Dean‟s office a list of students who violated the CSC with documentation D. Provide two separate reports, one report including confidential student information to be given to the Chief of UMPD for criminal charges, and the other report to the SGA about what happened but with keeping student confidentiality intact. E. Provide a list of recommendations for this to be prevented in the future. The Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs should: A. Oversee the implementation of the above. B. Instruct the Chief of the UMPD to immediately begin an exhaustive investigation into the situation. C. Make sure that all relevant documentation is provided to the UMPD. D. If the UMPD is unwilling or unable to go after individuals for the crimes mentioned here as it involved so called „white collar crime‟ seek alternative redress. E. If the SGA is unable or unwilling to change the By-laws to create institutions or rules to stop this type of future activity, rewrite the By-laws where necessary to ensure future compliance with the law. F. Keep a high level of vigilance for financial impropriety G. Provide a series of “red-lines” whereby if the SGA oversteps or RSO‟s overstep, intervention from above will be necessary. Such red-lines should require than any RSO that misuses it‟s funds should be suspended for a year, and the officers banned from all SGA related activities. H. If an investigation validates the assertion the Student Bridges monies were used for J4J t-shirts, the Agency should be suspended for a year. I.
All individuals involved in the above mentioned complaint, if a thorough investigation determines their involvement, including but not limited to Malcolm Chu, Lindsey McCluskey, Ben Thompson, Dan Keefe, and Vanessa Snow, should be banned from all activities involved SGA related organizations, and banned from assuming office in the SGA. 32 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
J. Require all Agencyâ€&#x;s to have a financial director to oversee financial transactions. K. Provide a report to the Faculty Senate or to the Student Affairs Committee of effective remedies for the future to this type of behavior and a report to the SGA informing them of the red-lines and of the repercussions.
33 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Signatories: We, the below signatories, realize that these measures as listed are serious, but unless they are taken within 21 days, we will be forced to bring this to higher levels. I appreciate your compliance in this matter. If you should need my help or request more information, I would be happy to be of service to lead to a more amicable outcome for my constituency. To the SGA, until informed otherwise, or demonstrated otherwise, I will assume that the actions as alleged were done under the auspices of previous administrations and while this administration actively campaigned for your election, I will assume that the current leadership will not hesitate to comply with the law. Sincerely, Derek Satya Khanna SGA Senator/ Presidential candidate
Cosigners: Senators: Josh Davidson SGA Senator/Trustee candidate Eric Magazu SGA Senator Ben Levine SGA Senator Graham King SGA Senator Tyler Langais SGA Senator Senate Candidates: Ellie Feinstein SGA Senate Candidate Patrick Watson SGA Senate Candidate Brandon Tower SGA Senate Candidate
Dan Stratford SGA Senate Candidate Erica Nyer Elections Commissioner/ SGA Senate candidate Andrew Dawson SGA Senate Candidate Area Government: Dave Robertson Central Area Governor Maria Burden SW Governor Nicci Oulette SW Lt Governor Jimmy Cheung Northeast Governor Justin Alarcon Commuter Governor
Catie Warren SGA Senate Candidate 34 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations Brandon Harris Commuter Government Treasurer Other Positions: Sean McNair Elections Chancellor
Ryan McLane
9/17/2009 IFC President Justin Thompson Republican Club Vice President
John Beele Silent Majority President
35 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
36 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Addendum: After the intimidation campaign, The Minuteman issued the next edition of the paper with the limited resources they had left. They then wrote on the paper that the first paper was free but that getting a second copy cost $3. They did this so that if the papers are stolen again, they aren‟t technically free, and it is therefore without a doubt theft (as apparently the UMPD were unwilling or unable to act before). Members from the Silent Majority were handing out newspapers in early April at a Republican Club free speech rally to avoid having papers stolen by SGA members Ben Thompson and others. At this point Silent Majority member Ed Cutting has harassed, and intimidated while on the steps of the Student Union handing out newspapers. After newspapers had been stolen, he called the police and Lisa Kidwell was the officer dispatched. At this point, while Office Kidwell was on scene, instead of helping protect against illegal intimidation and outright theft of the newspaper, she informs The Minuteman that they need a permit to sell their newspaper (which was not their intent as they were giving it out for free). She then looks idly on as SGA members Vanessa Snow, and Ben Thompson steal hundreds of newspapers in broad daylight, and as those SGA members are watched with delight by SGA Senator Subhan Tariq and others. Within minutes the entire stash of newspapers was stolen, to the cost of over $1000. This event was witnessed by tens of individuals in broad daylight in the middle of a rally (specifically John Beele, Ed Cutting, and Dan Strum can provide witness statements). But beyond witness statements, we have two videos shot from two different angles on the exact altercation that happened. With these videos we can clearly see that Ben Thompson and Vanessa Snow were the ringleaders who directly stole hundreds of newspapers. Because Vanessa Snow was the director of Student Bridges and also the Commuter Area Governor (as well as a previous SGA Senator), and because Ben Thompson is a high ranking member within Student Bridges, both of these individuals were not acting as merely the average person in this matter. If that was the case it would be simple theft. But because they are both ranking members in the organizations that broke the law and were „outed‟ by this newspaper that they were silencing, this falls into completely new and different legal realms. These are two of the videos of that altercation in question: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10394.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjfbvmGaIBM&feature=channel_page As can be clearly seen, the newspapers are taken leaving Ed Cutting with one paper. It was certainly more than 20 papers taken. Yet in Lisa Kidwell‟s report this is not how she covered the matter. Ms. Kidwell has previously made a name for herself in a situation of police incompetence which some has asserted led to the death of UMASS student Adam Pretence, but her statements in her police report are beyond simply incorrect as they seem like a conscious lie:
37 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
38 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Held for safe keeping? Value $0? Even if the papers were handed out for free the value of the paper isnâ€&#x;t $0, but the papers clearly said that it cost money for more than one paper. Quantity 1? This quantity statement was directly contradicted by her statement. This is Kidwellâ€&#x;s statement:
39 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
In her statement, she says that there were twenty papers taken by Snow, and Snow alone. However, in the other document she says it was one paper. She also says that they were “returned” which is a lie. Frankly, if under oath, this statement shows that Kidwell committed perjury. In the video, it clearly shows Snow, Thompson and others forcibly removing the entire stack of issues in Cutting‟s hands. Kidwell‟s story contradicts the video, and with two videos on both sides of the incident and various witnesses, her story is not a logical position given overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It‟s impossible to believe that this was some sort of misunderstanding, as you can clearly hear after she removed the papers from Cutting‟s hands that, “[She‟d] like to distribute some as well.” This however was not her intention at all as will be shown by pictures below. Regarding Kidwell‟s comment, “I informed CUTTING that once the papers were placed in the public for public consumption that it was not stealing.” Adam Kissell at FIRE writes: Please give me a break. It is understandable that every once in a while we have to remind students that stealing newspapers is not only a pernicious form of censorship, but also a crime. That an officer of the law on a campus police force does not grasp this point is simply inexcusable. If you don't believe me, the next time you pass a newspaper bin, try putting in 25 cents and taking all the papers out of it in plain view of a policeman, and see what happens. To help protect themselves from this kind of theft, many student papers state on their front pages that only the first issue is free and that people must pay for additional copies. The Minuteman uses this safeguard, as Cutting showed Kidwell… Adam Kissell went on to state: Here, the only possible interpretation is that Kidwell is simply looking for an excuse to allow Snow and her allies to steal as many papers as possible. Neither The Minuteman nor any other college newspaper is required to set up a complicated and expensive infrastructure of coinoperated machines if it wishes to avoid being at the mercy of some aggrieved person who decides to steal tens, hundreds, or even thousands of dollars' worth of issues of the paper. The notice is—as Cutting said— primarily there to remind students (as well as administrators, who also frequently misunderstand the issue) that even free publications have a monetary value. Even if Kidwell's account of her encounter with Snow and Cutting had been accurate, not only was she dramatically wrong about the law but also her interpretation seriously risks the rights of the students on the campus she (presumably) is sworn to defend. (http://www.thefire.org/article/10764.html)
40 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Once we have established the UMPD grossly mishandled this situation, we can objectively determine who should be held to account. In the following images we can see Vanessa Snow steal a large number of newspapers and then hoard them by standing on them, while Kidwell is on scene (count the papers to see if it is twentyand then explain to me how it is for distribution purposes):
41 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Is that 20 papers for distribution?
42 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
Then Ben Thompson:
The other individual on the left is Subhan Tariq, another SGA Senator. While he does not appear to be stealing newspapers, he also does not do anything about it.
43 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
If the forced censorship of The Minuteman was not enough, Ben Thompson then wrote a motion that was presented and cosponsored by SGA Speaker Shaun Robinson, Vanessa Snow and SGA President Malcolm Chu. This motion stated: Whereas, Title VII, Chapter 3, Section 10, states that: "Any ESO [Established Student Organization; an RSO is a type of ESO] shall be recognized to have freedom of press and shall not be penalized or subject to penalty due to the subject matter expressed within their medium, with the exception of slander and intentional misrepresentation of SGA members or organizations." And; Whereas, The Silent Majority is an active registered student organization on the campus of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, thus subject to the Constitution and By-laws [sic] of the Student Government Association of UMASS [sic] Amherst under Title VII, and; Whereas, The Silent Majority published the newspaper The Minuteman on April 1st, 2009. On page 17 under, "Our Jackass of the Month" wrote "the only thing more horrifically large than their bloated 172 [sic] FY2009 budget is the bloated backside of their responsibility-averse Director, Vanessa Snow." Later they add, "...it a spent [sic] a preposterously indefensible $5000 in Fiscal Year 2008, thus literally making Director Snow's ass its own (rather large) budgetary line item for Fiscal Year 2009." This is a clear example of slanderous defamation of character, and an intentional misrepresentation of an SGA member; Be it Resolved, that the SGA Senate call upon the Secretary of Registry [of the SGA] to suspend the Silent Majority as an RSO based on violations of Title 7 Chapter 3 Section 10 unless The Silent Majority within 2 weeks of the passing of this motion, issue a written apology which shall be published as an advertisement in the Massachusetts Daily Collegian. This apology will directly address the intentional misrepresentation of SGA members within The Minuteman. (http://alturl.com/2c7w) It has been noted after this motion passed in early April that it did not enact the Secretary of the Registry to shut down the newspaper. However, this is frankly irrelevant. Any intimidation of the newspaper because of what they wrote is illegal. Let us count the violations here: (1) coerced speech; (2) violation of freedom of the press; (3) violation of freedom of speech; (4) violation of freedom of association; (5) violation of due process (the last because SGA punished The Silent Majority in the form of a bill of attainder without holding any sort of hearing or giving The Silent Majority any chance to defend itself). Demanding that they write a written apology certainly is intimidation and informing the Secretary of the Registry to shut them down is also intimidation. The only way they can do such things are if the paper committed libel (or in this case the By-laws require slander and the SGA didnâ€&#x;t know the difference). But without outright libel, which no one claimed nor would be able to prove, this is illegal. This motion passed with only two dissenting votes, without allowing for constitutionally required debate. 44 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
At this point, Adam Kissel at Freedom for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) sent a letter to Ngozi, and Shaun Robinson (among others), FIREâ€&#x;s letter stated:
45 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
46 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
47 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
48 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
49 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
It appears that this letter was sent before the bill was signed. If this is the case, and the SGA Executive was aware of the legalities involved, this changes their legal behavior from simply a violation to a willful violation. This is not a different charge regarding the behavior in question here, but it does come into account by the judicial process as far as culpability. While ignorance to the law is not a good defense, this memo would certainly come up in court regarding her willful violation of the la w, if this is the case. The next week, I legally filed the following bill through the SGA Speaker. This is the e-mail of that filing to the Assistant Speaker:
This clearly demonstrates that the motion was filed legally and in a timely manner. This is that motion: WHEREAS the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" WHEREAS the courts have ruled that the requirements of the First Amendment inherently apply to agents of the government, individual states, and agents of individual states WHEREAS the Student Government Association is an agent of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through its relationship to the University of Massachusetts Amherst WHEREAS this relationship makes any act taken by the Student Government Association to regulate or limit freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble unconstitutional WHEREAS the motion 2009-S53 contained language directly pertaining to the regulating of one or more of these freedoms
50 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
BE IT ENACTED that motion 2009-S53 is repealed BE IT FURTHER ENACTED that within one (1) week of the passing of this motion the Student Government Association shall issue the following apology to the members of the Silent Majority in the form of a full-page advertisement in the Massachusetts Daily Collegian: "We, the Student Government Association, apologize to the members of The Silent Majority and the staff of this RSO's publication, The Minuteman, for any steps we have taken to infringe upon your constitutional rights. While there are those among our ranks who disagree with the content that you chose to publish, it was immature and illegal to think that we could use our power to silence you. We recognize that such unprofessional behavior, conducted without proper research, makes us, and the students we represent, look foolish in the eyes of the administration, the media, and prospective students." BE IT FURTHER ENACTED that as a show of good faith and as an apology for several of its leaders stealing and hoarding copies of The Minuteman, the Student Government Association shall reimburse the Silent Majority, within the next seven (7) days, in the amount of $1,500. BE IT RESOLVED that the Student Government Association asks the UMass Amherst Police Department to formally investigate any allegations regarding theft of copies of The Minuteman. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government Association asks the Dean of Students Office and the Ethics Committee to formally investigate any allegations regard theft of copies of The Minuteman. Basically the motion sought to repeal the previous motion, and rectify the illegalities involved. The SGA Speaker Shaun Robinson (involved with the J4J movement) refused to put the motion on the agenda, after confirming that it would be on the agenda (this is a clear and unequivocal violation of the SGA By-laws and Judiciary decisions which state that ALL legally filed motions must be placed on the agenda, motions can only be ruled dilatory at the meeting itself. He claimed that the SGA could not repeal a motion, which is preposterous. At this point at the beginning of the meeting, I legally requested as a Senator to put the motion on the agenda from the floor. He looked at the motion and ruled it dilatory saying that the SGA cannot repeal a previous motion (a preposterous argument). I then motioned to “overrule the decision of the speaker,” which is a piece of parliamentary procedure allowed for in the SGA By-laws and under Robert‟s Rules. He refused to hold the vote. I then left the meeting, and rewrote the motion to his comments. The new motion simply reversed the previous motion but did not state that it was repealed but said that The Minuteman was not required to comply etc. I motioned to put it on the agenda, he looked at it and threw the motion on the floor and would not rule on the motion one-way or the other.
51 | P a g e
Official Complaint Regarding Multiple SGA Violations
9/17/2009
I then again motioned to put it on the agenda throughout the meeting 15 times. He then remarked that he is not „recognizing me‟ for my agenda addition. By not recognizing me he didn‟t reject the motion was directly violating the SGA By-laws. After over an hour of this drama and refusing to hold the required vote to overrule the decision of the speaker and refusing to rule yes or no on the new motion I went up to the podium and asked to be recognized to add my motion to the agenda. At this time, I informed the Speaker that he was in violation of various By-laws and his responsibilities involved. I then disseminated a legal packet explaining why the previous motion was illegal and provided a copy of FIRE‟s letter as listed above. Shaun then ordered me to be removed from the SGA premises, which only the Senate itself can do by vote, not the Speaker. At this point, he put the Senate into recess and called the police. The police showed up as I was sitting in my seat giving a legal explanation to a number of Senators. I was explaining the legalities involved and giving a calm legal analysis. The police then showed up and asked me to come outside. I asked to speak with them inside of the room and they refused and forcibly took me outside. At this point Senate reconvened. I explained to the police, with Associate Vice Chancellor Byron Bullock present and Sarah Little-Crow Russle from the CSD, exactly what was on going. I explained that the room was reserved to the SGA, and as an SGA member I have an obligation to be in the room as a public representative during the commencing of a vote. The police refused me entry into the room. I asked the various police officers what would happen if I went inside and they said that they did not know. I then attempted to go inside and they barricaded the door and informed me that if I went inside they‟d arrest me for disorderly conduct. I explained that I was calm and collected and not legally disorderly and that such a charge was grossly uncalled for. I tried again to regain entry. This time the police informed me that if I tried to enter I would have to push past an office and would be arrested for assault of a police officer. I was not allowed back into the room until the meeting was over. (This whole legal incident is documented, http://www.thefire.org/article/10475.html) On April 15, the Vice Chancellor vetoed the bill with the following statement: Please be advised that Enactment of the Student Government Association 2000-S54, bearing the date 04-08-2009, has not been accepted for the administration and does not bear my signature. As the enactment does not reflect an appreciation of the Silent Majority's constitutional right to the exercise of free speech, I reject it altogether and recommend that it be rescinded in its entirety. (http://blog.masslive.com/umass101/2009/04/umass_admin_rejects_sgas _suspe.html) Never were the funds to The Minuteman returned.
52 | P a g e