Read documents related to this decision here.
On Feb. 13, Dean of Students Sean Blackburn ordered the ASUW Judicial Council (JC) to strike from the record a decision handed down during the 2015-2016 academic year, concerning former ASUW President Brian Schueler and Former Vice President Emily Kath.
In a letter addressed to Schueler and Kath, Blackburn cites Article III, section four, subsection c of the ASUW bylaws.
“Each party to a dispute or charge shall be afforded an opportunity to speak on their own behalf, present rebuttal, have an opportunity to question any witness; and present summary testimony,” Blackburn said, referencing Article III of the ASUW bylaws.
Blackburn said that requirement had not been met, and that Schueler and Kath had not been provided with due process.
“I have found that notice and opportunity to be heard was not provided to [Schueler and Kath] in relevant matters of this decision,” Blackburn said. “ Therefore I order the judicial council decision be permanently struck form the ASUW record. “
However, former members of the judicial council disagree.
“As I recall, President Schueler and VP Kath responded to the charges against them in written form, foregoing the opportunity to do so,” Former ASUW Judicial Council Chief Justice Casey Terrell said.
Terrell was the Chief Justice at the time the decision was handed down, and said that his views on the matter are only his own as a former Chief Justice and are in no way reflective of ASUW or any other individual.
Terrell is not the only one who disagrees with Blackburn’s assessment.
“Dean Blackburn has claimed that there was no testimony and so he overrode the decision,” former member of the ASUW Judicial Council Chris Ryan said. “The JC ruled last year that written testimony would be used.”
Ryan said the written testimony was sent to the Judicial Council unsolicited.
“It was taken that the defendants waived their right to cross examination, which was agreed upon by all involved at the time,” Ryan said.
Blackburn said he determined the written testimony of the defendants to be inadequate to meet the standard of due process outlined in the by-laws and that he disagreed with former members of the JC that the defendants waived their rights to appear in person.
“I don’t find any record that [the defendants] were invited [to testify in person],” Blackburn said. “And in fact there is record saying ‘we are going to review this case without parties present, at least for the first hearing.’ That is not what the process requires.”
Ryan said the defendants were given the opportunity to respond.
“The JC offered every opportunity to speak to each claim via electronic means,” Ryan said. “We couldn’t get a time that works for everyone, so we had to do it that way. That’s how the JC rules and procedures lay out the steps if they can’t meet.”
Former members of the JC have also questioned the legitimacy of the appeal. According to ASUW bylaws, appeals must be filed within five days of the opinion being handed down.
“It has come to my attention that the appeal was filed April 15th of 2016.” Ryan said in an email. “ The decision was handed down April 4th. This appeal is void and I must insist the decision remain on the record.”
However, the timeline may have shifted due to review of the decision by Vice President for Student Affairs Sara Axelson.
“The JC issued their final pinion initially without getting VP Axelson’s approval as is required in the bylaws,” ASUW advisor Macki Snyder said in an email. “VP Axelson provided feedback on what she wanted changed within the required 10 day period, [after review the JC] amended the decision to reflect VP Axelson’s requests.”
Snyder said the final amended decision was received on Apr. 11 and because the appeal was submitted on Apr.15 the appeal was valid.
Former JC member Noah Hull said the amendments to the decision do not change the date of the final decision.
“The core decision was not changed nor were the votes,” Hull said. “ Since ASUW is modeled after the federal government, I can tell you an amended decision does not change the date of the original decision.”
In an email, Blackburn highlighted that the amended decision, received on Apr. 11 2016, was titled “final majority opinion,” and said the appeal came within five days of that decision.
“The students appealed within five days of the final majority opinion,” Blackburn said.
Terrell said the question has less to do with titles and more to do with effect.
“In my opinion the valuable consideration is when force and effect takes place and when the injunctions were lifted with the first opinion, that was the ruling in this situation,” Terrell said.
The JC had placed injunctions on several pieces of legislation during its consideration of this issue, all of which were lifted by in its decision on the matter.
Ryan said he agrees and by that metric, it is the first date that should be used in determining the validity of the appeal.
“I think that could be a fair assessment, and I would say that the first one had effect because the [ASUW] VP and senators would have been aware the injunction was lifted,” Ryan said. “The office associate received it the 4th [of April]. I know that.”
The time elapsed between the decision being handed down and the appeal being submitted is not the only time frame in question.
“Why when VP Axelson and Blackburn had 10 days to review this decision do they wait a year to grant an appeal?” Ryan said in an email.
Hull said he finds the time elapsed odd.
“I too find this odd that this review occurs 10 months after the fact and after significant turnover in ASUW,” Hull said in an email.
Blackburn said this can be attributed to a busy time at UW.
“Things are pretty busy around here, there is a lot going on,” Blackburn said. “Unfortunately it just could not be a top priority.”
Terrell said he wondered about the length of the opinion given the time frame.
“I do find it peculiar that nearly an entire year would pass before the dean could render a decision that is under a page in length.” Terrell said.
Both Terrell and Ryan said there might have been outside influence in Blackburn’s decision.
“To me, it seems as though there might have been outside influence that prompted the reexamining of the issue,” Terrell said. “I can think of no other reason for such a peculiar gap.”
Ryan agreed.
“I have been told, [Blackburn] issued this after a desperate plea from Kath that she could not get the internship she desired,” Ryan said in an email to Blackburn.
Blackburn said he has had conversations with Kath, but that they did not affect his decision.
“I made my decision based on the content of the record,” Blackburn said.
Ryan said Blackburn chose to place the feelings of a former student above the autonomy of ASUW when making this decision.
“How do I know that the autonomy of ASUW is safe?” Ryan said.
ASUW President Michael Rottelini said the administrative oversight is an important part of this process.
“While we always want to settle things at the student level, in some circumstances its good to have an outside source to weigh in to keep things above board for all parties,” Rotellini said.
Rotellini said he thinks Blackburn acted within his power.
“He made a decision that he thought was best in this specific case,” Rotellini said.
Ryan said this decision represents a larger issue that he will continue to fight.
“This is about the autonomy of ASUW,” Ryan said. “This is about the future of [ASUW’s] actions. This is about the future of the student body.”
