Beranek v. McLain, Opinion Posted
Opinion 28 C.C. 2007/2008 has just been posted by Con. Court. In short, it’s been decided that Emily McLain was in non-fulfillment of duties and should be removed from office, based on last year’s happenings with Sara Hamilton and the 48-hour agenda nonsense. But, because Sam and Johnny will be sworn-in in six days, McLain will not be removed from office. Instead she will simply not receive her last month’s stipend.
There goes my hopes of seeing Athan as our student body president! I hope the next six days pass with Godspeed.
Emily helped the arena and the crook/lame duck named Frohnmayer by sitting around and doing nothing………I forgot she did say the word sustainable about 1500 times-I take it all back give her a job with the U.N . immediately. I hear her mom is on the board at the regional planning entity known as Metro . Nike’s architect built Metro’s headquarters in 1996. To read more about metro use google to find the essay titled “Beware Metro”. No wonder this brat chose to do nothing about this green government gone wild arena-gate meltdown. She has alot of explaining to do-and she will not I’m sure. Oh yeah great mayoral debate moderation-funny how you ran out of time for the audience questions you dragged us in for. Stop wasting people’s fucking time consensus crooks!
Would it be fair to say that Gulley manifests his white privleage on the MCC by being a constant source of embarassment and shame?
Gully Sucks: What do you have against Africa?
If you’re going to send Gulley anyplace, send him back to Shaker Heights, Ohio, and force him to become a conservative richie-rich Republican.
THAT will be torture.
Carolina Beranek should be given sainthood by the catholic church, and gulley should have to live in africa the rest of his life
Sam Katz has done more for students out of office (with his library hours initiative) than Emily did in her full year in office! Just think about this. She was approached by people throughout her term to get things done, to start cool initiatives, and she rejected everything because Emily doesn’t listen – she doesn’t care about anything but her title. So long as she can call herself “student body president” (she never says “ASUO President”), that’s what matters.
I am impressed that Sam and Johnny have already made some changes before assuming office. First, we saw Johnny being dunked outside the EMU to help the union fund raise, then we saw Sam eating lunch with Kari everyday (no bridges burning there, but the fire’s getting stronger if you know what I mean), and finally we saw Sam pushing for more library hours and… guess what?!… he got it done. This has all happened before office. I cannot wait until they move in and have a staff to help with bigger projects.
What a joke, ASUO sucks. I hope Sam and Johnny change it big time.
I believe it would be San, then Athan.
Its better to keep Emily for a few more weeks than allow SunOwen to take over. Keep the Sunn(San)y side up. Does the Green Tape dictate a line of succession anyway?
Would it be ironic that it would most likely be next to some Free Speech or Habeas Corpus protest?
LOL.
And not a moment too soon. Once the smoking ban is inevitably passed, it would’ve been only a matter of time before some hapless student was tasered for lighting up outside Lillis.
Aren’t they tearing down the bakery to build the arena….as we type?
Tasers…hmmm…they’re really out of the picture?
She stopped Tasers from coming on campus. And she stuck it to the University Administration with regards to the new arena project.
McLain’s administration did nothing this year – absolutely nothing. The one accomplishment they can take even partial credit for is the constitutional changes brought on by Senate, but even that was primarily the work of Athan.
I know students who came to her to get shit done – who had real issues they wanted to solve and implement, and she literally ignored these people. That’s her style.
Look at what she campaigned on, then look at what she did. Why doesn’t the OC do some research here and write an article?
Remember the “leaky roofs”? What about the “bundled textbook” legislation she was going to campaign for in Salem? Remember her whole thing on making student government more open? She couldn’t even departmentalize ethnic studies or Women’s Gender Studies!! That was like her big issue. She ignored anyone she didn’t want to deal with and burned big bridges.
Name ONE thing her administration did for the students.
Looks like it’s Shon Bogar.
Who is the chief justice again? Because, frankly, the guy needs to be beaten to a pulp by someone.
What I mean is, if the dissenter is correct…than ANY complaint ever filed that is not filed at the right time for whatever reason could be argued as a pre-meditated political attack. That, to me, is as dangerous as having the Con. Court play “arm-chair coach” as the Chief Justice put it.
In other words, strike while the iron is hot or just give up on accountability after…TBD.
From the Chief Justice’s Dissent:
“A complaint for non-fulfillment of duties should be
raised when a duty is unfulfilled, not held in reserve as
part of a political, retributive game plan played long
after the problem is corrected.”
Is the complaint something that was really held in reserve or is that speculation? It seems like the dissenting opinion is bringing in some information that is personal, background and could be chalked up to hearsay. That is, the heart of the complaint and questions about it should be whether or not people are held to account for what they did wrong. Perhaps in some cases there are scenarios where punishment for something done in the past is unmerited, but which are they? Aren’t all wrongdoings, crimes, misdemeanors, etc. committed in the past? What is, after all, the statute of limitations on wrongdoings…and the subject of this complaint?
I know these questions might play into the dissent in ways that I am ignorant of, but for me the dissenting argument begs the question as to whether or not it’s a good idea to hold people accountable for past actions…even if things have been ‘solved’ since the transgression first took place. I agree that people shouldn’t hold things in reserve to use politically, but even in this case it seems that if one wanted to damage McLain he or she would have brought the complaint forward when she would have had maximum punishment/humiliation.
Anyway, when people screw up they screw up. They should be held accountable. Dissenting to this weak punishment for McLain while admitting that you would agree with the majority if the timing were different is just weird to me.
Thoughts?
Man, that’s the way I want to go; a lifetime of crime and then get all my punishment 6 days before I die. To use another poor metaphor. hehe
Emily McLain did not smash anybody’s face in, if that’s what you’re saying.
However, it does go to show that Con Court can essentially wait to rule on grievances until it is no longer effective or meaningful to do so. While this may go on McLain’s track record, it is not nearly as big of an effect had the grievance been ruled on in a timely manner.
Why Con Court chose not to rule on this one until 6 days out from transition? I don’t know. I will not go as far as to speculate that the ASUO Executive had some sort of play in delaying Con Court’s decision.
Glad to hear of checks and balances too, but it doesn’t seem to be the operative term here given the apparent length of time it took. I mean, to use a poor analogy, if I file a grievance against someone smashing my face in and it takes 6 weeks, or however long, for the smashing to stop…
…my face is probably a lot worse off for the wear than had an earlier decision to stop the bashing been made.
Or am i off base here?
I think we should all praise Caroline Beranek for her hard work in keeping public officials accountable and responsible.
Can my student group ask the Senate to fly three of us to a conference in Florida next weekend on McLain’s dime?
Regardless, it’s nice to see checks and balances at work.
My favorite part is that they say she should be removed from office but won’t be because they received the grievance so late in the year, but it doesn’t mention that they’ve had this for nearly 6 weeks and therefore, would have had plenty of time if they’d made the ruling when they should have. Even with the recess they took for law school finals and all the elections grievances, they took way too long with this one.