Ethical concerns prevented Student Association Supreme Court from meeting April 8 regarding the future of a student trustee position.

Justice Aaron Funfsinn said he was unsure when the court could meet again.

“An ethical complaint was lodged against one of the justices by another justice,” Funfsinn said. “Basically, enough justices are not going to hear the case until the justice whom the complaint was filed against [steps down].”

The complaint concerns the offending justice’s involvement in the election, stating that the justice was “circulating a petition for one of the candidates who would be affected by the court.”

Funfsinn added the justice in question is refusing to step down, and both the procedures of the Chief Justice and the SA Constitution are unclear on this matter. The only other method, it seems, is removal from office. Funfsinn said if it were to come to this, it could take weeks.

More time could complicate the issue, as it concerns the election of the student trustee position.

Former candidate Eric Johnson filed an appeal with the SA Supreme Court stating that his opponents, Matthew Venaas (winner of the election) and Diara Fleming, did not list their district of residency on their petitions and should have been disqualified from the election, which was held March 23 and 24.

Unclear procedures

But ethical concerns are not the only issues at hand. Before every case, the chief justice presents the procedures the court will operate on. Because Johnson has a personal stake in the case, he temporarily stepped down as chief justice, and court clerk Paulette Tolene was made acting chief justice.

Funfsinn said that Tolene said she did not have a recent copy of the procedures but e-mailed one to all of the justices anyway. The most recent copy Funfsinn could find was one dated Nov. 26, 1973, which was produced by the SA office. There are differences between the documents, and Funfsinn questioned the legitimacy of Tolene’s e-mailed procedures.

One of the issues is objectivity. The 1973 procedures allow for justices to question an individual justice’s objectivity and provide an avenue for doing so. Tolene’s procedure makes no mention of bias, while the SA Constitution states “no member … who is personally involved in a particular case shall sit in judgment on that case.”

Quorum is an issue as well. The two procedures and the SA Constitution offer different definitions of it.

“It’s important because what would happen if three associate justices convene and the clerk and the chief justice have recused themselves?” Funfsinn said.

It is also unclear what could happen if the court never meets on the issue and Johnson never withdraws his appeal. Funfsinn said it could become a “dangling issue.”

Unanswered questions

The Northern Star were the only ones to appear at the scheduled April 8 meeting of the Supreme Court. Room 506 was set up for a hearing, but no justices, complainants or defendants attended. No public posting was made either.

“I was notified earlier in the day that some of the justices couldn’t make it,” Johnson said.

Venaas and his court representative Lauren Mock, the current SA vice president, declined to comment on the matter.

Phone calls made to Tolene were not returned, and neither were the e-mails sent to the other justices. SA Advisor Rob Budach also declined to comment as to why the court didn’t meet and asked for questions to be directed to Tolene.

Johnson initially appealed his case to the court on March 18. The court said he didn’t have standing and did not rule on it, allowing Johnson to re-file his complaint.