2008 Woodie Awards
Student removed from ASCC for 'unethical conduct'
Curtis Ballard voted out of ICC chair five months after he took office
Lane, Terri L.
Issue date: 2/8/07 Section: In Focus
- < prev Page 2 of 2
After a member of the ASCC makes an accusation, it is brought to a Judicial Review Committee. What is a Judicial Review Committee? According to Ramento, "They are responsible for the removal of people from office. The committee consists of the adviser, an executive member of the senate, and three representatives of the senate.
They are in charge of hearing both sides of the story, while being unbiased in determining what is the best course of action. They are much like a jury. The grievance must be valid and the accused have had their rights heard, just like due process.
After that, the JRC comes up with their recommendations, which is then given to the Senate at large. Then, the Senate votes on the ruling and the ruling must pass with a two-thirds vote. The proceedings of the JRC are kept confidential to protect everybody's privacy."
Ballard overall still feels that the actions taken against him were not appropriate. He says, "I feel that the stated manor with which they removed me was unjustifiable. I had no due process and no way to appeal. I did not have the right to face my accuser." He also continues on to state how he believes the he was removed on false accusations and that the opinions of the JRC were bias.
Ballard, being present at the meetings, knew of the final decision immediately. He stated, "I knew when they had the meeting. They voted right in front of my face so I knew right away."
In politics there is often never a way of determining who is telling the truth and who is lying. This case is no different than any other. Neither side seems to agree on what was said or happened, or even where it happened. The only thing that is certain is that politics do exist.
They are in charge of hearing both sides of the story, while being unbiased in determining what is the best course of action. They are much like a jury. The grievance must be valid and the accused have had their rights heard, just like due process.
After that, the JRC comes up with their recommendations, which is then given to the Senate at large. Then, the Senate votes on the ruling and the ruling must pass with a two-thirds vote. The proceedings of the JRC are kept confidential to protect everybody's privacy."
Ballard overall still feels that the actions taken against him were not appropriate. He says, "I feel that the stated manor with which they removed me was unjustifiable. I had no due process and no way to appeal. I did not have the right to face my accuser." He also continues on to state how he believes the he was removed on false accusations and that the opinions of the JRC were bias.
Ballard, being present at the meetings, knew of the final decision immediately. He stated, "I knew when they had the meeting. They voted right in front of my face so I knew right away."
In politics there is often never a way of determining who is telling the truth and who is lying. This case is no different than any other. Neither side seems to agree on what was said or happened, or even where it happened. The only thing that is certain is that politics do exist.
Be the first to comment on this story