Members of the student judicial board sent Student Chief Justice Lock Whiteside an e-mail Monday asking that he withdraw his candidacy for a third term, citing harm done to the board’s unity and integrity. Whiteside responded that he will announce his decision to stay or go at the Student Senate meeting Wednesday night.
If Whiteside, a graduate student in social studies education, does not step down, the e-mail stated, those who signed it — Jessica Nance, a senior in communication, Morgan Early, senior in mathematics and communication, Chris Gilmore, a senior in political science, Danielle Seale, a graduate student in public administration and Jeffrey Vizcaino, a senior in communication, the e-mail — will seek to impeach Whiteside.
“Under your leadership, the Board’s effectiveness on campus has diminished, communication within the Board has suffered, and the Judicial Board’s relationship with the other Student Government branches has eroded,” the e-mail stated.
It continued to mention that Whiteside had “recurring absences for regularly scheduled hearings,” had not fully participated in the selection of new board members and misunderstood the position and codes of Student Conduct.
Early said those who wrote the e-mail have had these feelings for a long time, but once they realized they would have to serve under Whiteside for a third term, they took action.
“The most important thing [to remember] is the lack of service to the student body,” Early said. “[Whiteside] has continually expressed that he is supposed to serve the student body, but by being unavailable for about half the hearings the judicial board has this year [he does not reflect that].”
A judicial board has never reacted to a chief justice in this way, according to Paul Cousins, director of the Office of Student Conduct, and he said it is refreshing that the board will be forced to self-analyze, discussing the focus of the judicial system.
“That’s the type of engagement, just the notion to be able to say, ‘These things concern us. We’re concerned about the credibility of the board,'” Cousins said. “That’s very higher-order stuff. That’s not like arguing about many of the things students argue about these days.”
No matter what the result is, Cousins said this sort of discussion will make the group stronger.
“The board will be spurred into action to be more engaged as educational ambassadors,” he said.
And while the board has experience working with the chief justice, Cousins said the public’s perception of the position is often misguided.
“I don’t think people understand what is involved or what could be involved in that job,” he said. “For the student, the most visible part of the process is presiding in on the hearings, but the board knows it’s much more complex. A lot of the content of that letter doesn’t have to do with presiding over the board, it has to do with leadership.”
Cousins said Whiteside’s academic commitments as a graduate student have kept him from being as available to the board as needed, and that the strain in the relationships between Whiteside and the judicial board and Whiteside and Student Conduct concern him because there is no room for error.
“If an error is made in the conduct process, somebody’s rights are violated,” he said. His relationship with Whiteside is most disappointing, he said, because Cousins has not been able to guide Whiteside for success after graduating as he would wish.
While Whiteside said he is contemplating his decision for Wednesday, he wanted to emphasize that the five members of the judicial board that signed the e-mail did not necessarily represent the entire group of over 20 students.
If Whiteside decides to withdraw his candidacy before he is reinstated April 8, Student Senate President Greg Doucette said an election would be necessary to find another Student Chief Justice.
“This is one of those things that no one ever prepared [for],” Doucette, a senior in computer science, said.
But if he waited until after April 8 to withdraw, Doucette said Whiteside’s executive judicial assistant would replace him.
