letters from the underground: women brutalized by student government monkey court

(the following was written by nick, a classmate of mine in family law.  the terms "witch-hunt," "kangaroo court" are so apropos . . . it was like a communist red scare witch hunt, or a lynch mob . . . and the cruel words of butler-zetino's words still ring in my ear "we extracted her like the cancer she is"  all to protect his harassment of a minor scandal cover up and 500$ stipend . . . )

May 24, 2010

Dear Dr. Jamillah Moore, LACCD District Administration, and Board of Trustees:
This letter is in regards to the Impeachment of the Associated Students Organization, (ASO) Senator-At-Large, Sheila Dharod. Based on the agenda of the meeting, and the meeting itself, I feel that, not only was Ms. Dharod treated unjustly, but the ASO board itself acted in a manner that was extremely biased against her. Having read the agenda that I received at the meeting, held on May 5, 2010, and having witnessed the ensuing meeting, I have yet to see any credible evidence against Ms. Dharod as to her “gross misconduct” or “manner which contradicts the spirit of the ASO Constitution and Bylaws.”
From the agenda that was presented to me, I was convinced that this was a “witch-hunt”: a way of removing Ms. Dharod from her position in the ASO, based on false allegations, opinions, and personal attacks.

In the agenda, Article V, Section 1, “Allegation #1:Article VII, Section C) Gross misconduct while carrying out ASO related activities”.

The only evidence that was included in the packet of allegations distributed at the meeting, was her alleged abuse of the ASO copy machine and the allegations were unclear as to whether there even was an abuse of the copy machine. Instead of focusing on the allegations she was accused of in the Bill of Impeachment, Senator Gene Fernandez mentioned that Ms. Dharod had not been participating in ASO events. Other Senators joined in, stating that she was not an active senator because she was not seen at these past events; one senator even alleged that, because Ms. Dharod had not completed a flyer for an event, the event was nearly ruined. At no time was there any evidence presented that illustrated how any action, or inaction, taken by Ms. Dharod, hindered the organization from conducting business, or “halting the wheels of government.”

The Senators that spoke on this section of the impeachment meeting seemed to be more concerned with sharing their opinions about Ms. Dharod’s participation in ASO functions and events, than the execution of her duties as a Senator-At-Large. Once the “Pro-Impeachment” side was done presenting what they seemed to consider evidence, Ms. Dharod had an opportunity to present a response. The 2-minute time limit was not nearly enough time for her to address these allegations. Although she was to have 5 minutes to present her defense, after all of the articles of impeachment were presented, this too was not enough time.

Continuing with my evaluation of the agenda, I would like to address Section 2, “Allegation #2,” and its subsections. It appeared that this section was copied from the original Articles of Impeachment, but edited to create an illusion of having more evidence than was really presented.

• Subsections i. and ii. refer to one letter written by Senator Scott Clapson. In the original Articles of Impeachment, the writer was mentioned by name, and his letter was cited on 4 subsections of this document. Because the author’s name was removed from the agenda, it did not make much sense as to who witnessed these incidents. It read like gibberish, rather than a coherent document put together by intelligent people
• These items state that “A letter” was presented for two of these incidents of Ms. Dharod’s misconduct, suggesting that there was more than one. In fact, there was only one letter, written by the same person, who was allegedly a witness, or a victim, to this “vexatious behavior.”
• Subsection v. was most distressing to me. The date sited was December 5-6, 2010. I do not know what resources the ASO has available to them, but I doubt these resources include a time machine, a psychic, or any means to see the future, much less know what will happen 7 months from now. This is troubling to me because, in creating the agenda, they used the agenda from the previous meeting, as well as the Articles of Impeachment document, and made no attempt to correct this obvious error.
The meeting itself was more of a “kangaroo court” than a hearing. The senators were asked, “Who is for the impeachment?”, then, “Who is against the impeachment?” This instance set the stage for the whole thing. The decision to impeach Ms. Sheila Dharod was already made, and it seemed that every effort was made to fast-track her removal from the ASO. Because of the way the meeting was conducted, she was unable to present any kind of defense against the allegations that she was being charged with. The absurdity of this “hearing” was evident in how the ASO President had to “recognize” a speaker before they could speak; He CHOSE WHO WAS GOING TO SPEAK FOR THE DEFENSE! How can anyone defend themselves if they have no control over the presentation of their case?
As a quiet observer to these proceedings, I was disgusted by the conduct of this governing body. It was not so much a trial, as it was a “witch-hunt”, disguised as a formal, orderly meeting to remove someone whom the governing “clique” had deemed “undesirable.” Every Senator at that meeting already knew what was going to happen; some of them did not even feel the need to stay for the meeting, and were later called in. Another Senator (Virginia Hazarian) showed up 30-35 minutes late. How can she make an informed decision to impeach Sheila Dharod if she was not even present for much of the meeting.
Where Ms. Sheila Dharod had prepared a defense for herself, the ASO board demonstrated no such compulsion, deciding instead to prosecute her based on the personal issues that had arisen between Ms. Dharod and a few of the “stronger personalities” on the board. Those personalities being the loudest, and most often heard voices at this meeting. They presented no valid reason for her removal, other than a personal dislike of how she conducted herself, and her seeming refusal to “fall in line” with the rest of the group. I did not understand how a Senator, let alone the Vice President of Finance (Joseph Tolle), can stand up and state that “Nobody’s perfect…,” on two separate occasions at this meeting, and yet still feel the need to remove Ms. Dharod from office for speaking her mind and standing up for what is right. (His comments concerning no one being perfect had to do with Ms. Dharod’s complaints about improperly conducted ASO meetings, missing minutes, and a host of other things that could be classified as misconduct on the part of the ASO board). Maybe Ms. Dharod made them actually READ the rules, regulations, and ByLaws that the ASO should adhere to. She demonstrated this on several occasions, when she forced the Senators to review some of those rules during her valiant attempt at defending herself, further exposing the shear ignorance of those after her “head.”
In all, I was deeply disappointed by what I witnessed at this meeting: The ridiculous charge of making copies that she may not have recorded as grounds for impeachment; the publicizing of “dirty laundry”: what the public heard concerning the gross misconduct that many of the other Senators (not Sheila Dharod) on the ASO board with regards to the November student government trip to San Francisco; the notion that, “though nobody’s perfect, Sheila’s the worst and needs to be removed from office, immediately.”…no one said this last part, but I got a sense that it was the whole point of this meeting.

Having never attended an ASO meeting before, I was saddened to see what kind of individuals are in charge there: A sorry collection of “small” people who, once they get an iota of tenuous power, believe that they can do whatever they want. This is what happens when “no one is minding the store.”

---nick (LACC paralegal studies)