Rice University Court Abstract

Page 1 of 6

Rice University Court Abstract

Formal Hearing in Case #SA-01, Spring 2016

April 17, 2016

Voting Members (7): Marcela Interiano (Acting Chair), Lucas Jayne, Jake Nyquist, Emily Abdow, David Moon, Zara Khan, Noah Reich

Nonvoting Members: Bailey Tulloch (Investigator), MakenzieDrukker (Acting Secretary), ShruthiVelidi (Ombudsperson for Respondent), Matt McGee (Ombudsperson for Complainant), Troy Zimmerman (observing), MalvikaGovil (observing)

I. Charges:The University Court received a complaint from Griffin Thomas, a member of the Student Association, under Section VI.A.7.c.i.2 of the Student Association Constitution. The complaint alleged that Catalyst, in its application for priority access, had provided false information to the Blanket Tax Committee, thus impairing the Committee’s ability to “make a fair and informed decision by engaging in appropriate deliberations and discussions and by gathering appropriate information” (Section X.A.6.b). Griffin argued the Committee’s deliberations should be ruled invalid and its recommendation of Catalyst for priority aceess should be revoked.

III. Nature of the Case: Thomas alleges that Catalyst was not forthcoming and provided false information to the Blanket Tax Committee when it informed that Committee, through submitted documents and statements made by Treasurer SaiChilakpati, that Catalyst’s funding through the Center for Civic Leadership was temporary. Thomas’ complaint rests on the premise that Catalyst’s provision of allegedly false information, either knowingly or unknowingly, rendered the Committee ill-equipped to deliberate on and decide whether Catalyst met all criteria for priority access, namely having exhausted all other sources of funding. Catalyst denied these allegations, claiming they presented the nature of their relationship with the Center for Civic Leadership appropriately and accurately.

IV. Evidence Reviewed:

• Original complaint of Griffin Thomas
• Follow-up complaint from Griffin Thomas
• Blanket Tax Committee’s report on Catalyst’s application for priority access
• Catalyst’s application for priority access, including their 2015-2016 and proposed budgets, and a letter from Treasurer SaiChilakpati
• Emails between the Director of the Center for Civic Leadership and Editors-in-Chief of Catalyst (April to June 2015)
• Email from Editors-in-Chief of Catalyst to the Director of the Center for Civic Leadership (August 2015)
• Emails between the University Court Investigator and the Director of the Center for Civic Leadership
• Statement from SaiChilakpati, Catalyst Treasurer
• Statement from Dr. Daniel Wagner, Catalyst Faculty Advisor

V. Testimony Heard: The Court heard testimony from Annabelle Gavlick, Griffin Thomas, SaiChilakpati, and Ajay Subramanian before deliberating.

Annabelle Gavlick, Student Association Parliamentarian: Gavlick stated she had not been present for deliberations of the Blanket tax Committee regarding Catalyst and thus could not testify to statements made in those meetings. Gavlick stated her role on the Committee was to act as Parliamentarian. She stated she did not vote. Gavlick stated an organization had to show evidence of having exhausted all other sources of funding in order to receive priority access. Gavlick stated applicants for priority access are evaluated based on their budgets and the their sources of funding. She stated her interpretation of whether an organization had exhausted other sources of funding would be different if those other sources were annual [versus ad hoc]. Gavlick stated the Committee defined annual as funding that was given once per year, was consistent, and would be given in the future. Regarding whether Catalyst had been sufficiently forthcoming about the CCL funding by including it in their budget, Gavlick stated her belief that the more essential issue was that Catalyst did not inform the Committee the funding would extend into the future.

Grffin Thomas, Complainant, Member of the Blanket Tax Committee: Thomas stated he brought this complaint to University Court following a conversation with the Director of the Center for Civic Leadership. Thomas stated the Director had approached him regarding what her role should be in funding a blanket tax subsidiary organization. Thomas stated he had been confused because he had been under the impression that CCL funding to Catalyst would not continue. Thomas stated the Director told him the funding was to be annual.

When asked whether the CCL funding was presented to the Committee as annual in nature, Thomas stated the funding was presented on the budget but discussed differently. Thomas stated the funding was presented to the Committee as not sustainable and not secure. Thomas stated this indicated to him that funding would continue, thus all sources of funding had not been exhausted. Thomas stated the intention of the CCL to continue funding Catalyst was not communicated to the Committee.

Regarding the Committee’s priority access evaluation process, Thomas stated questions would come up regarding various aspects of applications and would be sent to the applicant, or the Committee would request a review meeting. Thomas stated that, during deliberations on Catalyst, Chilakpati was recused but present and either volunteered information or volunteered to retrieve information to answer the Committee’s questions. Thomas stated some questions were directly asked to Chilakpati, while other questions were spoken aloud and Chilakpati responded. Thomas stated Chilakpati had informed the Committee there was no reason to believe the CCL funding was annual. Thomas stated that, when asked whether the funding was annual, Chilakpati responded that it was not. Thomas stated that this was incorrect, according to the Director of the CCL. Thomas stated Sai did not mention continuing a relationship with the CCL, and stated Catalyst members may not have known the nature of the funding. Thomas stated his belief that organizations should be responsible for their own accounting, and should not be allowed to give false information in this process.

Thomas stated Chilakpati, who was recused during Catalyst deliberations, wrote the final report on the Committee’s recommendation to the Student Association.

SaiChilakpati, Catalyst Treasurer, Former Student Association Treasurer:Chilakpati stated that, while he was present during open deliberations of the Blanket Tax Committee, he was asked questions and answered those questions. Chilakpati stated that, when asked about the nature of CCL funding, he responded according to the “legal definition of contractual” and stated it was not annual because an official declaration did not exist. Chilakpati stated he presented the Committee with various hypothetical situations, such as the current Director of the CCL leaving her position, whichcould end the CCL’s ability or willingness to fund Catalyst.

Regarding details in Catalyst’s budget, Chilakpati stated the CCL funding was not listed the same way as SAPP funding, parsing out amounts as “estimated,” “expected,” et cetera, because Catalyst intended to apply for additional SAPP funding. Chilakpati stated he did not bring up the history of CCL funding to the Committee. Chilakpati stated he informed the Committee that Catalyst “looked forward to working with the CCL” in the future, and that Catalyst would adjust the amount requested from the Blanket Tax Committee if they received CCL funding. Chilakpati stated Catalyst expected to receive $3,000 from the CCL.

Chilakpati stated the Committee never did an official inquiry or conducted a review into Catalyst, beyond asking him questions. Chilakpati stated the Committee should have done a better job of addressing their concerns if they wanted better responses. Chilakpati stated the Committee’s concerns revolved largely around academic diversity and the annual nature of the funding. Thomas interjected that Chilakpati agreed to act as Catalyst’s official spokesperson, so the Committee took his word as official. Chilakpati responded that there is no such thing as an official spokesperson. Thomas stated the Committee recommended Catalyst to the Student Association for priority access because of Chilakpati’s responses, which he now believes to have been inaccurate.

Chilakpati stated his belief that the funding from the CCL was not contractual and that it may not be given in the future. Chilakpati stated he was asked whether Catalyst would receive funding next year and said yes. Regarding the email from the Director of the CCL obtained by Thomas describing the nature of the funding as annual, Chilakpati stated he had not had that information at the time of the Committee’s deliberations. Chilakpati stated he did not believe the information he provided to the Committee was inaccurate.

Ajay Subramanian:Subramanian requested to testify during the hearing. Subramanian stated his belief that University Court had not done its due diligence by calling only SaiChilakpati to respresentCatalyst. He further stated he was concerned about Griffin Thomas speaking for the entire Blanket Tax Committee.

[At this point, the hearing closed to the public. The hearing lasted exactly one hour.]

VI. Violation Deliberations: Members discussed whether, given the objections of Ajay Subramanian, there had been a sufficient presentation of evidence and testimony. The Investigator informed members of Court that minutes had not been taken during Blanket Tax Committee meetings, and that there was no way to establish which Committee members had been present for which discussions, other than through the memories of those members themselves. The Investigator further informed members of Court that, given Griffin Thomas’ position of Acting Chair of the Blanket Tax Committee during deliberations over Catalyst, he has the authority to speak for the Committee regarding those deliberations.

The Acting Chair made a point to mention that Court’s deliberations would not be a discussion of whether Catalystwas or is deserving of priority access, or an attempt to rehash the deliberations of the Blanket Tax Committee. Instead, the Acting Chair reminded Court these deliberations pertained only to whether sufficient impropriety had taken place during those deliberations to warrant their invalidation.

In discussing the nature of the funding Catalyst received from the Center for Civic Leadership, the Court discussed its belief that the funding is, in fact, annual. Members cited the consistent receipt of at least some funds over the past few years and the apparent likelihood that such funding would continue into the future. Members noted the relevance of Chilakpati’s hypothetical suggestions that funding could be discontinued, but agreed that those hypothetical situations did not adequately represent the nature of the funding. Members cited statements from the Director of the Center for Civic Leadership that she believed her support of Catalyst to be annual in nature. The Court cited the inclusion of CCL support in all budgets in evidence, thus indicating the consistency of the funding.

The Court discussed whether Catalyst had been aware of the nature of their own relationship with the Center for Civic Leadership. Members acknowledged it was unreasonable to expect that the single email cited by Griffin Thomas would have been passed down to successive Treasurers and Editors-in-Chief, but that it was not unreasonable to expect the institutional knowledge contained in that email would be maintained. Members cited Chilakpati’s statement that he had been unaware of information confirming the annual nature of the CCL funding as further evidence that Catalyst leadership had not been fully aware of the relationships surrounding their funding sources. Members stated their belief that this was problematic.

Members discussed the way in which Catalyst’s funding sources were portrayed to the Blanket Tax Committee. Members discussed the inclusion of a statement in Catalyst’s application for priority access that the CCL funding was “not guaranteed” and acknowledged this statement was not false. However, members felt it did not adequately convey the true nature of the funding. Members cited Chilakpati’s admission he had been unaware of the annual nature of the funding and its history. Court cited his statement that he had interpreted “annual” to mean “contractual,” and had informed the Committee that Catalyst’s CCL funding was not annual. Members agreed this contradicted statements from the Director of the CCL. The Court concluded that Chilakpati should have represented the nature of the CCL funding as it was understood by its provider.

Members agreed Chilakpati had misrepresented the strength and security of Catalyst’s relationship with the CCL. Citing Chilakpati’s statement that, when asked about the nature of the funding, he told the Blanket Tax Committee Catalyst looked forward to continuing to work with the CCL, members agreed Chilakpati had been intentionally vague. Members also believed he did not have sufficient information, evidenced by his own testimony, to answer some of the questions he was asked during Committee deliberations. While the Court agreed that Chilakpati had provided a sufficient quantity of information in response to the questions he was asked, members felt he was not knowledgeable to provide information of sufficient accuracy. Thus, the Court felt it was more likely than not that Chilakpati had misled the Blanket Tax Committee regarding the nature of funding from the CCL.

Members did not feel there was sufficient evidence to investigate whether Chilakpati had intentionally misled the Committee. Thus, the Court did not pursue charges under the Code of Student Conduct.

The Court discussed whether there were problems with the way the Blanket Tax Committee conducted its review of Catalyst’sapplication. Members felt the Committee did not adequately investigate Catalyst’s records. Members felt the Committee should have instigated more formal review processes if it had questions regarding Catalyst’s application.

Members felt it was more likely than not that impropriety had occurred in the Blanket Tax Committee’s deliberation process regarding Catalyst’s application for priority access. The Court found the process “in violation”.

The dissenting member felt that the CCL funding was not annual; that Chilakpati had presented a narrow but not incorrect interpretation of “annual” before the Committee; and that Chilakpati had appropriately responded to the questions asked of him.This member thus felt that the Committee’s deliberations were “not in violation.”

Vote #1: Given the information presented to members, were the Blanket Tax Committee’s deliberations “in violation” of Section X.A.6.b of the Student Association Constitution because the Committee was “unable to make a fair and informed decision”?

Yes: 6vs. No: 1

VII. Recommendations:

The University Court thus finds the Blanket Tax Committee’s deliberations regarding Catalyst’s application for priority access to Blanket Tax funds to have been “in violation”.

The Court recommends that the Blanket Tax Committee’s recommendation to the Student Association be invalidated. It is the Court’s interpretation that our recommendation thus invalidates the SA Senate’s approval of the Committee’s recommendation, the inclusion of the Catalystreferendum on the SA general election ballot, and the granting of priority access to Catalyst.

After reviewing the evidence and deliberating, the Court felt it was important to highlight issues in this case that did not pertain directly to our finding.

1. The Court recommends that the Student Association Constitution, particularly where it addresses the Blanket Tax Committee, be updated to address specific definitions (i.e. “annual”) in order to avoid future cases like this one.
2. The Court recommends that the Blanket Tax Committee require applicants for priority access to disclose more information regarding the sources of their funding. Where applicable, this should include historical funding.
3. The Court recommends that the Blanket Tax Committee be more formal in its review process. It should conduct at least an email exchange to resolve points of confusion in applications.
4. The Court recommends that the Blanket Tax Committee keep minutes and attendance records for all meetings and deliberations. In this way, all information considered by the Committee, including the way in which that information is presented, will be on record.

Total time of testimony: 1 hour, 0 minutes

Total time of deliberations: 1 hour, 29 minutes

Respectfully submitted,

MakenzieDrukker

Acting University Court Secretary

Email | Office (713) 348-5642 | Fax (713) 348-2460 | Rice University Court-MS 160

6100 Main St. | Houston, TX 77005-1892 | sjp.rice.edu/ucourt/