UW Roman Catholic Foundation, Petitioner
v.
Student Services Finance Committee, Respondents
2005 ASM SJ 14
ON PETITION FOR APPEAL
Cite As: 2006 SJ Ord. 3
Before Fox, CJ, Hodgson, VCJ, Brusda, Leonard, Romano, and Tyack, S.JJ.
VICE-CHIEF JUSTICE HODGSON delivers the Order of the Court.
JUSTICES LEONARD AND TYACK dissent.
JUSTICE ROMANO took no part in the consideration of the Order.
AMBER HODGSON, Vice-Chief Justice. 1 Recently, the Court handed down Judgment in regards to UW Roman Catholic Foundation v. Student Services Finance Committee (II), 2005 ASM SJ 16. In the Opinion, the Court ruled in favor of Petitioner UWRCF on several counts. SSFC Representative Zach Frey filed a Petition for Appeal with regard to that decision, claiming that he had new evidence that may reasonably alter the Court's decision, and that the Court failed to correctly apply the law.
2. Petitioner UWRCF moves this Court to dismiss the Petition for Appeal filed by Representative Frey on the grounds that Rep. Frey has no standing to file a Petition for Appeal. The Court agrees. Representative Frey lacks standing to bring the appeal because as he was not a named party in the suit. The original party listed in the Complaint was the SSFC. While it is true that Rep. Frey is a member of the SSFC, he does not speak for the Committee. Instead, that role is delegated to the Chair or his or her designee. As such, the Petition for Appeal should have been filed by Chair Stone on behalf of the SSFC as a whole.
3. Moreover, only materially-affected parties are permitted to file a Petition for Appeal of a published Court decision. Recently in CFACT v. Stone et al., 2005 ASM SJ 14, the Court denied a Petition for Appeal filed by CFACT. CFACT contended that the non-malicious violations of Reps. Edwards and Knox should have actually been malicious violations. However, the Court noted that CFACT was not materially affected by the outcome of that specific decision; any impact on CFACT would have been indirect and remote. As the Court noted,
While petitioner [CFACT] may be indirectly affected, they have no actual interests that would be affected, only indirect ones. Further, their theory would mean essentially every student would have the right to appeal any decision that involved an ASM body, because they would have some interest, however remote, in the acts of ASM bodies and officials. CFACT’s interest is too remote for it to be materially affected. 2005 SJ Ord. 28 at 3.
The party filing the appeal clearly must be materially be affected. While Representative Frey is a member of SSFC and Student Council, Representative Frey is not materially affected by the Court’s decision in UWRCF v. SSFC (II). Therefore, he lacks standing to file for Appeal.
4. Finally, the judgment entered against the SSFC as a whole in CFACT v. Stone et al, supra, and UWRCF v. SSFC (II), supra, in no way affects Representative Frey's rights as a Committee member. In CFACT v. Schulz Appeal, 2006 ASM SJ 1, the Court invalidated ASM Bylaw §2.01(D)(III), which would have held each member of the SSFC to have committed a non-malicious violation of viewpoint neutrality. Had the bylaw not been invalidated, then perhaps Representative Frey may have a claim that he is materially affected by the decision of the Court. However, since the bylaw was invalidated on due process grounds, Representative Frey cannot make this claim.
Wherefore, for the reasons stated above:
IT IS ORDERED that Representative Frey’s Petition for Appeal, due to lack of standing, is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
By the Student Judiciary,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Nicholas J. Fox, Chief Justice
Amber Hodgson, Vice-Chief Justice
Shannon Brusda, Associate Justice
* * * * *
Justices Leonard and Tyack dissent from the Order of the Court.
* * * * *
Justice Romano took no part in the consideration of this Order.
* * * * *
Published:
Attest: /s/ NJF