The Student Association Judicial Board, in a ruling released last Tuesday, removed the co-chairs of SA Congress’ Special Committee on Select Issues, Saul Hakim and Seth Schlank, as voting members, holding that the two had violated the SA Management Policies and Procedures.

This decision came nearly two weeks after a hearing on April 2 to consider a grievance brought by Kristina Donders, the speaker of Congress and a junior double-majoring in mathematics and political science.

“The Judicial Board voted unanimously to hear the case because the constitutional issues presented in Donders’ grievance fell under the purview of the Board’s ability to interpret the SA Constitution and to examine the constitutionality of the conduct of Congress members,” the ruling reads. “After considering the case, the Judicial Board voted 8 to 0 that the Defendants are acting in violation of the Student Association Management Policies and Procedures.”

The decision allowed Hakim and Schlank to remain acting co-chairs of the special committee until the speaker of Congress “appoints each as co-chair of the committee by the next Congress meeting,” where the body can confirm the appointments.

The special committee was formed by a Congress vote in late January, and Hakim, a senior double-majoring in political science and Judaic studies, and Schlank, a senior majoring in psychology, were confirmed two weeks later. The grievance emerged as committee chairs are typically nonvoting members of Congress.

A resolution to allow chairs of special committees to retain their voting privileges was introduced at a hastily scheduled special meeting, after which it was tabled and ultimately passed unanimously on April 1. The SA’s E-Board vetoed the legislation the next morning, saying in a message to the campus community that it would create a “power imbalance” within the organization.

“The ruling ultimately came down to a difference in interpretation over a single sentence in our governing documents,” Hakim wrote to Pipe Dream. “I believe the ambiguity in language and conflict between 2 different clauses left room for a decision in either direction, and I’m confident that the position we put forward was both reasonable and well-supported.”

“This decision does not lessen my commitment to serving the student body,” he continued. “It was an honor to be appointed Co-Chair of the Special Committee on Select Issues and I intend to continue advocating in that role with the same energy and focus through the end of my term.”

Hakim, who had served as an off-campus representative, referenced specific policies in the governing documents to demonstrate the legality of chair members retaining voting privileges per past congressional rulings.

Donders said that committee chairs are nonvoting ex officio members of Congress, meaning they hold positions with specific privileges. She stressed the importance of maintaining a separation of powers between Congress members who make agendas and those who can vote on agenda items.

“I want to thank the Judicial Board for their time and thoughtful review,” Donders wrote to Pipe Dream following the decision. “I appreciate that due process was followed and that the rules were upheld.”

The decision referenced Hakim’s argument that there is a distinction between special committee chairs and other plenary and standing committee chairs. It stated that a committee chair’s previous voting power at the start of a term does not impact whether their voting rights must be surrendered upon becoming a committee chair.

The Judicial Board acknowledged that it had neglected to review the resolution establishing the Special Committee on Select Issues, which it said was “in part, relevant to the deliberation of this case.” While the Judicial Board agreed that in the event the body failed to review legislation before the 10-semester day period laid out in the Management Policies, it would go into effect, it can still strike parts of or whole legislation if a grievance is presented.

Two of the resolution’s clauses were then struck. One stated that two voting members of Congress will nominate the committee chair subject to confirmation by majority vote, and the other said that the “Chair of the Committee shall not be required to vacate their seat in Congress, and their chair position on the committee shall fulfill the plenary requirement for Congress members.”

The Judicial Board did not return Pipe Dream’s request for comment.

The Special Committee on Select Issues will dissolve at the end of the semester. An extension of its mandate or an effort to reform it by next year’s Congress could determine new committee leadership.

Hakim said that while they understand the ruling is final and they accept the decision, he intends to introduce legislation addressing “the ambiguity that led to this dispute.”

“My goal is to work constructively with the Board and with Congress to clarify the policies involved, incorporate some of the suggestions made in the judicial decision, and ensure that future appointments to special committees are governed by clearer, more consistent rules,” Hakim wrote. “This is about improving our institutional framework so future leaders aren’t left in the same uncertain position.”

Editor’s Note: Joseph Brugellis, the vice chief justice of the Judicial Board, is an assistant news editor. He had no part in the writing or editing of this article.