Part of the November 9, 2006 meeting.
DO ENTER CLOSED SESSION, 8-2-2
Yes: Amaha, Deepak, Farhad Motamed, Patel, Rogers, Salem, Sanders, Zamora
No: Ajlouny, Molnar
Abstain: Higgins, Rosas-Romero
I. CLOSED SESSION
Sanders we need to clarify…
Vice President Carnes said they didn’t want to waive their right to a closed session, they were fine with both giving statements in public and now we’re having closed session.
Farhad Motamed said I think it would have been best if we asked Peake flat out.
Vice President Carnes said it would not have been appropriate to put that pressure in a room full of people after it was asked.
Farhad Motamed said to me it seemed unclear.
Deepak said he stated that he wanted a public statement.
Sanders said the vote was to have a closed session now or later, we can’t make it public or private.
Vice President Carnes said I was under the impression they’d be in the room.
Deepak said we have to call them in.
Holloway said you have the ultimate decision, because someone on Senate is the plaintiff it might be appropriate to have both of them in here.
Vice President Carnes said I planned on having both in here, talk one at a time. We don’t need to vote on witnesses because people at the table witnessed the event.
Patel said I’d like to elaborate on why we called session.
Salem said there’s no formal system. How will we manage speakers, etc?
Vice President Carnes said I’m going to let them talk, let speakers list start once every person’s piece is said. Everyone on speaker’s list and one deferment, or what do you want if something different?
Rogers said we should have speakers list so people are not talking over others, with deferments to avoid arguments or attacks.
Vice President Carnes said we’re going to hear why it’s been called, let the people involved speak, then move into a regular speakers’ list.
II. STATEMENTS
Patel said thank you Kai and Andrew for coming, and I appreciate that you made public statements. I called this for one incident yesterday. My perspective is that I have personally and for the association an absolutely zero tolerance policy for physical threats. Unfortunately yesterday there was an exchange and it was not handled in best way. If this was any other person around the table, the exchange would have been required to be held in the best manner. In my eyes one of our officials stepped over line, that line crossed when threat made. I feel the third floor no longer safe place, especially with reactions from public in public forum. Kai knows I respect him, but we must hold ourselves to a high standard and I think this is how it should be done.
Vice President Carnes said we’ll now hear your responses on exactly what she just stated, the specific issue only. If you’d give us your statements again, in detail about what happened.
Peake said the main issue I campaign on and spoke about at discussion yesterday was a need for tolerance and education on LGBT issues. I am a member of this community and these issues deep set in me. I’m not offering this as an excuse, just an explanation. When I noticed his reaction after I said something—I thought he was laughing. I was hurt by this, especially from someone so high in ASUCD, this was deep insult. You all have run, appreciate stress and emotion. This was a culmination of that and this anger cause by his laughing. I tapped him on shoulder, shook hand firmly and asked why gay rights funny. Response indicated violence, and I removed myself from situation.
Savaree-Ruess said first I’ll address issue about me laughing. I honestly cannot say I wasn’t laughing, I was laughing many times throughout the entire forum…even Darnell and I shared some laughts. Never did I laugh at something candidates were saying or platform issues. That would never be my intent, I’m sorry that Andrew or anyone thought that was the case: that was not my intention at all. If I was laughing it was about external issue or side conversation. With actual incident, my perception was –granted, many conversations today- truly I would never fear for my life if I were to get into an altercation with Andrew. I didn’t fear for my life at the time, I felt as though he was trying to physically intimidate me mainly when he tried to shake my hand. At first it seemed like he was asking question, I congratulated him on job in forum, he asked me if I thought issues were funny. I said no, he then said why was I fucking laughing while he spoke. His grip tightened, face demonstrated anger. At that point words got much more heated, I felt as though he were getting physically/emotionally angry and responded in kind.
I asked more than once that he let go of my hand, he finally did after the second or third time at which point I pulled away. Then I was clearly agitated and believe in many respects I was justified to be angry. I felt disrespected that someone would come to me so hostile, and offended that he was insinuating I was homophobic or sexist (I don’t believe I am). I was offended by that and angry that he approached me in hostile/agitated manner. I felt when he wouldn’t let go of my hand, that’s when the safe zone came down for me. At this point I was brought into a physical interaction I didn’t want to be part of. To my recollection I then said to Darnell that if he ‘came to me that way again, I would hit him,’ obviously in more choice words. I understand that can be construed as threat of physical violence, but I wish you understand I was not going to say that I was going to hurt him, beat him up, just that I didn’t want to be approached that way again.
If I were approached that way in the street, I don’t think I would have been so restrained. I was obviously physically and emotionally angry, yes I did say I’d punch him if he came at me again but I feel as though the physical interaction had already begun, not on my accord. I feel that the way I was treated was much more detrimental to the safe environment than the words I said in response. I feel that the physical barrier was crossed. I apologize for losing my temper, and I said things I shouldn’t have or in the incorrect manner. I should have been much more professional. Like Andrew said, much frustration and anger has been building inside me last few weeks, and I feel like since election season started I’ve been put into situations I don’t want to be by people who feel it’s to their benefit to discredit me. That all being said, again the way I acted to further the incident yesterday was inappropriate and I apologize for that and I’d like to say in closing I hope you all understand where I was coming from at this point. If you can’t forgive me at least understand why it happened and I hope you feel you’re still capable of working with me. If anyone feels I’m not capable of working with everyone in ASUCD because of this issue, let me know and I have no problem with resigning for the reason that not everyone feels they can work with me. If others feel uncomfortable with me, this is not the position for me. You needn’t vote on this, express it to me and I will mosey on.
Vice President Carnes said I know people in the room witnessed this, so please make your statements.
Holloway said yesterday at the candidates forum, we were all sitting at table during forum. I can honestly say a lot of side conversation at table (example: Chris Herold and I worked at the Angelides campaign together and were talking about that). I can’t attest to Kai’s specific actions while Andrew was speaking. From my perspective after the forum ended, I went to shake hands with candidates and tell them good job, talking to one of candidates and my roommate Tim Silva said “Darnell!” and I looked up to see Kai who said to me “get your boy off me or I’m going to hit him in the face.” I hadn’t witnessed what led up to that, and at this point they separated and a crowd of people was still standing around and I tried to ask what happened but no one gave an answer. I went outside, asked Andrew. He told me what he told you tonight. I then went to the third floor to find Kai. Kai and I had a long discussion about this and other issues; he told me the same story he told you. I expressed to Kai that the main issue that is important for us to all realize is that everyone is always watching us. This was an ASUCD event and he is an ASUCD official. The Aggie is already writing about this, they’ve interviewed Savaree-Ruess, me, and Tiny. It’s one of those things: we must address this issue regardless of the outcome because the fact of the matter is that the Aggie is going to write a story and it will look very bad if it’s not addressed. I don’t know what the Senate is thinking of doing, but I can say that Kai apologized and seems genuine. It’s up to you all to decide if the incident was serious enough to warrant removal from his position.
Patel said I was there too, not in the immediate area but further back. I didn’t see the initial exchange, just Kai really upset and back away and walk out of the CoHo. I didn’t know how to react to the situation, but a student said “isn’t that OUR controller?” At this time I realized we must responsible and clean this up. We are a unit of twelve elected officials. After hearing that comment I realize that we must handle this in serious manner because our students/peers are taking this in a serious way.
Amaha said I was there and Patel summarized. I heard what Kai stated and saw him walk off.
Vice President Carnes said ask your questions now and then we can move into discussion.
III. QUESTIONING
Deepak said when you were saying you shook his hand…did he ask you to let go of his hand?
Peake said as soon as I felt him pulling his hand away, I pulled away and don’t remember any specific request. I’m not saying he’s being dishonest, I just remember as soon as he made it clear to me I removed my hand.
Rogers asked Kai, if we were to move on from this, how comfortable do you feel working with us?
Vice President Carnes said I’d like to keep questions directed towards the actual incident. The closed session is on that.
Rogers said I think to move from this incident, it involves us looking into future and how we stand on this incident.
Vice President Carnes said I was just asked by the person who called this to make that request.
Savaree-Ruess said I don’t mind answering the question.
Rogers asked how do you see us moving from this as a whole?
Savaree-Ruess said where I’m at is the same place as before this incident. I feel as though I try to work with everyone equally and with respect. I will continue the same policy, I believe the question is whether or not you all feel you are capable of working with me and have faith that I am capable. I don’t feel any different about any of you now that in we’re in a closed session, and I will pursue my job exactly the same. Whether or not I need to be removed should not be based on whether I wish to continue, because I do.
Molnar asked what is your opinion— what action do you think should be taken today?
Peake said I don’t know what is appropriate, but I’m glad we both spoke in public discussion. I think I’m going to have to agree with what Kai said and have the senate decide what they feel is right.
Savaree-Ruess said to be honest, I feel as though the appropriate way to handle this issue from the start is to address Andrew and I outside of the meeting, figure out what happened and then at that point decide if a closed session was needed. Then we could have gone into session knowing what to get out of it and if Andrew and/or I needed to make an apology or statement we could have done it in a more proactive way. That being said, I think both Andrew and I have addressed the issue publicly. I feel as though what I did yesterday does not warrant my removal from office, I believe job I’ve done to this point has been more than adequate and if I was removed it would be a loss to the association because I put in a lot of work to job. However if any of you feel uncomfortable working with me because of the situation, I am fine with resigning. I don’t wish to work in situation where you are uncomfortable working with me. I believe the incident is a non-issue because both of us acknowledged our mistakes.
Holloway said I want to reiterate that it was very necessary to handle this in the manner it was. Kai is not a public official, he’s ASUCD personnel that requires this manner. If I had done the same thing, this would be called in public forum. I think the end result should achieve a public apology (which is what happened) and decide what to do: disciplinary action already by just calling him in, give public feeling we’re dealing with issue. I don’t think this will happen again, having said that and heard statements it’s up to senate to make decision.
Farhad Motamed asked were you aware that your grip was getting tighter?
Peake said I didn’t mean to; I had no intent of creating a physical environment or creating an incident. I don’t believe in violence and did not wish it to become more than a personal confrontation. I also didn’t wish for the actions to appear to have the potential of violence.
Sanders said Kai: you said in statements that you knew someone like Peake couldn’t physically harm you, but at the same time felt threatened. Did you feel threatened?
Savaree-Ruess said I felt he was attempting to physically intimidate me, so the physical threat was laid out there. I understand there’s a differing opinion on what happened, but the fact is that his grip was very firm and I asked him to remove hand, he seemed serious. Fact that I’m big Kai, 200 lbs, shouldn’t affect how I am approached. Had he done same thing to Natalia it would have been perceived very differently. I feel the action taken shouldn’t be based on whether or not I could have handled myself.
Sanders said when you approached Kai, you tapped him on the shoulder. Were you really angry at that point and approached him out of anger? Or was it your intent just to address him? Was the whole thing about being offended, or felt like at that point just a thing of driven anger with different tone of voice?
Peake said I believe I was not incorrect in approaching him, but incorrect in my manner of approaching. I was very angry. I understand I could have been perceived as threatening, but it was not my intention.
Deepak asked do you know any other witnesses who could vouch for the interaction. It seems you have different stories about the handshake. Is there any way to get a witness to speak about the hostility of the handshake?
Vice President Carnes said the only people we found were not extremely near. Senate can vote to hear someone if you have someone in mind.
Patel said basically I think, Kai, in your remarks, that Andrew created an unsafe environment by the way he approached you. I feel according to your own remarks that you put yourself further into the situation.
Savaree-Ruess said I acknowledge that I could have handled myself better and didn’t need to say what I said, but I feel that once the safe barrier was broken… I don’t feel that I made it more unsafe, what was perceived as my threat was more like protecting myself because I felt threatened and was just saying that I would be unable to not respond to such a threat in the future. Did I rebuild barrier? No. But I don’t feel that I tore it down any more that it was.
Vice President Carnes said if you have no more questions, I’ll give each of you three minutes with one deferment.
IV. SPEAKERS’ LIST
Ajlouny said I see both sides, and personally if I was to have someone come at me in such a forceful angry manner and feel that my boundary of safety was crossed… People are saying that you’re a public official and must handle things in a better way, but at the same time if someone came at you and started bashing on you I would never just stand there and let them say whatever. Besides being a public official, you’re also a student and a person. About the threat of Kai’s it was in an act of emotion in that certain situation that was given to him. For example in a soccer game if some guy took ball from me I might tell my teammate that I’ll tackle him the next time.
Vice President Carnes said if you had reacted like that I would have called a closed session. I don’t think anyone here says he didn’t have the right to react; it was the way he reacted.
Ajlouny said when he said the threat in the situation he was given to whisper it to Darnell, it was like the situation I described in a soccer game “if he takes ball from me again, I’m going to tap him.” I don’t see him trying to be hateful or that people will feel unsafe with him next time. I totally don’t think you need to resign no matter what anyone says.
Deepak said basically as a representative of the student body and in executive board, I would never think someone in a hostile situation should… I understand the emotional nature of the instantaneous situation. I see where a student is immature and with testosterone raging you could expect emotion. I just know that Kai is doing a good job: either this closed session is acting as a punishment and will give him a chill pill, or prescribe him an anger management course for upcoming senators who saw this for a way to refresh that he’s not actually going to punch someone. Maybe we need a masseuse to distress ourselves, but I also think an appropriate solution could be anger management not just for him, but maybe for all of us. Maybe suggest this for Kai for this incident, but maybe all of us in this situation. It’s helped me, for example when I was called terrorist at home.
Salem said I like discussion in a closed session, I think this is how we’re going to resolve something without a public spotlight. Personally on the event I like to say what happened was justifiable but not on the reaction that came out. We all agree that the reaction was not proper. As far as punishment or resignation, although it could be considered or discussed, if we all didn’t know each other or we were in corporation someone would be dismissed. But I’m not saying Kai should be dismissed. Did his action of saying that, after hearing what caused the reaction, merit his dismissal? Is this act forgivable or not?
Deepak essentially anger management is a solution taken off confrontational situations at home in dad’s company, a way to learn to de-escalate situations. I could say you’d most likely be fired, but I see as possible you could keep position after taking the course. It’s a pleasant alternative
Salem said definitely. After hearing both sides it’s clear that Kai’s action was a reaction to what was perceived as hostility.
Patel said I think all in this room agree that Kai is an asset to the association. We all appreciate what he’s done; he’s gone beyond the call of duty. In no way has he deviated from his role of controller. However we all must be responsible for our actions and also our reactions. If the was just about the fourteen of us it would be easy to solve, but that comment in the CoHo reminded me that we are held to high standard. If it were a personal thing between you two… it was, but you’re linked to all of us in the association. Because you are an official, you must face repercussions and closed session is first (and may be last). Just because you’re an asset does it mean this can be written off? I don’t know. I cannot and will not tolerate violence in my life or in the people around me. I don’t think Kai would actually punch someone, but he reacted the way he did in a public setting and students saw it. We all must be held to same standards, this is part of process of being official. Kai’s not just a student; he’s the controller of the entire undergrad population. Is Kai being huge asset wave off the way he acted in public? I don’t think it would be responsible to just brush it off, and I don’t think we are brushing it off either.
Salem asked do you have any proposals where we go from here? You made it clear you think he needs to be held accountable, do you have anything to give to the table?
Patel said I really think it depends on how we hold ourselves and whether we think he crossed the line. I think he did. He’s amazing, but just because he’s amazing cannot be justification for his wrongdoings. I do think we need to take responsibility.
Rogers said I want to address those comments too. We’ve been compared to a corporation, I don’t feel we’re a corporation but representatives of the student body. As so I think we need to move from this and show we can unite with ourselves. What happened, I’m not saying it was right. But the action happened and it was done. I don’t necessarily believe punishment is a solution. Punishment shows us what not to do. I believe our reaction tonight can show what to do. Uniting of ourselves, us working through this and being stronger can be more effective than just firing the controller. But the only thing is that you said this is not about you. You must realize this is about you, and how we react tonight must play that this will not happen again. Exactly what happened is not most important thing… yes maybe massage therapy will help and you can play soccer too. My thing is that it happened, it’s done, and we need to set an example for the future.
Deepak said I agree that unity is asset to ASUCD, but we can’t allow actions to go without punishment. However this closed session is a sort of punishment. I want to strongly suggest anger management to everyone. We are all put in threatening situations as members of public, and in stances that are emotional.
Rogers said by punishment, we are just reinforcing that something stop what we don’t want to happen. Just by setting example, show what needs to happen, spread what we believe in and to the student population it’s a done deal and this is all over.
Sanders said I’d like to call five minute break so Higgins can read minutes to catch up. I want to remind you that you’re all on gag order, silence is necessary. Motioned to enter break; properly seconded without objections.
Vice President Carnes said be back at 8:12.
V. RECESS
Vice President Carnes called the meeting back to order at 8:14pm.
VI. QUORUM ROLL CALL
Present: Ajlouny, Amaha, Deepak, Farhad Motamed, Higgins, Molnar, Patel, Rogers, Salem, Sanders, Zamora
VII. CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Sanders said we are looking for a solution to this matter. I’ve not heard a lot of conversation on removal, and I don’t think he needs removed. What I’d suggest and what senates have done in the past is to extend the closed session, use the computer and write a letter that the entire senate can sign. The point is that Kai is a high official, held to high standards of behavior. Also perhaps Kai should write an apology to the Aggie, etc, sorry incident happened etc to go with whatever we write in a unified way. As Patel said, it is the public we’re talking about who has an impression of us and it’s them we are answering to. I propose we say our opinions. Ask Peake or Savaree-Ruess questions if you have them, then let them leave and extend our closed session.
Holloway said basically at this point, a letter to the editor is a good idea. One thing I think you all need to move on from is opinion mode; you have a lot more to do tonight. Maybe make list of four options and vote on it such as letter to editor, issuance of opinion, removal from office, anger management etc.
Vice President Carnes said I meant to bring this up, but does anyone have any questions for Andrew or can we have him leave? This is now about actions we’re taking, maybe Peake is not needed here.
Farhad Motamed said I just have a comment…
Vice President Carnes said he can stay, I’m just trying to respect the collective sentiment.
Vice President Carnes said I don’t want to get emotional. Violence and abuse is one of my issues. Since yesterday I have been stressed, hearing people’s reactions and how lightly they are taking this. I am not going to suggest anything specific, but yesterday I felt completely dissociated from this association and I don’t even want to be a part of the executive office when something like this happened. Nothing was a whisper; a threat was yelled in a public situation to a student on campus. Despite whatever happened to lead up to it, this was the outcome. I was expecting people to take this as a more serious issue, not to be brushed off just because the person is a good controller. I’m not suggesting any action, but I do feel disenfranchised because of how lightly some people at the table are taking this. If Kai was a bad controller, would we be acting this way? I personally like Kai and he’s a good controller, but should this still be taken so lightly? Is it being taken lightly because you like Kai, or because it’s not so big an issue?
Patel said I have the same concern… Kai is an asset, but what if it were a lazy senator. Would this be such a long debate? I don’t think so. My concern is that the way we conduct ourselves needs be in a professional manner. Representing 23,000 people means we behave in a professional matter. I told Kareem I’d hold him to the same standard, I hope you would hold me to the same standard. This is a matter of if we are going to hold everyone to the same standard. We need to. Based on that, what are we going to do?
Vice President Carnes said this is one of my main issues on campus, and I am really worried about the campus’ reaction to this. This didn’t happen on the street, this was in the CoHo at an ASUCD sponsored event.
Deepak said personally I don’t believe I’ve been taking this lightly. I’ve talked to almost everyone around the table, and it seems that there are two ways you can see this. Kai felt wronged by Andrew. Like I said, as someone I’d look up to, someone has to be able to be the better person and walk away. But this is a key issue. None of us have been trained, so maybe not technically hold each person responsible. Both seem to say initial approach was confrontational and intimidating in a sense that one could perceive that Kai was wronged in some way. It’s understandable in politics you will always be confronted. Kai has been able to talk to Andrew and Aggie in order to apologize. I don’t necessarily believe emotional part, resignation, is necessary. Maybe just institutionalize anger management for senators and public officials because we are going to stand on controversial issues and be confronted on them.
Patel said more often than not politicians are in their illegal actions, left alone. They’re just written over. Why I think this is such a big issue, political/student issue. He’s both at politician and student at same time. Just because he has high position doesn’t mean we can brush it over because it’s politics.
Deepak said you said Kai was a student. We are student government, this is student politics. Brushing over is a part of politics, things happen and maybe consider “boys will be boys” so to speak… I’m sorry maybe not best use of words…
Farhad Motamed said this is not a light issue, but with almost thirty thousand students in the school, less than one hundred or even fifty know about it. If I was student to hear about this, I’d want to see an article in the Aggie and hear how ASUCD would address this. Maybe we need some proactive action, and a picture of how ASUCD remains united. Perhaps a joint statement in the Aggie by both Kai and Andrew. But to constantly blame Kai is not necessarily correct: Kai’s response to the situation is not the full picture. The interaction occurred, and I’d like to see that communication has occurred between them for the issue to be resolved and that something has been resolved between all of us.
Peake said that’s why I was so glad to have opportunity to give a public apology and that he gave public apology. I am not currently responsible to the senate, but to the people. I have spoken to them (my constituents), offered to resign from race and they wish not.
Farhad Motamed in response to what you said, I agree with you and think the two of you need to say something publicly for the Aggie and all of us need to do something too. Maybe we could see what Cowell Health Center has to offer, even if it’s like two hour class.
Zamora said I live with Kai, I know his true character and his light heartedness. I don’t want to say I’m taking this lightly or hope it’s not perceived that way, but I also understand the emotionally charged situation and what happened. I like the idea that senators brought up about a joint letter expressing opinion of the entire table including the effected parties. Maybe it would be a good way to come out of this incident. Don’t know how to go about any other solutions unless we continue to talk about other alternatives. I’d like to pursue this one.
Patel said I like what Sanders proposed, but I don’t think we’re all united. My standpoint is that we all need to hold ourselves above typical students. I can be part of it, but I might not sign it depending on what it says. I don’t feel like I’m on the same page, and I am trying to be as objective as possible. I can’t just write this off, as much as I want to just make amends. As far as where I stand as an ASUCD Senator, I can not just write this off.
Zamora said the fact we’re having this discussion means we’re not writing it off, and we are having an affect on this table. This discussion is helping the situation, is a way to resolve the situation. If we don’t agree on what action to take, what we are doing now is still an action to resolve it.
Holloway said when I was Vice President we had meetings in this room, and I remember that the ARC closed at nine and they literally made us leave.
Patel said the sign says we have the room until midnight.
Holloway said I think you should all write down a list of potential actions. I feel a lot of what was said since I spoke last was already said before that. It’s time to put on the line what’s been said and see where the votes are.
Peake asked does anyone have any questions or comments for me? Otherwise I will leave the room.
Higgins said I object to you leaving, I think it’s fair if I talk about both of you that you both be in the room.
Holloway requested can someone please start writing that down or doing something?
Ajlouny said I took a lot of offense to what you said earlier, Genna, about us not taking it seriously. We’re not just rubbing this off because we’re discussing it and I take that as an attack on us. Just because I have a different mindset than you perceive doesn’t mean I’m not taking it seriously. I think some people are more concerned with the entire ASUCD image, and I think this is an issue between these two.
Savaree-Ruess said let me just say that what I will offer to do is write a letter to the Aggie, and I can do it with Andrew and we can do that with the entire senate if you want to do that. I just want to say I really feel like again I’ve apologized, like the general tone of this meeting is somewhat unfair. I feel like when Andrew signed up for candidacy he became a public official. I understand I am getting the paycheck, and can be fired, but I feel harsher backlash towards me than Andrew and I really feel he was instigator in this issue. Yes I made a passing threat in response to what I felt was a threat in action. I feel less guilty than how I think Andrew should feel. I feel I was attacked and am guilty of not responding as well as I should have. I feel I have been let down by the table because I’ve been working with you for a long time, and the few defenses towards me have been criticized as taking the issue too lightly. I feel I have been maybe inadvertently painted as a villain in this situation. To hear now, I don’t know what LEAD’s resolution is, but if I am fired or forced to take anger management it would seem hypocritical for LEAD to continue with Andrew as though nothing had happened.
Ajlouny said I agree there was an instigator. Safe zone, Kai stepped over, but at same time zone crossed when the whole thing was instigated by Andrew.
Higgins said Kai touched a lot on how I feel about this. As I know, coming from less info, it started with Andrew approaching Kai angry and physically touching him and getting into his face. To me that’s an attack that would warrant a response. On the other hand I am glad Kai admitted that his response wasn’t acceptable. But they were both in wrong, neither less responsible. I really don’t know, this seems geared more towards Kai being the only person who should be looked at. They’re both in wrong; yes Kai answered threat with threat, obviously not right, but they BOTH made the mistake. To sit here and talk about Kai’s job, I think it’s either all or nothing. Either they both have to go, or both have to stay. If Kai were forced to leave, and Andrew won, I would not accept him at this table.
Patel said as a point of clarification, we’re only allowed to call a closed session on Kai. That’s why this session is geared towards Kai.
Higgins said I understand that, but I also feel we can’t walk away from this making Kai do things or boot him, if we’re going to do that I want to see the exact same consequences for Peake. This really is all or nothing, without equal punishment there’s no way I will accept what we decide. If it’s not equal, I’m not okay with it. I don’t know how the rest of you feel, but I think it’s the only logical decision.
Rogers said the reason I said what I said is because we’re choosing to turn this into what our association is representing to students. Yes Kai’s outburst was more overt, but thing is if we decide here and what specifically you said I am taking this lightly, and I’m not mad at Kai etc, what I’m saying if we dismiss Kai I don’t think it’s fair Andrew even has the chance to sit at the table. This is not setting the example of us being unpartisan, etc.
Vice President Carnes said I am sorry I was specifically addressing Kai because I feel that’s who we’re talking about, and I’m sorry if you felt you were attacked Kai. I felt this was being taken lightly, not meant to insult you or blame Kai. I’m glad you responded… it’s just that this session is on Kai, with no bearing on who is more to blame.
Patel said the reason again I called this session is that Kai is a part of us, regardless of what happens with the elections. I consider us to be a cohesive unit. Kai is the person in my general realm of things who stepped out of line. He is essentially a part of this table. Not a one-sided thing. I don’t really know what to do with some random student, and threats are made every day. As far as being an elected official involved with Kai, this is what I felt I had to do as a representative of the entire body. I don’t know what actions Andrew and Kai want to take outside of this, but we must now deal with Kai. I don’t really know what we can do with outside parties.
Holloway said the last time you spoke, people might have got impression that there was some LEAD meeting where we condoned his actions. I have not once told him what he did was okay, nor does anyone from LEAD condone his action. He’s made a public apology, just remember closed session was called on you because you’re the one in office. I’d appreciate if someone would make a motion, and start going down the list because it’s getting late.
Patel said we’re not blaming Kai, but he’s the one in our gist of things.
Salem said can I ask we that we suspend Robert’s Rules of Order so that we may discuss more effectively?
Patel said I motion to suspend Robert’s Rules of Order; seconded without objection.
Peake said about what Spencer said, I apologized to every member of my slate: the body I’m responsible too. I’m sorry you wouldn’t feel comfortable if Kai left and I won. I did not threaten him directly nor yell out threats directly. I think this is the major difference coming out, that there were no overt threats of violence made by me. I still feel very sorry for the manner in which I approached the issue, and I apologize for that.
Rogers said I feel like that contradicted what you initially said; just for me can you restate what you’re apologizing for?
Peake said I’m apologizing for how I confronted him.
Rogers asked how did you confront him?
Peake said in the public in a way that could have been perceived as hostile. I should have cooled down, then approached him in a less harsh way.
Rogers asked so how is your situation different with you than our take on Kai?
Peake said I believe I am responsible to the electorate and to my party, if those bodies wish to take action they can do so. Right now the senate doesn’t have the power to do so.
Rogers said my comment is that your actions now are trying to move forward into making yourself a public official, and your actions will bring you to this table to be same official as Kai. I feel the confrontation happened between two people and that our end result is either all or nothing. Either if you all wish Kai to leave on premise that he was not doing job as public official and that Andrew wouldn’t run for senate and not doing job well before even gotten chance to do the job. Andrew, if you want to be senator you have to act like one. You both made same offense, whether we can act against both of you or not.
Sanders said I wrote down five points, maybe we can informally vote on them, maybe draft a letter etc in this room:
1. Remove Kai from the position of Controller
2. Write a letter of explanation with dissents
Darnell said if you really want to take it that far, there’s always a majority opinion and a dissent opinion issued at the same time.
Sanders said also we could vote on that, to show who’s yes and who’s no.
3. Do nothing, and move out of closed session
4. Write letter of apology from Kai to be in Aggie
5. Anger management either
a) for controller
b) for all public officials
Deepak said anger management should be collaboration in my opinion, idea that it should be institutionalized… we all deserve it and should not necessarily single out Kai. It will help us also with our debates and dialogues.
Sanders said obviously these can all be melded together too.
Patel said I think this is good; we should go down the list on each bullet point.
Rogers said I think we should clarify what is to do nothing?
Higgins said doing nothing could hold merit; we accept their apologies as they are (publicly given) and end it there.
Sanders said I only put that there because it was brought up as a point, just move out, leave status quo. I still don’t think that would be right.
Savaree-Ruess said I understand what it is you guys want to do, but still. Technically you have the power to keep me or fire me, not have power to demand me do something. Fact you’re going down a list now, if Kai is one of “us” how come not one person has consulted my opinion on these options? No one has asked me about writing a letter or taking anger management. I feel like you’re looking at me like parents. I feel what I did was wrong, but on a certain level I was justified. I was in a threatening situation, and I just responded poorly.
Sanders as far as suggestions go, it would be your choice just written in language. As far as a letter goes, we’re not trying to address this as what you should do, but our explanation and our findings in the case. I think it’s impossible and unfair to not write some explanation to the public about the closed session.
Savaree-Ruess said the word punishment has been thrown around few times, but I don’t feel you’re in an authoritative position to punish me. Maybe you’re subconsciously looking at is as though you have to do something to me, to prove some point or whatever, and I don’t understand why we cannot figure out together what we should all do.
Holloway asked what do you want to do?
Savaree-Ruess said I feel comfortable writing a letter with Andrew, giving it to you with or without endorsement and then send it to the Aggie if the senate feels this way.
Patel said I really hope we don’t seem like parents and you child here, what’s at stake is your position as controller. I think we don’t need to be taking into consideration just what you want, it’s your position on the line. Personally I don’t like the idea of anger management, but we’re not crossing the line by saying what we think you “should” do. We can make suggestion because it’s your position on line. We are trying to rectify situation, and it doesn’t have to be all or nothing.
Deepak said about the threat, how I felt about it. It might be taken back, not it’s not just ASUCD people who heard it but the public too who could easily present a case to us. This makes it a collaboration of all of our efforts. I personally feel I would be a better person if I could discuss better, etc…
Savaree-Ruess said maybe it’s not a popular decision for me to take, but I don’t feel like I signed away my ability to get angry when I took this position. I agree how I handled the situation wasn’t the best, but I feel like it’s ridiculous to be in a closed session for three hours talking about my incident with the other person and what I should do to rectify situation. You all have no problem with how I deal with my job. It was a personal altercation, and I have a public apology.
Higgins said I think it was done right then.
Salem said it will be in the public idea, and I think we’re responsible for responding with our opinion on the matter and take a stance. Just to let the story marinate that ASUCD did nothing is not good. If they’re knowledgeable on this discussion things will be rolled over much better.
Rogers said I think this whole no rules of order is stupid because I’m tired of us talking out of order.
Farhad Motamed asked what are our four points?
Holloway asked how many are okay with what Kai just said?
Patel said I am, but I think more needs to happen than just that.
Higgins asked what do you think needs to happen?
Patel said I’d like an informal vote on the suggestions made.
-VOTING-
1. Remove Kai: NO (Yes: Patel)
2. Write a letter with dissent: YES
3. Do nothing, leave as is: NO (Yes: Farhad Motamed)
4. Write a letter of order for both to apologize: NO
5. a) Request anger management for Kai: NO
b) Request anger management for all: NO (Yes: Deepak)
Final decision: write a letter of explanation with dissents.
Savaree-Ruess said the fact that there was a vote to remove me makes me strongly consider resigning. Do what you need to do, but this may be what I choose to do in the next few days.
Higgins said you should not do this, it was only an 11-1 vote.
Rogers said I think we had a chance 11-1 vote and that even one person wants him out, I feel this conversation has not gotten anywhere. I feel there was a situation, and we need a resolution now. I didn’t agree with any of those points, and I am not cosigning on any letter. I think this meeting has only reinforced that this is stupid, we have not gotten anywhere. A resolution would have been us come up with a new working situation that we all work together. The fact that someone disagrees means this meeting is over.
Patel said my vote is not that I can’t see myself working with him; my vote is because I think we need to hold everyone to the same standards. I think two parties were responsible and from this meeting I now know that anyone else I would have held to same standard. That letter would not justify why I called this session. I still think Andrew was on the other side of this; I can’t do anything to him, but I can’t support him as a candidate either. My decision is not that I can’t work with Kai, it was just based on the idea that we need to hold everyone to same standard. By voting the way I did, I know I’d hold anyone to that same standard.
Savaree-Ruess said I see that you can still work with me, I just feel like if you feel that I shouldn’t be here than that’s an issue. Regardless of whether we feel capable of working together, if you feel I shouldn’t be in office that’s an issue. I’m somewhat offended you took that position, in light of disrespect and disloyalty sent to me in last few weeks, and being told that I shouldn’t be in office I am unhappy being in this position now. I love my job, dealing with directors, going to meetings, dealing with admin and students but I can honestly say every part of my job that has to do with dealing with government has been complete and utter shit. I felt like icing on the cake many times at this point; I don’t want to hastily move into this situation but I’m just unhappy with my current situation because I feel I’ve been treated improperly. I don’t agree with your position that what I did warrants my removal from office.
Higgins said I agree what he did has nothing to do with his job and that we shouldn’t call his job into question. I thought it was a joke that a closed session was called, it seemed like a personal issue.
Patel said it’s not a personal issue.
Higgins asked how is it not personal?
Patel said this happened in public.
Amaha said at an ASUCD event!
Vice President Carnes said and there were tons of witnesses.
Higgins said the Aggie may say wow, students may say wow, but other than that who cares? I don’t think it matters. It has nothing to do with his job. Frankly, I’m angry. I thought this was all a joke.
Deepak said this is why we need anger management.
Amaha said some people are taking this seriously, others call it a joke. This is a serious matter.
Vice President Carnes said you all just voted to write a letter…
Salem said we’ve been in closed session for a while now, we just found out which avenue we’re taking…
Savaree-Ruess said I feel like the purposes I needed to be here for are over, so I’m going to leave but I would ask as a show of respect that you would email me the letter you produce and at least give me the opportunity to express my feedback whether or not you take it into account.
Salem asked before we do that, does this have to be stated after we adjourn?
Amaha read a statement from Rosas-Romero.
Vice President Carnes said we will announce any decisions made at this closed session at the subsequent senate meeting.
Salem said we will contact you for the next senate meeting, etc. For opinion what will our procedure be? Let’s collaborate, make our majority opinion.
Sanders said I found two possibilities for the letter. We have a week. I suggest 1) we do it now all together (some people won’t sign, maybe there will be no middle ground) or 2) resume orders of the day then go somewhere else and write a letter and email it to senators if they want to sign it they can, otherwise not, or give feedback, etc. I think it would be simpler in group, but I understand that people are tired.
Higgins said I think we should just do it now to make it simpler. The best way would be to call a ten minute break, and do it over the computer during a break. Also it has to be short so it can go in the paper. I would say a break.
Sanders said I think we should have a longer one for the actual senate meeting, maybe write two, and the other thing is out of respect for Patel I want to take an official vote whether or not to remove Kai from office. I feel uncomfortable bringing it before the public with an unofficial vote.
Patel said it’s frustrating I think because Kai is such an asset that we are not holding him to the same standards we would hold other people at this table. Lately Kai always angry, Carnes is concerned, with Darnell you just can’t tell…student government is getting really ugly. The reason I voted the way I did is that we must serve all students as their representatives even if only fifty people know. I do think Andrew and Kai were both wrong. Clearly both sides wrong, but it looks awful on our part that we wrote a statement just so hell doesn’t break loose. We can’t sit aside and just call both sides at fault, then just issue statement. Things are ugly, and a simple statement to affect how the Aggie perceives it will NOT clarify all of this. This is a moral dilemma. If you all want to sit around here, work with Kai etc., this is not about that. It’s about an ex-officio member of this table who crossed the line (we can’t do anything about what Andrew did). Someone who is a part of this table has to be held to higher standards, even if he is an asset. I think it’s not what we’re doing by just writing a letter to make it all cool. I think it’s taking the easy way out. I’m not trying to make some huge statement, and maybe I don’t always stick to my values… but the fact is that a member of this table crossed a line, the fact that others realized it and someone said “that’s our controller?” makes a statement.
Clearly we’re getting along even with the polarization in this room. This isn’t about getting along; it’s about holding all people to the same standard. I don’t believe if anyone else was in this situation it would go so smoothly. We ALL believe in Kai, I think that’s why it’s going this way. I want to make clear that my vote isn’t to do with his or our ability to work. What I said about Andrew, I will not endorse him and that’s it. I don’t believe in punishment, but rehabilitation. Just the same we can only rehab to a certain point, and that point was crossed by him as an ASUCD official. That’s why I voted the way I did. I will still help with the statement, but I still think it’s taking the easy way out by not taking action.
Sanders said I’ve been lenient on time tonight; just give me a gesture if you have problem with this. Motioned to remove Kai Savaree-Ruess from the position of ASUCD Controller.
Sanders objected for roll call vote.
DO NOT REMOVE 0-8-4
No: Ajlouny, Deepak, Farhad Motamed, Higgins, Molnar, Salem, Sanders, Zamora
Abstain: Amaha, Patel, Rogers, Rosas-Romero
Sanders said I suggest we motion to take a five minute break, then seal the room for twenty minutes and try to quickly write the letter during that time. Motioned twenty five minute recess for letter; seconded without objection.
Vice President Carnes said come back at 9:43 to work on the letter.
VIII. RECESS
Vice President Carnes called the meeting back to order at 10:19pm.
IX. ORDERS OF THE DAY
Sanders motioned to reenter open session; properly seconded without objections.
-OPEN SESSION-
