Facts of the Case

The events leading to Medrano's petition include a meeting on December 3rd, initiated by Rosario and Etienne, intended to discuss the executive board members' productivity and contributions. Medrano alleges that during this meeting, the conversation shifted towards her removal due to a perceived "lack of empathy" after she raised concerns over the equal distribution of work. This was particularly in context with an off-campus party hosted by the organization, where funds raised from campus fundraisers and Student Activity Fee funding were used inappropriately. Medrano highlights concerns over the transparency and legality of the removal process, as well as the misuse of organizational funds.

Desired Decision

Medrano's petition raises questions about the legality and ethics of her removal from the position based on subjective criteria and without a comprehensive vote from the executive board. It also questions the ethical use of Student Activity Fee funding by the organization's leadership.

Conclusion

The petition by Medrano seeking the removal of the President and Vice President of EmbraceThyCrown's current Executive Board and the freezing of Student Activity (SA) Funding was unanimously denied. The votes were 7-0-0 against the removal and 6-0-1 against freezing the funds.

The court ruled that the matters involving the misuse of SA funds should be referred to the Board of Finance for further investigation, ensuring compliance with the Student Association's financial guidelines. Additionally, the court mandated that EmbraceThyCrown update their Student Group Constitution to align with directives from the Supreme Court and current Student Association Constitution standards.

The Supreme Court has outlined that future impeachments and elections of Executive Board members must adhere strictly to the protocols specified in their group's constitution, reflecting the most recent amendments to the Student Association Constitution.

Facts of the Case

Amelia Gleason, a student, filed a petition against the University at Albany Dance Council (UADC), specifically targeting its executive board. The core issue revolved around Gleason's claim that the UADC did not adequately accommodate her medical conditions and restrictions, particularly her inability to enter the Physical Education (PE) building, despite being notified. In response, a special meeting was convened by the Chief Justice of the Student Association Supreme Court, involving UADC's executive board, Gleason, and representatives from the university's campus management and recreation departments. This meeting aimed to explore possible accommodations for Gleason, ensuring she could fulfill her role as a choreographer for the UADC during the spring 2023 semester without conflict with her class schedule or medical needs.

Question

The central question before the Supreme Court of the Student Association was whether the UADC executive board had failed to make proper accommodations for Amelia Gleason's medical conditions and restrictions, thus causing harm to her.

Conclusion

After deliberations, an agreement was reached that addressed the petitioner's needs and provided her with a suitable schedule for choreography. As a result, the Supreme Court of the Student Association found the case to be moot, given that the dispute had been resolved satisfactorily between both parties, eliminating any ongoing controversy. Accordingly, the Court decided to dismiss the petition, with the final vote to not proceed with a hearing being 1 in favor, 4 against, and 0 abstentions. It was noted that one justice was absent from the vote and one seat on the court was vacant at the time.

Facts of the Case

The investigation by the Subcommittee on Ethics involved questioning senators about their participation in a group chat. The chat allegedly included Senators Brianna Ortiz, Jalen Rose, Dylan Klein, Amelia Crawford, Julia Ross-McGuire, Timothy Goldsmith, Liam Agu Vaitkus, Clint Mohammed, and student Ousmane Diallo. The Subcommittee refused to disclose who was under investigation or the specific bylaws in question and did not seek explanations or context for the texts. The petitioners are concerned that the ethical records of the senators involved could be unfairly tarnished based on evidence they argue is inadmissible.

Question(s)

The petitioners posed several questions to the Supreme Court of the Student Association:

• The permissibility of private group chats among senators.

• The allowance for senators to discuss senate matters outside of senate sessions, excluding executive session information.

• The Subcommittee on Ethics' authority to use private communications, such as friend group chats that include senators, in their investigations.

• The application of bylaws to opinionated statements made in private correspondences among senators.

Conclusion

The respondents urged the Court to lift any temporary injunction placed on the investigation and grant a motion for summary judgment in favor of the respondents. They argued that the Court lacks jurisdiction, the case is unripe, and the Ethics Subcommittee's actions were appropriate and within their authority. Respondents called for the dismissal of the case in its entirety or, at the very least, a summary judgment in their favor to reaffirm the subcommittee's power to conduct its investigations according to the bylaws and constitutional principles.