The decision made by the Student Government Council at the Modesto Maidique Campus Supreme Court serves as a further reminder of the contentious division that comes with the two campus council system.
On Feb. 4, the SGC-MMC Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner in Ex Parte Velez SC 001 and stated that the University-wide Activity & Service fee budget should be approved by both the MMC and Biscayne Bay Campus Senates.
By defending its jurisdiction over their ruling in Ex Parte Velez at the Feb. 6 SGC-MMC Senate meeting, the campus’ Supreme Court failed to acknowledge, once again, the implications that this ruling has over University-wide legal matters. The ruling, which undoubtedly affected both MMC and BBC, should have had representation from each respective council.
Yet, the SGC-MMC Supreme Court’s position on their jurisdiction in the case is evidence of a flawed system. In their report to the SGC-MMC Senate, the respective Supreme Court felt it was not required to involve BBC in this case due to their interpretation of Article V, Section 5, Subsection 2 of the SGA Constitution regarding the creation of an ad hoc court for University-wide cases. By deciding on this case without doing so, the SGC-MMC Supreme Court set the precedence that there is no need for an SGC-BBC Judicial branch.
The current system does not work due to the divisive nature of having two judiciaries, with this case serving as a clear example. According to an article published on Feb. 6 in The Beacon, members of SGC-BBC, such as Senate Speaker Pablo Haspel, felt that SGC-BBC’s exclusion from the decision in Ex Parte Velez exemplified the ongoing “lack of communication” between both councils.
The creation of a single Supreme Court would shift the focus from campus specific interests to that of the entire University community. This case emphasized that any matters petitioned to the court ultimately affect the entire University—not just one campus.
Furthermore, the single Supreme Court will serve as a stepping stone towards a unified University by having it structured with four associate justices from both BBC and MMC with the Chief Justice being jointly recommended to both campus specific senates as a means of having the Court’s leadership remaining neutral towards the campus specific egos that Ex Parte Velez has brought forth to the public eye.
A single Supreme Court, with knowledge of both campus’ government documents, would be the needed impartial presence in legal matters.
Even though the University is divided into two campuses and multiple centers, they still form FIU. Court rulings should be handled the same way; as a unified voice.
About Post Author
