UCLA Graduate Students AssociationForum

Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting Special Meeting

Wednesday, April 13th, 2016 – 5:30 PM

Global Viewpoint Lounge, Ackerman Union

  1. Call to Order and Introductions

Meeting called to order at 5:32 PM by Chiao-Wen Lan

Roll call taken by Chiao-Wen Lan

Chiao-Wen: We have quorum. We need to decide whether or not this meeting can be filmed?

Ian Coley (MPSC): What is the impetus?

Milan Chatterjee: This is an impeachment meeting so we want to have it recorded

Roy Champawat: It will be important to decide who will have access to this film

Milan Chatterjee: I will be the owner of the film

  • Nursing motions to approve filming
  • Law seconds the motion
  • 12 to 5, motion passes, the meeting will be filmed
  1. Approval of Meeting Agenda
  • Law motions
  • MPSC seconds
  • 17 to none, agenda is approved
  1. Consideration of Charges
  • Katherine Myers, Biological Sciences Council
  • Kathy Myers (Bio Sciences): A 2/3 vote is needed to suspend Roberts Rules and limit time for a response.
  • Kathy Myers (Bio Sciences): Presentation of timeline. “October 16th sends an email with a funding stipulation. October 18th: Follow up email. October 24th: Doodle poll on resolution sent to cabinet  no mention of funding. Nov 24th: Admits the cabinet has no authority to add stipulation and indicates it was a “conceptual resolution.” (copied from PPT)
  • Kathy Myers (Bio Sciences): Milan has attacked anyone who has disagreed with him, including Manpreet at the Diversity Caucus and Mohannad from Melnitz Movies. He has attempted to intimidate others. He has hidden behind this very sensitive debate on religious and political discrimination, claiming that this is a witchhunt in which he is a subject of persecution. He has used this to deny his responsibilities and the responsibilities of the GSA to evaluate its members. He indicated that policy existed that did not and he indicated that cabinet had voted on something when they had not. There is no indication that GSA cabinet has any authority to vote on funding for any student event. He does not have any authority in this. Only the Forum and the discretionary funding director can approve student event funding. He lied when he said that this was a policy and that cabinet members had voted on this. The first charge is failure to take and distribute official documents. After the funding decision was placed, there was a request for documentation on that policy on November 19th and he responded in email saying that he would not provide that documentation and he referred the request to UCLA legal. In section d of article 7 of the constitution, information by the GSA should be made available to any GSA member who requests it. The next point is the failure to produce a budget in the codes. He did not attend the first two meetings in the winter quarter and there is no mention of a budget in the fall quarter minutes, so this indicates that he did not perform his duty in providing a budget. Number two, failure to ensure procedural guarantees. This relates to how he came up with and suggested that this funding stipulation existed. There is no authority or manner by which it is documented in the codes or guidelines. What he did is not part of procedure. 3. Acting outside the authority of the cabinet/presidency to create policy and make funding decisions. The president is a non-voting member of the GSA, as is the cabinet. Further, UCLA public records office has no responsive records of a resolution by the GSA cabinet, as the cabinet does not have legislative authority. This reiterates that he claims a resolution existed that he did not have the authority to pass and that there was no record of. Applying policy outside the authority of the office. There is no evidence that the cabinet or the forum was aware of how this resolution was being applied to student groups. I would also like to bring up at this point that UCOP specifically sent us a document on criteria for using student-based fees for funding and it says that campuses should ensure student governments maintain procedures and criteria for supporting organizations from fees that are viewpoint neutral. Appropriate criteria may include the objectively documented organizational needs of the organization based on membership size, its office or equipment status, the extent of financial support the organization receives from other sources, or the production cost associated with a particular event the organization typically sponsors. Such sponsored events supported in whole or in part need not avoid controversial political, religious, or ideological content subject to the understanding that under university policies campuses have a responsibility to ensure an ongoing opportunity for the expression of a variety of viewpoints. Criteria should be publicized widely and regularly. We are supposed to be abiding by this policy. Codes violated: uphold the credibility, integrity, and reputation of the GSA by conducting ourselves at all time in a professional manner, comply with the letter and the intent of the GSA constitution, codes, and policy, and all other applicable governing documents, and also avoid undue harm to others and remain mindful of the need to protect their physical and mental wellbeing. Violating the duty to uphold professional conduct. He has actively worked to discredit those that are concerned with the BDS movement and in his emails to the diversity caucus he only names one side of the debate as ineligible for funding. The first time he names both sides as ineligible for funding was November 5th. Mohannad from Melnitz Movies indicates that Milan was never clear about what the neutrality clause had to do with and hastily held the doodle poll vote without describing that this was attached to funding. Relevant codes are uphold the credibility, integrity, and reputation of the GSA by conducting ourselves at all time in a professional manner, comply with the letter and the intent of the GSA constitution, codes, and policy, and all other applicable governing documents, and honor the responsibility to all members of the GSA by not allowing personal beliefs or interests to interfere with fair representation of the GSA and its members. He misled the GSA cabinet and he lied to the GSA student body about the existence and purpose of the funding restrictions. In his email on October 16th, he says that there is a GSA readership policy; there was no such policy at this time. In an email on October 16th he specifically says that “I’ve included a stipulation with the allocation.” He specifically states that he approved the stipulation. The next charge is not causing undue harm. He has publically accused and denounced other students. This behavior is unprofessional and inappropriate of him as president to be engaging in retaliation and representing the GSA in this manner. The relevant codes are upholding the credibility, integrity, and reputation of the GSA and avoiding undue harm to others. This includes him sending emails to Manpreet’s supervisor at her work outside of this situation. This is completely irrelevant and inappropriate of him. He posted these emails to his personal Scribd page for all to see. He also persecuted the former Melnitz Movies director. He accused him of stealing GSA funds, and Mohannad was then immediately cleared by Roy of ASUCLA. Milan has sent a number of inappropriate emails to the GSA forum with language that is disparaging to the diversity caucus and members of SJP. Relevant codes are upholding the credibility, integrity, and reputation of the GSA and avoiding undue hard to others and remaining mindful of the need to protect their physical and mental wellbeing. The next issue is misusing GSA resources. His use of the email list as GSA president. He has sent emails pushing his own agenda while he has asked our council (bio sciences) and other councils to not push the issue. He indicated that he would not like us to discuss the issue until UCLA legal weighed in. While asking us not to discuss the issue, he was sending out emails forwarding his own side. Also, the misuse of funding, which we have discussed at great length. Relevant codes are upholding the credibility, integrity, and reputation of the GSA, comply with the letter and intent of the GSA constitution, avoid undue harm to others and remain mindful of the need to protect their mental and physical wellbeing, give to the performance of duties the most earnest effort and thought, seeking to find and employ a more efficient or economical way of completing assigned tasks, avoid any actual or possible conflict of interests by placing the interests of our fellow members in advance of our own, and honor our responsibility to all members of the GSA by not allowing our personal beliefs or interests to interfere with the fair representation of aims and interests of the GSA and its members. Next charge is in relation to him representing the GSA, the forum, the graduate student body, and how his actions may be interpreted. He has been spreading personal acts, placing funding restrictions, and not disclosing information. By pursuing a student group over the course of several weeks and monitoring them, he threatened them and let his own personal beliefs interfere. He has allowed his personal beliefs to interfere with his stewardship of the GSA. There are a number of additional documents that support some of these claims from Manpreet as well as from Mohannad and members of SJP. Further documentation is the list of the emails he sent to forum. The only thing that I’ve done is send charges and I have had a complaint filed against me to the dean of students. It is my responsibility as a GSA forum member to ensure that our officers are evaluated.
  1. Milan Chatterjee Rebuttal

I’m here to respond to the accusations that have been leveled against me. This is the path that some members have decided to go on. Let me give you some background. I ran for president on a background that supports diversity events. I met with Manpreet and she brought up the idea of having a diversity caucus and I brought up the idea of GSA cabinet funding this event. The funding was requested outside of the normal channels. Discretionary funding only provides $800 and we did not have the time for Forum to approve this expense. I persuaded the GSA cabinet to provide funding for this event. I connected the Diversity Caucus to USAC for funding and logistical support. I also advised the Diversity Caucus on who else to approach for funding. I invited the Diversity Caucus to GSA Cabinet and Forum to market this event and worked with them to scale down their budget. I worked very closely with Manpreet during this time. On September 17, 2015, UC Regents proposed a “Statement of Principles against Intolerance.” I do not have a stance on this proposal. There was worry among GSA cabinet members who did not want to take a stanceon this issue and risk alienating some students. All GSA cabinet members knew about the stipulation as sent to the Diversity Caucus. A GSA advisor confirmed that the funding condition was legitimate. I gave the stipulation to a Diversity Caucus leader and all the cabinet members knew about it. I said that this applies to both sides of the BDS issue. I reiterated this. The Diversity Caucus accepted the funding and stipulation. I have been under attack that I was dishonest over the phone. The goal of the stipulation was for inclusion and neutrality. That happened to be the goal of the event that we were sponsoring. The Diversity Caucus received two thousand dollars in GSA funding. The event occurred and it was a success. In the aftermath of the event, there was a claim that I practiced viewpoint discrimination and violated the first amendment. I was forced to seek independent legal counsel. The ACLJ and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky agreed that I did not engage in viewpoint discrimination. Supporters of the BDS started writing op-ed letters to the Daily Bruin against me and I started receiving threatening emails from BDS supporters. Supporters of the BDS movement started threatening impeachment and removal against me. A 30-page rap-sheet attempts to throw 16 charges against me. I have been falsely accused of Islamophobia and I take this accusation to be very offensive. Let’s talk about the legal framework of the charges. Let me respond to some of the accusations here. There are sixteen and some of them have multiple charges. Accusation number one: I referred them to the legal department for support and this is general practice. Accusation number two: failure to produce a budget – ASUCLA was running late in getting the necessary enrollment figures due to administrative issues so I could not. Accusation 3: we run GSA cabinet meetings according to Roberts Rules of orders. We use doodle polls because we only meet once a month. The conceptual resolution was supposed to be binding on this year’s GSA cabinet, not the Forum. The neutrality stance had nothing to do with the funding of this event. Being neutral on BDS has been the stance of previous administrations. Accusation number 4: I’ve never received requests for meeting and voting records. It is not my responsibility to provide these items. We have a new website that I helped spearhead. Accusation 5: The resolution was passed unanimously by the cabinet and was related to the statement against intolerance, not the funding stipulation. The entire cabinet and GSA advisors knew about the stipulation and did not oppose it. Accusation 6: When a group seeks special emergency funding from Cabinet, this is tantamount to Cabinet endorsing it. The supreme court has ruled that funding is a form of speech. Accusation 7: I never made such a comment nor do I have the time/interest to monitor such actions. I received notification that SJP was planning to sue GSA. I spoke to advisors who said that we could keep the funding and the stipulation in place. At the end of the day the event happened. Accusation 8 The stipulation had unanimous support of the GSA cabinet and no members voiced any dissent or objections. This whole thing came up because SJP leaders came to me and they were pushy, almost intimidating me. This is a big issue. Mr. Ghawanmehafter a long conversation with me decided to support the neutrality. Accusation 9: the entire cabinet knew about the stipulation with no opposition. Accusation 10: As mentioned before, when I put question to cabinet by emails and doodle polls I only act with unanimous consent. Manpreet could not wait for cabinet to meet to get the funding; to accommodate her we had to do an electronic vote. The only way I could get unanimous consent was with the stipulation. I’m really sorry that cabinet funding became such a big deal. Cabinetshould not be funding events like this anymore. I’ll let you all decide. Accusation 11: I worked to ensure the Diversity Town Hall was a success. The diversity caucus and SJP were spreading these accusations falsely at meeting where I could not be present. Under the GSA rules and bylaws, and the First Amendment, I have the right to defend myself against false accusations. Accusation 12: Catherine Wilson serves as the Diversity Caucus’s faculty advisor. Dr. Wilson was cc’d on the email. Neither Ms. Dhillon nor Dr. Wilson voiced any concerns about my email. Engaging in retaliation: Mohannad violated the GSA bylaws. He attended a trip without receiving cabinet funding. He purchased a ticket without speaking to me or any cabinet members. He did not follow the bylaws. He did not get cabinet approval and never got retroactive approval. The truth is this trip was for the personal agenda of cabinet members. I’m stuck with his mess that he didn’t fix. Accusation 13: essentially this accusation is that I shouldn’t be able to defend myself. I wanted to share with you what was going on. Far from inappropriate, I passed on news articles and letters. Accusation 14: they’re claiming that I have no right to express my views on any matter at all to Forum. Accusation 15: A ‘standing question’ is not a charge. This is so vague that I can’t even tell what they’re alleging. Accusation 16: the funding stipulation was the only way I could get the cabinet to approve emergency funding. It had nothing to do with my personal beliefs. They complain that because I made statements defending myself, and not all students agree with me, I failed to “represent” all students. In closing, this is another BDS witch-hunt. This has been happening for five months and a day before elections start. “Palestine legal regularly publicizes its role in recurring “victories” for anti-Israel students.” My position is defended by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Judea Pearl, the ACLJ, and more. I propose we move to end the debate. I propose the GSA fund a viewpoint neutral symposium on Israeli-Palestinian Relations and the Peace Process in the Middle East which shall include a panel discussion dedicated to airing all viewpoints. I’m going to distribute this PowerPoint. Thank you very much for being here and being involved. I apologize for wasting your time like this for five months.