Former Legislative Vice President Karlton Brown’s appeal of his removal of office was denied on a technicality of time. According to ASG
adviser Sean Henderson, Brown’s appeal was turned in past the official deadline of 5 p.m. on Dec. 2. According to Brown’s phone records, the appeal was sent on Dec. 2 at 5:12 p.m.
   Brown said he waited until the deadline because he wanted to ensure that his appeal was complete and adequately represented his point of view. “I took a lot of time gathering information – reading through the regulations, reading through the bylaws so I can basically explain
the place that I am coming from,” he said.
      ASG president Cindy Quiralte said that the appeals process began with adviser Sean Henderson sending Brown a “formal letter on how to handle
the appeals process.” Quiralte also said that Brown followed the appeals process until he submitted it on Dec. 2.
      Brown, who was removed from office on Nov. 1, said he formally appealed the decision because his impeachment was unjust. “I am specifically
appealing the ASG decision because it was unconstitutional and I feel that the charges against me were unwarranted,” he said.
      According to Brown, he was denied the fair and impartial hearing guaranteed him by the ASG constitution.  He said that during the
discussion that initiated his removal, ASG was asked to “formally go on record with a straw poll.” He added, “Due to the inflammatory
nature of the discussion and the vote that was held, the members were asked to go on record regarding my guilt or innocence before a hearing
had even been discussed.”
      As action toward Brown’s removal proceeded, the perceived unfairness continued. “When I was finally told specifically what I was being
charged with,” wrote Brown in his appeal, “my guilt or innocence was already assumed by the Senate.”
      Brown also said that grounds for his removal were trivial. “The only thing they offered to support the other charges was groupthink and
gossip. ‘One day in the office I saw this,’ or ‘we all feel frustrated,’ is not evidence.” He also said that all members of ASG
made mistakes from time to time, yet they were not removed from office. He said that if failure to immediately respond to emails were grounds for impeachment, “there wouldn’t be any members of ASG left.”
  Before his impeachment, Brown was formally charged with failing to perform his duties as outlined by the ASG constitution. Brown claims,
however, that “the better part of their charges had nothing to do with what the constitution said was my responsibility, and more to do with
what certain members felt SHOULD [sic.] be my responsibilities.” He also said, “…all I was concerned about was following the rules and
doing my best. My accuser had to look OUTSIDE [sic.] the constitution and bylaws in order to impeach me.”
      The constitution outlines several duties of LVP, the first being the responsibility to “Coordinate and monitor college committee and
student seats provided under AB 1725 regarding shared governance. ”Brown was charged with neglecting the responsibility to create and
schedule standing committees for ASG, to which he responded, “ASG does have standing internal committees and someone needs to form and
schedule them, but the constitution and bylaws do not assign that responsibility to me.”
  Brown was also accused of not attending ASG sponsored functions. Brown denied this accusation. “I attended multiple club rushes,” he wrote,
“and instead of passively standing at the booth, I was actively engaging with the students.”
  Yet another charge against Brown was that he exceeded the number of unexcused absences allowed by the constitution. During the impeachment
process, Brown claimed that this charge was unfair, as he informed President Quiralte that Senate meetings conflicted with his work
schedule.  The absences and tardies that resulted were, according to Brown, excused at the beginning of the semester. He accuses ASG of
having double standards. He said, “When [the person who decides what is excused and what is unexcused] indulges every other member and frequently
leaves early, shows up late, and allows all other manner of personal obligations to interfere with the conduct of their duties, I call that person a hypocrite for questioning my devotion to the student body.” He also said, “To unfairly single me out in such a way for something so trivial would be at best hypocritical and at worst predatory.”
   Although Brown’s appeal was denied by Student Services, it can be submitted to other administrative bodies for review. If it is accepted, the appeal would be reviewed by a Constitutional Appeals Committee of impartial members appointed by President Quiralte and Henderson.  “There are other alleys that this can go to to be heard,” said Quiralte. “That’s why we went ahead and approved the committee, because we don’t know what can happen. To be safe, we wanted to have
some type of procedure in place.”
      If this does indeed happen, there is no predictable timeline for when the appeal might be granted. President Quiralte said that there is no
guarantee the selected committee members will still be able to commit to the appeal.
  Though Brown says he does not hold any resentment towards ASG, he also said, “I want to let them know that…you just can’t do that to people
and expect them to sit down and not fight for it.”