Oral arguments in the Union Judiciary case In re Diana Aronin will begin at 4 p.m. on Jan. 24, according to Chief Justice of the Union Judiciary Judah Marans '11. The case will determine whether Student Union Secretary Diana Aronin '11 will be removed from office after the Union Senate impeached her Dec. 5. The Senate impeached Aronin unanimously for her failure to introduce to the student body a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to create the position of midyear senator.

The Senate also censured Student Union President Andy Hogan '11 for recommending that Aronin not put the amendment up for a vote.

Ryan Fanning '11 is the lead counsel representing the Senate, the claimant in this case, and Jackie Saffir '10 and Mark Trilling '12 are associate counsels.

Aronin's counsel, Deena Glucksman '11, moved to have the trial dismissed, writing in her motion that "the impeachment was voted upon and enacted unconstitutionally," but the UJ denied the motion on Dec. 12, finding that the impeachment was in fact reached by a two-thirds vote despite Glucksman's arguments that not enough members of the Senate were present.

Glucksman's arguments in defense of Aronin center around three points, according to the brief she submitted to the UJ.

She argues that the Senate meeting at which the amendment was originally proposed was not a regularly scheduled Senate meeting, which makes the proposal invalid.

She also writes that Jon Freed '08, the amendment's sponsor, was not a valid sponsor of the amendment because he graduated before the amendment was passed, and so "Freed has no standing to exercise the constitutional rights granted to Union members, including the sponsorship of an amendment proposal."

The third prong of the argument is that Aronin acted constitutionally by deferring to her instructions from Hogan not to present the amendment for a vote.

Glucksman elaborates in the brief that the May 3, 2009 Senate meeting at which the amendment was originally proposed was "not a 'regularly scheduled Senate meeting' because it was not held in accordance with . [the Union] bylaws."

The brief demonstrates that the meeting took place during Brandeis' finals period instead of when classes were in session and that it therefore was not a part of the spring 2009 semester.

According to Union bylaws, "meetings of the Senate shall be held at least once every ten academic days during the Spring and Fall Semesters."

Her final argument states, "Because President Hogan is ultimately responsible for Secretary Aronin's actions as a member of the Union Executive Office and for upholding the Constitution, Secretary Aronin's decision to defer to President Hogan's judgment was the proper course of action and was in accordance with the Constitution."

The Senate's counselors state in their brief, "The sponsors of the amendment took all appropriate measures for the proposal to be put to a vote of the Union," and, "It was the responsibility of the Secretary to both notify the Union of and submit the proposal for such a vote."

The brief responds to Glucksman's arguments, explaining that a semester is properly defined as a grading period instead of the duration of classes.

The counselors also state, "Nowhere in the constitution does it require that the sponsor of a proposed amendment be a Union member."

The brief states that it was not within either Hogan's or Aronin's powers to decide whether the amendment should be put up for a vote, concluding, "It is clear that Secretary Aronin acted within the scope of her own power in choosing not put the amendment up for a vote and outside the scope of her power in her reasoning as to why she should do so."

While the Senate's counselors had submitted a brief to the UJ arguing that the trial should be closed to the general public with the exception of the media, they later withdrew the brief.

Hogan and Aronin had submitted amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, briefs arguing that the trial should remain open to the Brandeis community.

On Jan. 17, the UJ ruled that there was no need to "address the arguments presented in the withdrawn brief" and that the trial would remain open to the public.

-Erin Doniger contributed reporting.