The Union Judiciary heard oral arguments in the case In re Diana Aronin on Jan. 24 during a public hearing. The arguments were about whether Student Union Secretary Diana Aronin '11, who was impeached by the Union Senate on Dec. 5, should be removed from office.The Senate impeached Aronin for failing to present a constitutional amendment that proposed creating the position of midyear senator to the student body for a vote. Union President Andy Hogan '11 was censured for recommending that Aronin not submit the amendment to be voted upon.

Ryan Fanning '11 represented the Student Union. His associate counsels, Jackie Saffir '10 and Mark Trilling '12, were not present at the trial. Aronin was represented by Deena Glucksman '11.

The members of the Union Judiciary present were Chief Justice Judah Marans '11 and Associate Justices Matt Kriegsman '11, Neda Eid '11 and Justin Pierre-Louis '10. Associate Justice Leeyat Slyper '12 was not present.

Fanning argued, "The Student Union Senate was forced to impeach Secretary Aronin for deliberate abrogation of her duties under the Constitution."

Glucksman posited that Jon Freed '09, the amendment's original sponsor, could not amend the Union Constitution after he graduated because the Constitution no longer applied to him at that point. Fanning pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a person must be a current Brandeis undergraduate to propose an amendment. He argued that because the proposal had the required support from the student body in the form of signatures, it was valid regardless of who originally proposed it.

Glucksman also argued that the amendment proposal was invalid because it was not presented at a "regularly scheduled Senate meeting."

To support that statement, she presented a survey from a 1995 Pennsylvania State University Faculty Senate meeting that lists the duration of Brandeis' semester as 65 days as well as an e-mail from the Department of Community Living that states that students must leave campus within 24 hours of their last final.

Glucksman stated, "[Aronin] had no choice but to not put [the amendment] to a vote." Fanning argued that the UJ has no way of knowing if the survey is valid or if it even still applies since it was conducted so long ago.

Union Vice President Amanda Hecker '11 and Aronin were called as witnesses. Hecker testified that Senate meetings are usually not held during finals period but also stated that there was quorum-the number of Senators required for a meeting to be valid-at the meeting where the amendment was proposed.

Glucksman said that she had planned on calling Union Treasurer Daniel Acheampong '11 and Executive Senator Jenna Rubin '11 as witnesses, but they were not able to attend the trial.

Marans asked Fanning and Glucksman if they believed there was a difference between violating the letter of the Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution and whether a person should be punished in each of these situations. Fanning said that a person should be punished for violating what is explicitly written, but punishment for violating the spirit of the Constitution should be considered based on the individual case. Glucksman agreed with Fanning on the first point but was unsure regarding the second.

Aronin said in an e-mail to the Justice, "It was strange that certain members of the senate who were directly involved with this situation were not in attendance."

She also wrote, "I have no predictions about the verdict. The Judiciary has heard both sides and it is now all in their hands. The Judiciary led a smooth trial and now we just have to wait."

Marans said that the verdict will be announced to the student body Jan. 31.