INCLUDEPI
CTURE

'hllp "asuc GRIEVANCE FORM

scieduldot:
lasilogo git"

MERGEFO
RMATINET

ALL ITEMS ON THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED TO THE A.S. CLERK
WITHIN 21 ACADEMIC DAYS OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.

Complainant Name: Ella Chen, UCSD Undergraduate Student and Editor-in-Chief of The
Triton

Complainant Phone Number--

Complainant UCSD E-mail address: yjc012@ucsd.edu
Accused Party: Associated Students of UC San Diego Senate

Allegation Rule/Bylaw Citation: ASUCSD Constitution Section 8. Meetings

"Ail meetings of the Senate shail be open to the pubiic except when dealing with matters ofpersannel,
existing or anticipated litigation, license or permit determination, threat to public services or facilities, labor
negotiations, investments, cantracs, or real property negotiations."

Date and Time of Alleged Violation: ASUCSD Senate meetingjanuary 15, 2020 at 6:00 pm.
Location of Alleged Violation: ASUCSD Senate Meeting Price Center 4th Fioor Forum

Summary of Relevant Supporting Evidence:

During the Associated Students of UC San Diego (ASUCSD) Senate meeting onJanuary 15, 2020,
the Senate initiated and heid an executive session, henceforth referred to as a "ciosed session,"
for a presentation by University Centers Advisory Board (UCAB) ChairJoey Mendoza entitied
"Student Mental Heaith" (Attachment 1). According to ASUCSD Vice President of Campus Affairs
(VPCA) Melina Reynoso, Mendoza was not acting in their official capacity as Chair of UCAB
(Attachment 2).

Reynosojustified the ciosed session via emaii (Attachment 2), saying that, "Any presentation
regarding personnel of UCSD can warrant a closed session, our constitution does not ciearly
define what personnel matters are so if there are any questions or concerns as to what
constitutes personneljrboard could be called to interpret the constitution. Aithough we can't
reveal anything about the content of what was said during the meeting, I can say that the

Attachment i:Agenda

Attachment 2: Emaiis with VPCA Reynoso
Attachment ASUC

Attachment . Brown Act

  

presentation was done by Joey Mendoza in his capacity as a student not in any regards to his 
capacity as UCAB chair.” 
We argue that ASUCSD Senate violated Section 8 of the ASUCSD constitution by too broadly 
applying the personnel justification to discuss matters pertaining to any UCSD personnel. The 
lack of a clear interpretation for the parameters of a personnel justification is an oversight 
which, left undefined as it now is, leaves room for ASUCSD to close sessions without reasonable 
justification. We interpret Section 8 based on precedents set by both state law and other 
Associated Students government organizations: The Brown Act and the Constitution for ASUC. 
The ​Brown Act​ (Attachment 4), states that personnel justification may be invoked in the case of 
public employee appointment, performance evaluations, discipline, dismissal, or release​. The 
information provided by VPCA Reynoso does not cite any of the relevant justifications. The 
Brown Act applies to governmental bodies in the state of California, except those under the UC 
Board of Regents. The UC Board of Regents bylaws require the Board of Regents to follow the 
Brown Act (​UC Board of Regents Bylaw 27.1 g​). 
The ​Constitution for ASUC​ (Attachment 3), the student government for UC Berkeley, draws 
similar parameters for closed sessions to the Brown Act. Its personnel justifications are, ​“Matters 
concerning the appointment, employment, performance, compensation, sanctioning, or dismissal of 
employees, excluding elected and appointed officials. Matters concerning the sanctioning or dismissal 
of officials may be held in closed session with the consent of the person facing sanctions or dismissal.” 
The closed session held on January 15 does not fit the ASUC criteria for a personnel justification. 
A private audience by a student who is not ASUCSD personnel, giving a presentation that is not 
about the appointment, employment, performance, compensation, etc., of Associated Students 
of UC San Diego personnel adheres to neither of the aforementioned standards. If Section 8 is 
to be interpreted in line with these standards, then the January 15 closed session represents a 
constitutional violation. 
We are particularly concerned about the use of a personnel justification to close the session in 
question because ASUCSD Senate approved the student mental health/CAPS student fee 
referendum to be placed on the ballot around an hour following Mendoza’s presentation on 
“Student Mental Health.” There is a clear need for public transparency around this presentation 
if the UCSD community is to make an informed decision this spring. Students should have full 
disclosure as to why and how their elected leaders chose to unanimously approve a fee 
referendum. 
We believe that the personnel justification should be interpreted for personnel under the direct 
supervision of ASUCSD, with similar expectations as the Brown Act and the ASUC Constitution. 
Allowing ASUCSD Senate to use closed sessions in this manner is a betrayal of public trust. It has 
Attachment 1: Agenda 
Attachment 2: Emails with VPCA Reynoso 
Attachment 3: ASUC 
Attachment 4: Brown Act

 the potential to justify a closed session for numerous topics that should otherwise be held 
publicly for the benefit of constituents, simply by citing that the topic of conversation includes 
discussion of any arbitrary UCSD personnel. 
We ask the Judicial Board to rule on whether the closed session in question was in violation of 
Section 8 and to clearly define the extent to which "personnel" matters can justify holding a 
closed, private session during Senate meetings. 
 
 
 
____________________________ 
Signature of Complainant 
 
 
_______________________________ 
Date of Filing 
 

Attachment 1: Agenda 
Attachment 2: Emails with VPCA Reynoso 
Attachment 3: ASUC 
Attachment 4: Brown Act