In response to Undergraduate Student Government Senate concerns and The Daily Collegian's one-sided story, we would like to fully explain our position on the leave of absence sent to us by USG Supreme Court Chief Justice Corey O'Brien. First and foremost, the executive branch has no jurisdiction in a Supreme Court leave of absence, as it is an internal court matter. Thus, we do not have the authority to approve or deny such a leave of absence.

Unfortunately, no leave of absence provision exists in the USG constitution or Supreme Court Procedures Act. In fact, the USG constitution clearly states that "Supreme Court and inferior court judges shall hold their position until they graduate, resign or are convicted following impeachment proceedings." In O'Brien's case, none of these three events have occurred. Further, the Supreme Court Procedures Act does not contain a provision for removal due to absences. The Procedures Act empowers the USG president to fill Court vacancies, yet O'Brien has not vacated his position. Thus, we are now faced with what is known as a "constitutional crisis:" There is nothing in any of our governing documents to accommodate the current situation.

We discussed this issue at great length before issuing the memo of Jan. 18, 1995. We concluded that the executive branch had no original jurisdiction in Supreme Court matters of this nature. Consequently, we chose to inform the senate of the status quo: that O'Brien had given us his letter, and that Justice James O'Rourke was next in the line of succession based on seniority.

We would like to make it abundantly clear that the executive branch has no authority to alter this chain of events. Justice O'Rourke taking a leadership role in the absence of the chief is standard operating procedure --the same way the vice president would replace the president or the Legislation and Appropriations Review Committee chair would replace the senate president if either were absent from the organization. We have not appointed, promoted or confirmed anyone; no executive action was taken other than to inform the senate of the Court's own course of action. Had the memo been distributed as was requested and according to standard operating procedure (president's reports, treasurer's reports, etc.), the senate would have been properly apprised of the situation. Because the New Business section of the meeting was mysteriously moved to the top of the senate agenda, our report on this matter was effectively prevented. Thus, the full senate was twice denied the opportunity to receive this report from the executive, and was then asked to take action without the necessary background knowledge. We are deeply concerned about the implications of this withholding of crucial information.

The Court has clear authority over all other branches in this situation. Article VII., Section B. of the USG constitution states that "The Judicial Branch shall have jurisdiction in all matters covered in the Constitution, and other laws in pursuance thereof." Section C. states that "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jursidiction in all judicial matters within." Section D. further states that "inferior court guidelines shall be subject to Supreme Court approval."

Article II, Section 1 of the Supreme Court Procedures Act states that "The Court shall have original jurisdiction in all disputes arising over the legislative jurisdiction of the USG Senate and/or the USG Academic Assembly." Article II, Section 3 further states that "The Court shall have original jurisdiction in cases involving the constitutionality of any legislative or executive action or decree taken by the USG. It shall not be necessary to bring such action to the attention of the Court."

As such, we urge pursuit of this matter with the USG Supreme Court. In the future, we stronly recommend full communication rather than withholding of information. We must settle this matter as expeditiously as possible, while not losing our focus of serving students first.