Student Government Association v. Ritchie

Facts of the case:

Between 8pm and 9:30 PM on Thursday October 26, 2023, there was a minor facility concern in Ritchie's apartment. The concern was brought up with hall staff by Ritchie’s roommate around 8pm, and they were informed around 8:15pm that this was not considered an emergency maintenance issue and that they would need to submit a work order and ignore it for the rest of the night. Around 9pm, Ritchie and his roommate had one of their friends, who is an RA in another building, call the Maroon RHC on Call regarding the situation because they knew she had the RHC phone number. At 9:36 PM, Ritchie messaged a GRHC who was a member of the Campus Activities Board (CAB) asking for RHC's phone number who was also a member of CAB. When asked why, he stated that he needed to call her. Ritchie was informed that the GRHC in CAB would not be giving him this information, and if it was related to housing, and the building that she ran, he would need to contact her and not Judd. The GRHC in CAB was communicating with the RHC at this time, where the RHC made it clear that she did not want Ritchie to contact her so it was relayed to Ritchie that if he needed to contact Judd outside of housing concerns, he could do so through less invasive means, as he does have Judd on GroupMe, a professional messaging platform. Ritchie responded "Ok" but followed up by calling Judd's personal phone number. Judd asked who was calling her and how they got her number. Ritchie responded saying they had called before. This was contested to be untrue, as Aleigha has stated she always saves the contacts of people who text or call her, since her phone declines unknown callers. Additionally, there is no record of a call ever being received from Ritchie. It was later found out that Ritchie accessed the Student Government Association roster to retrieve Judd’s personal phone number. This was later confirmed by EVP Clayton Lathan that Ritchie had accessed the SGA 23-24 Roster around this time. It was also made clear that no residents should have access to the work numbers of RHC’s or GRHC’s and much worse, they should not have access to their personal phone numbers.

During the investigation into him, Ritchie abruptly confronted the Special Investigator on the case, Associate Chief Justice White, and asked that he come into his office for a “discussion.” After Special Investigator White denied entry several times and Ritchie persisted, White entered Ritchie’s office reluctantly. While White was in his office, Ritchie told White that if he did not cease the investigation into him, he was pursuing legal action against White and the complainants. Additionally, he stated that if White interviewed witnesses any further, he would pursue legal action against White directly. White subsequently added two additional charges to the 3 Ritchie was already facing.

Later the same day, Ritchie called another member of the association who recorded the phone call as evidence due to previous misconduct by Ritchie that occurred but was not evident. In the phone call, Ritchie admitted to the misconduct of accessing Judd’s personal number, threatening Special Investigator White and the complainants, threatening the Chief Justice, and threatening University Facilities for bringing forth the case. The phone call recording was subsequently submitted as evidence against Ritchie.

Ritchie argued that it was his job as a Regent member to make sure people were doing their jobs and that he had a right to threaten legal action against White for investigating the case. Next, he argued that because it was not expressly stated in the bylaws that the roster can’t be used for any purpose, that he did not violate the bylaws. Third, he also argued that Special Investigator White was biased in his investigation and that this was the only reason the case went forward. Finally, Ritchie argued that this case should be handled by real courts and that the Student Court had no jurisdiction.

Question:

Was Special Investigator White Biased in his investigation?

Was Ritchie within his duties as a Regent member to access Judd’s personal number?

Because provisions about the roster with member’s personal numbers and contact information was not expressly provided within the Constitution and Bylaws, did Ritchie abuse his power and access to the roster by getting his RHC’s personal number?

Was Ritchie within his rights to threaten Special Investigator White to drop the charges against him before a full investigation was completed?

Was the Student Court within its jurisdiction to hear this case?

Answer:

In a unanimous decision by the Student Court, Ritchie was found guilty of Misuse of Position, Threatening Behaviors, and Conduct unbecoming of an SGA member. The Court answered every question within the Case in Chief that was presented to them. They offered these opinions.

First, The Court ruled that Special Investigator White did not act in a biased manner in his investigation and that it was reasonable to add the additional charges after Ritchie threatened him to drop the charges.

Second, The Court ruled that Ritchie was not within his duties as a Regent member to access Judd’s personal phone number. The Court received evidence that although Ritchie was a Regent member, he was still a student and must follow student rules. Ritchie, as a student is not allowed to have access to the RHC number and abused his position to get the personal number of the RHC instead. The Court also decided that Ritchie could have contacted Judd through less invasive means but chose not to.

Third, the court ruled that although the bylaws did not have provisions regarding access to the SGA roster, it was generally agreed upon and set precedent from the last few years that the SGA roster should only be used for emergencies, to add members to the groupme, or for SGA related purposes. The Court received substantial evidence that Ritchie used the roster for none of those things and instead used it for his own personal gain.

Fourth, The Court ruled that Ritchie was not within his rights to threaten legal action against Special Investigator White. The Court considered this an attempt to obstruct justice as the investigation into it had only begun that morning and he said he would only pursue legal action if White continued to investigate. Additionally, the court agreed that pursuant to the Student Code of conduct, this was an attempt to intimidate White into dropping the investigation, which was not successful.

Fifth, The Court ruled that it was well within its jurisdiction to hear and review the evidence in this case because Ritchie violated SGA bylaws and the Student Code of Conduct, which gives the Court original jurisdiction.