After hours of debate, members of the ASG Rules Committee realized late Tuesday that they were not yet ready to decide whether Mo Safdari should stand trial for impeachment, according to ASG Parliamentarian Grace Adamson.
“A prudent decision is better for the organization in the long-term than a hasty one,” Adamson said. A simple majority vote is required for the committee to impeach Safdari, a Weinberg junior and the newly-elected Academic Director. If the committee votes to impeach, the case — and a recommended punishment — would move to the Senate, which would vote whether to convict.
Safdari came under fire before Friday’s presidential run-off election when he sent an e-mail — which was forwarded to various listservs — accusing candidate Bill Pulte of several campaign violations. The ASG election commission cited the e-mail for having “several issues of slander, libel and defamation.” With 60 percent of the vote, Mike McGee defeated Pulte in the run-off election, after Pulte led the general election by 33 votes.
There was hope that a potential trial could start as early as this Wednesday. There simply wasn’t enough time to sufficiently debate the issue, Adamson said. The SESP junior said she hopes the committee will make its decision in time for next Wednesday’s ASG Senate meeting.
Will Upton, a Weinberg senior, has spearheaded the case against Safdari, and “took it upon himself” to write the impeachment articles. “I understand why [the committee postponed],” he said. “I think they took the necessary steps to make an informed decision.”
Part of the reason for the length and complexity of proceedings is that impeachment cases have rarely made serious headway in ASG, Adamson said. Interpreting the material about impeachment in the ASG Code and Constitution, especially in the context of lingering political and personal tension, has been “very difficult,” she added.
Upton has asked Safdari to “immediately resign and save everyone the grief” of continued proceedings. Safdari, who argued in his own defense after Upton presented the case for impeachment, declined to comment for this story.
Arguments on both sides ranged from the personal to the legal. Both parties even spoke as to whether or not Safdari’s emails amounts to defamation under Illinois law.
The central questions in making a determination are whether Safdari’s actions, not his intentions, were in irreconcilable opposition to ASG standards and guidelines, and whether these actions will “impede his ability to carry out his duties as Academic Director,” Adamson said.
Upton also claimed in the meeting that Safdari’s email swayed the results of the run-off presidential election. He cited page 17 of a report from student analysts in the Institute for Student Business Education that breaks down voting results. The report states: “Due to the defamatory email sent by a McGee supporter, the election was definitively biased in regard to the voter pool … We attribute the large margin between the candidates to this event.”
In the meeting, Safdari reiterated his argument that the email was never meant to be public and said that he still has support from administrators and student group leaders. Mark Witte, the ASG faculty adviser, said in the meeting that he was still excited to work with Safdari.
The committee does not expect to receive new information as proceedings progress, just more time to debate. If the case does, in fact, move to the senate next Wednesday, Samir Pendse, the senate speaker, has prepared an explanation of the format of the trial.
Editor's note: This post was updated at 9:20 a.m. on April 28, 2015 for clarity.