Syracuse University & State University of New York College of Environmental Science and

Forestry

60th Legislative Session

The Judicial Review Board of Student Association

Findings of the Judicial Review
The Judicial Review Board of the Student Association is responsible for overseeing the
actions of the Association and is responsible for resolving any violations to the Student
Association Constitution and Bylaws. The Judicial Review Board as powered by these governing
documents has the sole and authoritative power to enforce punishments, if necessary, in the
result of receiving substantive, authenticate, and unbiased testimony/evidence. The Judicial
Review Board was inquired to review the actions, or lack thereof, of the President of the Student
Association, Eric Evangelista, of whom many witnesses stated he did not follow the instructions
of the Assembly regarding the nomination of Public Relations Co-Chair that took place on
January 23, 2017.

Violations in Question

1. Constitution Article 4.2 states: The Student Association President shall be elected by the
student body. The President shall be the recognized spokesperson for the Association, and shall
determine the policy goals of the Association as a whole. The President shall be responsible for
executing the decisions of the Assembly.
a. This is in response to Evangelistas failure to send out a campus-wide announcement
allowing for the student body to apply for the available PR position on the 60th Session
Cabinet.
2. Bylaws article 6.3.2 states: During this time both the JRB, AdOp and the party of the accused
will remain sequestered from releasing any information about the case to any student or officer
of the assemble.
a. 6.3.2.1 and 6.3.2.2 are excluded from the provisions.
b. After Notice of Violation was emailed to Eric Evangelista, the President sent out an
email, originally intended for the Cabinet and the Assembly but accidentally included the
Student Body, via SA-listserv, and therefore sent the email out to the undergraduate
student body.
3. Bylaws Article 4.2 states: It is prohibited for any officer to engage in activity that can be
perceived as coercive, underhanded, or manipulative in an attempt to gain an advantage of any
kind within the Student Association, an RSO, or any outside organization that is unaffiliated with
SU or SUNY-ESF. 4.2.1 Explicit situations pertaining to these types of behaviors include, but
are not limited to, vote counting, blackmail, harassment or bullying of any kind, slander, libel,
personal attacks, bribery, coercion, distortion, or trading favors.
a. This violation was observed from evidence and testimonies gathered during the hearing
process stating that Evangelista misinformed Assembly about Joyce LaLondes, Student
Association Vice President, role in the nomination process of the PR Co-Chair nominee,
Nicole Sherwood.
b. In addition to Assemblys concerns and disapproval of the nomination due to the lack
of communications with the rest of the student body, that was deemed to be an
exclusionary action, Evangelista appeared to have given Sherwood a biased advantage.
i. Evidence obtained by the Judicial Review Board indicates that
Evangelista had falsely claimed that Sherwood was one of the Co-Chairs
for Public Relations in an email thread involving senior-level
administrators at the University on January 20, 2017. At that time, Nicole
Sherwood was not an elected official of the Association or part of any
Committees or Boards. Sherwoods nomination was brought to the
Assembly on January 23, 2017 for a confirmation vote that was
unanimously objected by the Assembly.

Findings of the Judicial Review

1. In accordance with the Constitutional Violation, Article 4.2, the Judicial Review Board has
found Eric Evangelista NOT GUILTY.
a. Nicole Sherwoods nomination was tabled indefinitely by the Assembly until an
inclusive appointment process for the PR Co-Chair was exercised. While Evangelista was
indeed required to send out an email campus-wide regarding the vacant seat, the
defendant claims that an email was planned for February 1, 2017 due to strategic timing
and pending additional information that were supposed to go on the same email.
Furthermore, while the Assembly reportedly discussed wanting to set a timeframe for
when an email should be sent out campus-wide, Assembly Representatives made a
motion to table the nomination indefinitely and decided not to include a time frame.
1. The Judicial Review Board found no official timeframe set by the
Assembly in the meeting minutes, as a result, JRB ruled that Evangelista is
not in violation of this Constitutional Article.

As a result of the investigation of the previous violation claim, the Judicial Review Board has
found that ethical violations were committed by the President due to the following reasons:

2. In accordance with the Bylaws Article 6.3.2, the Judicial Review Board has found Eric
Evangelista GUILTY
a. After the Judicial Review Board has reported to the appropriate parties of a possible
violation of governing codes, all parties involved are prohibited from sending notice or
any information pertaining to the investigations to the media or general public without
written approval of the Judicial Review Board and the Public Relations Chair (currently
vacant).
b. Despite the fact that the email sent out to the student body listserv was most likely
submitted due to error, the reasoning for restrictions on communication with the press
and public is to prevent confidential information from leaking out and creating potential
bias among prospective witnesses and testimonies.
c. The Judicial Review Board has evidence of both the public email sent out and reports
of Eric speaking with the media without explicit prior approval.
3. In accordance with Bylaws Article 4.2 and 4.2.1, the Judicial Review Board has found Eric
Evangelista GUILTY
a. Testimonies obtained during the hearing process found that Evangelista did not
communicate his decision of nominating Nicole Sherwood for the position of Co-Chair of
Public Relations with the Vice President, Joyce LaLonde, despite reaffirming multiple
times that he in fact did.
b. The Judicial Review Board has received emails and physical evidence stating that Eric
has/had arranged meetings with administrators of the university stating that Nicole was a
confirmed PR Chair of the Assembly thereby creating falsehood and potentially
discrediting the authenticity and relationship of the Association with the university and its
officials.
c. Lastly, the Judicial Review Board decided that it was blatantly unfair, exclusive, and
not within the appropriate visions and initiatives of the Association by pushing the
confirmation of Nicole Sherwood without a fair election process for the entire campus.
Especially when more evidence, that was collected, states that a campus-wide email was
to be sent by early to late January.
 Sanctions and Probationary Contract Period

In response to the convictions stated above, the Judicial Review Board has decided that the
following courses of action are appropriate and fair to execute on the guilty party:

1. Eric shall have restricted use of the campus-wide SA Listserv

a. Written documentation, outside of the meeting minutes, with a cabinet 2/3 vote is
required in order to use the listserv.

Failure to include the most pertinent subject of the email in the documentation shall result in
immediate expulsion from this position.

2. Erics sole authority in choosing Cabinet members shall be restricted

a. The procedures, as stated in the Constitution, which functions primarily at the
beginning of the school year term, shall be enforced at all times where a vacancy occurs
on cabinet -- requiring that the Board of Elections and Membership Chair, the
Parliamentarian, the Vice President, and the President, be present and shall decide to
confirm candidates.
i. All parties stated may be required to confirm such a meeting when it occurs and
to validate that this sanctioned process was upheld.

Failure to cooperate with this process shall also result in immediate expulsion from the Student
Association.

3. Eric is no longer permitted to meet with Syracuse University officials and administrators
without the Vice President and Chief of Staff/or other relevant Chairpersons of the Association.
i. Due to the confidential and singular nature of meeting with the Chancellors
leadership team and the Board of Trustees meetings (executive team
including, but not limited to senior vice presidents and some heads of
departments), Eric may attend those meetings without being accompanied by
other SA officials.
a. The Judicial Review Board must be copied in all correspondence
related to such meetings to determine the exclusivity of such meetings.
ii. The Vice President and other SA officials as deemed appropriate by the
President and the Vice President shall lead meetings with University officials
that are not strictly confidential and open to other SA officials.
a. If the Vice President is unavailable, the Vice President has the
discretion to appoint a representative to act on his/her behalf.
iii. Additionally, these meetings are required to be announced in advance to both
Assembly and Cabinet.
a. Detailed report shall be given to Assembly and Cabinet weekly to
update the Association about the discussions of those meetings and
outcomes.
iv. The Judicial Review Board WILL NOT make exceptions (unless stated
otherwise in this document) to administration on scheduling meetings solely
with the President. As the President is a chosen spokesperson of the
Association, as agreed upon by the Student Body election, restrictions can be
placed on this position as it is still within the jurisdiction and capacity of the
Association.
a. The President is responsible for communicating these restrictions to
administrators and shall make best and every efforts to invite fellow
SA officials to such meetings.
 b. In rare or extreme circumstances, the Judicial Review Board must
receive documentation from administrators stating these circumstances
for an emergency or required meeting with the President alone.

*As a reminder, any sections that are infringed in this probationary contract shall result in the
immediate expulsion of the President from the Association.

*This probation sentence shall last until the end of the current session.

*The party in question retains the right to appeal the Judicial Review Board decision. Guidelines
for the appeal are stated in the Association Bylaws. The parties shall have till: February 22,
2017 at 5:00pm to appeal or they automatically waive their rights to appeal the JRB decision.

*****This document must be signed even if the party wishes to file an Appeal Claim to the
Assembly. *****

Signature of Party: _________________________________

Convicted Party:
Eric Evangelista,
Current President of the Association
60 Session
th

File for Appeal (circle one): Yes / No

Confirmation for Appeal Process (signature required): ________________________________

Date Filed: _____________________ (please note: this section is to be handwritten, scanned,

and emailed back to the Judicial Review Board for our records jrb@sumail.syr.edu) -- This is
due within 10 days of receiving your probationary contract. If you wish to include a written
notice and reasoning behind your appeal, that is also permissible.

Report completed: 2/12/16

*This document is approved for public release and has been released to the appropriate parties.*

*Evidence and hearings collected by the JRB shall remain under strict confidentiality unless
agreed otherwise with the relevant parties.*

~The Judicial Review Board~

Matthew VanDemark
Judicial Review Board Chairperson

Abdulaziz Al-Sutaiti
Vice Chair of Assembly Affairs

Domenica Vera
Vice Chair of Cabinet Affairs