Union President Joshua Brandfon '05 withdrew his Union Judiciary (UJ) case against Andrei Khots '05 on Sunday for embezzling funds.According to a UJ court docket, on Jan. 26 "Khots authorized, entered, and distributed checks for the amounts of $9.99 and $29" used to buy a birthday cake and pizza for a bonding event without the authorization from the executive office of the Student Union.

Khots was accused of violating Article 3, Section 4.3 of the Union constitution, which states "the Treasurer shall not have the authority to initiate any expenditures not previously authorized by the Senate or the Union Finance Board."

The court docket further states "the treasurer's decision to spend the money from Executive Office Discretionary without proper authorization is a clear and unambiguous break of constitutional duty."

However, Khots said that the phrase "proper authorization" remains unclear, since there is no official procedure of obtaining E-board approval, nor has it been an issue in previous funding authorizations.

"Granting funds from the Executive Office is a very ambiguous process," Khots said, "and while it should require the approval from all Executive officers, it has not been so in the past."

The same UJ court docket also states that "bonding monies are not used to provide goods or services during the normal course of Student Union officers discharging their constitutionally mandated duties," including Senate meetings, Finance Board (F-Board) marathon sessions and executive officer meetings.

According to Khots, he was not aware initially that authorizing the purchase for the pizza violated this rule since it was consumed during an F-Board marathon session.

"As I saw it, bonding money was supposed to be used by the entire Union," Khots said, "and the F-board being an equally important branch of the Union was also entitled to spending that money."

Since last Tuesday, when the UJ case was filed, the $29 for the pizza has been paid for by the F-Board, who joined Khots in support among the accused, just two hours before the case was settled. Although the cake was consumed at a bonding event and was not in violation of the abovementioned rule, it still violated Article 4, Section 4.3, and the $9.99 remains unpaid.

Despite only missing $9.99 of the total $38.99, Brandfon still felt it was important to file the UJ case, considering an instance two years ago when a former Student Union Treasurer allegedly took at least $2,400 of Union funds.

"It's not about $10," Brandfon said. "It's about our constitution and making sure that things don't happen like two years ago."

Brandfon continued that the reduced price of $9.99 was irrelevant to the UJ case, even when compared to much larger purchases, because it still violated Union policy.

"It doesn't matter if it was a birthday cake or a computer," Brandfon said. "Money was spent out of a particular discretionary without the authorization of the group that oversees the fund."

Brandfon also added that Student Union members need to be held "to the highest standard" so that constitutional violations do not reoccur.

"It's a matter of setting a precedent that restricts the discretionary authority in these types of cases," Brandfon said.

According to Khots, he did not know he was acting unconstitutionally when he authorized the expenditures for the pizza and birthday cake.

"At the time that I withdrew the funds in question from the executive bonding fund, I was unaware that my actions were unconstitutional," Khots said in his statement to the Union. "After hearing various arguments, however, I now recognize that my powers as Treasurer do not extend as far as I believed, and that my actions were in fact unconstitutional."

Brandfon agreed to withdraw the case after Mark Samburg '07, Khots' counsel, informed him that Khots was going to pay back the $9.99 and admit that authorizing funds without E-board permission was unconstitutional. At that point, Brandfon said there was no need to let the case continue under the UJ.

"I'm actually glad that it didn't go to the UJ because it was a pretty simple constitutional issue that was better off solved out of the UJ...the precedent is set that what happened was wrong and won't happen again," Brandfon said.

Khots decided to settle the UJ case for several reasons, including the time commitment involved in participating in UJ cases.

"I felt that the UJ case impeded my time and ability to help club members," Khots said, "and it was better to spend my time working as treasurer."

Another reason Khots decided to settle the UJ case out of court was to allow the E-board to discuss the issue in a private setting.

"There were reasonable arguments that even though that we [the E-board] have disagreements, that we should work it out together, separate from the UJ," Khots said.

Khots added that the UJ case was too extreme an action to take for what needed to be accomplished.

"I felt personally that the case was too much...there were a lot of issues that needed to be resolved," Khots said, "and policies need to be set."

To prevent issues like the ones surrounding the dismissed UJ case, Khots recommended that the F-board receive their own discretionary like the Union Senate.

"If the Senate and the E-board can have their pizza why can't the F-Board?