The Union Judiciary (UJ) heard arguments Monday night in the trial to remove Senator for Off-Campus Residents Bryan Lober '06 from the Union Senate based on four counts of impeachment levied by Union President Josh Brandfon '05 and Class of 2005 Senator Mitchel Balsam on behalf of the Union Senate.The Union argued that poor attendance at both Senate and committee meetings, failing to hold office hours, not fulfilling his duties as Senator for Off Campus Residents and being a destabilizing force at Senate meetings formed the grounds for Lober's impeachment during a closed Executive Session on Fed. 29..

The defense stated that while the prosecution might argue that Lober left Senate meetings shortly after attendance was taken, there is not proof since nothing was documented.

Lober's representatives argued that he had in fact been an active senator. Lober was represented by Jeremy Widder '06, Michael Stern '06 and Josh Sugarman '05.

The defense held that Lober was actively involved with campus activities and was an advocate for his constituents.

Four out of five UJ Justices, Chief Justice Rachel Present '06 and Associate Justices Samuel Dewey '06, Avner Fink '04, and Susan Abrams '04 were present. Associate Justice Dan Mauer '05 recused himself from the case due to a conflict of interest - he is running for Union vice president against Balsam.

Brandfon and Balsam said that while Lober is marked as present at many Senate meetings, he rarely stayed long after attendance. Balsam said that this violated Union By-Laws, where Article XI, Section 2 states that it is the duty of a senator "to attend all meetings of the Senate and committees on which they serve."

Brandfon and Balsam also maintained that he did not "attend" the meeting despite Senate minutes reflecting that Lober was present for every Senate roll call prior to his impeachment. A roll call generally happens at the beginning of a senate meeting.

They also argued that Lober only attended one Diversity Committee meeting, of which he is a member, and said this also proved that he was in violation of his constitutional duties. The Union constitution does not stipulate a senator is required to attend any committee meetings.

Some Union representatives also said Lober did not fulfill his responsibilities to his constituents by not adequately informing them about the housing lottery procedure, and that he filed only three project reports describing his weekly senatorial activities since he was elected last fall.

The defense argued that this was not Lober's responsibility and there was no constitutional or by-law section cited that says a senator must inform his constituents of voting procedures.

The defense also said Lober's PIN number for the Student Union Web site was not working, and that this would also explain why he did not make any copies in the Union Office during that same period. The defense later offered to stipulate or agree that Lober did not make any copies using his own copy code.

The court heard testimony from Union Vice President and Senate President Ken Gantz '04, who said that on the evening of the impeachment, he and Lober exchanged words after Lober left the meeting without reason.

Gantz said, "I went into [the] office where Bryan was and I approached him. I asked him why he left the meeting, but didn't get a straight response. It was something like 'I don't have to justify my actions to you.' I was telling him that constitutionally he was required to be in meeting."

On cross examination, Gantz said that he could not recall the exact conversation and that it is possible that Lober may have asked him to stop harassing him. Gantz also said he has not been present at all senate meetings. He refused to testify as to why Lober was impeached by the senate as apposed to only censured, saying that the decision was made in executive session.

According to testimony by Club Resources Coordinator for Student Union Alyssa Kropp '04, who overheard this exchange of words, Lober and Gantz began to raise their voices at one another, and then Lober proceeded to leave and did not return for the rest of the meeting.

The prosecution said this incident is an example of Lober inhibiting Gantz from performing his constitutional duty of running the Senate meeting.

The defense argued that Lober cannot be accused of preventing Gantz from doing his duty because Gantz has successfully completed them. The defense further stated that since the duties are those of the Vice President and not of a Senator, Lober cannot be accused of violating the duties of another office.

Union witnesses also testified that at a Senate meeting when the Southeast Asian Student Association e-board resigned, Lober asked at one point if someone was from Orlando, his hometown. The Union contended that this was inappropriate and destabilizing.

Ridgewood Senator Meghan Carter '05 testified toward Lober's participation in the Charles River Apartment Barbeque, the purchasing of the Student Union tent, attempting to help off-campus students with parking and his pursuit of obtaining campus-building keys for his constituents.

She also testified to Lober staying at one meeting until 6 a.m to participate in the hearing on the Dusty Baker Incident in October.

Carter read her project reports for the March 7 Senate meeting, citing what while Article XI, Section 2 of the constitution mandates that all senators attend meetings, numerous senators have been absent from meetings. She listed approximately 30 instances of Senators missing meetings - Lober's name did not appear.

"Just something that struck me as odd and a bit unfair," she said.

On cross-examination, Carter said it was possible that some Senators who have missed meetings also showed up after roll call. She said that while it is possible that Lober may have left a meeting early, she said she does not recall that happening.

Union Treasurer Andrei Khots '05 was also called by the defense. He testified to Lober being active with several money requests and in buying a tent for the Union. Khots said that Lober did the research for the tent, wrote the money request, and presented to the Senate.

Khots estimated that he (himself) spends about 20 to 30 hours in the Union office per week and that he sees Lober fairly frequently in the office serving his office hours. Khots also noted that he has frequently seen Lober at Senate meeting much later than roll call is taken.

Brandfon, during closing statements, pointed out that Lober, while marked present in at least four Senate meetings, does not appear anyway in the minutes as participating in a meeting.

The defense argued that a lack of participation does not show that he was not there, merely that he chose to stay silent.

Balsam concluded that since the Senate impeached Lober, his errors are clear and convincing.

In closing arguments, the Union said that it could not have only been Gantz's personal feelings, as all 13 Senators present for the Executive Session signed the articles of impeachment.

The Union also argued that just because Lober did a few things as senator, this does not mean he didn't violate parts of the constitution.

The defense closed by saying that Lober did not technically violate any of the four articles on which he was impeached nor was there any evidence shown to prove any of the accusations of the mangers, and that he could not be removed because a group of senators did not agree with the way he represented his constituents.

After the trial, Widder said, "The case speaks for itself. The UJ will make the right decision."

"We laid out our case and told them what made the Senate impeach Lober. We hope they will come to a ruling that says he breached the constitution," Balsam said.