With the Associated Students elections over and David Chun chosen as the new A.S. president, it is time for the incumbent, Hiedi Hoeck to step down. But several individuals with A.S. ties refused to let Hoeck step down silently and gracefully.
These A.S. sources have claimed Hoeck violated the A.S. code and constitution in more ways than one during her term. The majority of allegations have been confirmed by John Kernick, director of student financial support, who himself has been criticized for unprofessional conduct.
One of the most controversial and recent accusations involves Hoeck giving $5,000 to a dance troupe during an A.S.-sponsored talent show. According to Kernick, Hoeck did not have permission to allocate those funds to the dancers. Hoeck believes there is a major misunderstanding with her action.
There is a Presidential Public Relations account which is designed for the two presidents, the A.S. president and the president of Santa Monica College to use. “It would be naïve to think that a responsible [A.S.] president wouldn’t understand the processes and functions of how student money can, and can’t be spent,” said Hoeck.
“I think it should be eliminated, it’s not democratic,” said Hoeck. She claimed she tried to remove the account, but the A.S. directors did not vote against it.
In addition, Kernick verified that Hoeck used student money from an A.S. account to pay for a friend’s meal during a dinner with SMC President Chui L. Tsang. SMC Public Information Officer Bruce Smith said Tsang was not aware of the conflict during the dinner. “Once Tsang was briefed, he felt the A.S. should handle it,” said Smith.
While Hoeck was giving her side of the story, ironically she received a phone call from the very friend involved in the controversy. They both laughed at the “ridiculous” nature of the claim.
Hoeck said it was a misunderstanding with the A.S. directors. Hoeck had flown in a friend from Reno, Nevada, and brought her to an A.S. dinner with her fellow directors and Dr. Tsang. “I said we had no money and can’t afford a nice restaurant. Juliana Gabrovsky [ICC Vice Chair] said ‘it won’t look good if the president leaves. However we have to do it, you have to stay,’” said Hoeck.
Hoeck was overly embarrassed by the allegation over a $12 pear salad. She believes it was “handled tactlessly.” Hoeck claims the A.S. directors decided to look the other way during the dinner.
Kernick again testified that Hoeck misused funds a third time by creating plaques to honor teachers when they were only to be for A.S. student directors.
Hoeck was charged with the selection and when she was asked who she would like to bestow honors to she mentioned her choices, including two teachers.
Richard Tahvildaran and Amber Katherine were nominated by Hoeck. “They are the only teachers that have gone out of their way to advise us on democratic politics,” said Hoeck.
The awards were ultimately pulled from being presented because the majority of A.S. directors decided it would be a bad idea. The plaques were made but are now shelved.
When the A.S. began drawing a new constitution, many members felt that they were left in the dark while Hoeck drew it up with Professors Tahvildaran and Eric Oifer, both professors of political science. “They were the ring leaders,” said Kernick.
“We had a meeting at her [Hoeck’s] house on a Sunday. During that meeting we discussed what we wanted to see in the constitution and thought we would be writing it later,” said Kernick.
Six days later a draft was brought forth that was created with the help of Oifer and Tahvildaran. “There was never any notification, we did not write any of it,” said Kernick.
The events appear quite different on Hoeck’s side. “There were lots of steps and opportunities for the A.S. directors to get involved. I said if you want to be a part of this talk to me. Then all of the sudden they wanted to work on it, after I had worked on it for two and a half months,” said Hoeck.
Hoeck claims she wrote the constitution herself and only used Oifer and Tahvildaran to look over the completed draft. “Two masters of political science consulted the constitution and said ‘Yeah it’s awesome, it’s ready to go.’ I spent hundreds of hours pouring myself into this document,” said Hoeck.
Hoeck was also accused of lobbying for the constitution during a joint council meeting which violated A.S. code. “From the very beginning Hiedi is very opinionated. She is always on the pro or con side,” said Kernick.
“If I was the chair of joint council, then yes I would be in violation. Only the chair remains neutral, it is the first rule of ‘Robert’s Law,’” said Hoeck.
The constitution in question failed to pass onto the ballot for voting. The A.S. sources believe it was a rushed document and Hoeck rushed it for her own personal agenda.
“Ambition fosters change, which yields product. I was disappointed the student body didn’t have the opportunity to vote for a more democratic system,” said Hoeck.
During one of the meetings involving heated discussion about the new constitution tempers boiled over to the point campus police almost had to get involved.
“She said I was threatening her as a woman. It was a simple act of vindication after she lost her case with the new constitution. I was a leading proponent of not rushing the constitution,” said Kernick. Kernick claims that Hoeck asked him to resign after the incident.
Hoeck defended her position by saying “he was threatening the emotional harmony” on the board. “Two other women came to me and said ‘I don’t feel safe when he screams.’”
Hoeck felt so unsafe she consulted with the SMC police and they agreed it might be a good idea for an officer to attend the next meeting. However, no officer ever attended a meeting.
A disciplinary hearing was arranged with Judy Penchansky, assistant dean of judicial affairs. Hoeck was unable to attend the meeting.
“I was in the hospital after being assaulted. I had a dislocated jaw, hematosis in my leg and 12 bruised ribs. That’s a pretty good excuse,” said Hoeck. “Judy said Hiedi can’t suspend me; it’s a lengthy process and for severe cases only. Judy exonerated me. There was no reason for me to resign,” said Kernick.
With all their accusations, the A.S. sources were very puzzled why Hoeck has not resigned, since they believe she has failed her constituents. Hoeck believes their claims have no grounds after all the accomplishments she has taken part in. “I don’t believe in failures. I’ll just try harder,” said Hoeck.
|
