In regards to “ASI Appointments Under Fire,” which appeared in the Sept. 19 Hornet.

I would like to ask those who have condemned ASI if they were at the Board meeting and heard the whole story, or if they had a chance to discuss with myself or the executives HOW the Dollars for Organizations and Clubs/Student Education and Leadership grant Board member process was established (with a recruitment, application and interview process). There were many things that were not mentioned in the article, including some racist remarks and issues that Luke Wood presented the entire week before the meeting. This included a “strong arm” tactic that asked me to appoint two of his friends and then the whole issue would be dropped. Where is the openness and application process in this? Where is the openness to ALL students when Wood asked the VP of Finance in the Board meeting to look at one of his friends (not at the 100 students who signed his “petition”) and give him a “fair shot”? I told him that I would not be threatened and his request to appoint his friends was refused!

It was then sent to the Board and became an “openness” issue. While I agree with student advocacy and representation, I do not agree that the Board meetings should be used as a personal vendetta against myself or anyone else. And if there was such an opposition to all “non application” or “non open” position appointments, why did he proceed to vote yes for the appointments of two of his friends to key positions and to all of the appointment recommendations from VP of University Affairs Calvin Davis, and to the appointments to all of the Internal committees (including Wood?s Chair of Diversity Committee appointment) all of which did not have an application process? Check out the Board minutes.

Veronica LermaChair, DOC/SEL grant committee