From: jfield%sdcc13.UCSD.EDU@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (James Field)
Subject: UC San Diego Lawsuit
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Resent-From: "Rich Winkel" <MATHRICH@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:13:33 GMT


    ------------------------FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE------------------------


    December 13, 1992
    Contact: Tad Mailander, Counsel for Plaintiffs
             (619) 338-8090

              STUDENTS SUE TO BLOCK $28 MILLION BUILDING AT UCSD


    ------------------------FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE------------------------

    On  December 10, 1992, suit was  filed in San Diego Superior Court  by
    three  students at the University of California San Diego against  the
    Regents of the University of California and UCSD administrators Joseph
    Watson, Thomas Tucker, and Randon Woodard.

    The  lawsuit sought injunctive relief in order to prevent the  Regents
    from  entering into contracts  connected to the construction of  RIMAC
    (Recreaction, Intramural, Athletic and Events Complex), and to address
    alleged  violations  of  the  Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments  to  the
    United  States  Constitution as  the result of the student  referendum
    held  as a litmus test for approval of the project and for  imposition
    of a new $210 per year student fee to pay for it.

    The  RIMAC construction costs are  expected to be nearly $28  million,
    however  total costs to students during  the term of the 27 year  debt
    service  will  exceed  $100  million  for  construction,  maintenance,
    operations,  and financing. Plaintiffs contend that the referendum was
    conducted  illegally,  that the  results should be declared  null  and
    void,  and that their constitutional rights have been violated because
    the  University has thus far failed to grant any hearing on the formal
    grievances filed to challenge the referendum results.

    Both  the UCSD graduate and undergraduate student governments and  the
    faculty's  Academic  Senate  adopted  resolutions  calling  upon   the
    administration  to  grant a hearing  on the grievances. The  Board  of
    Regents  approved  the  RIMAC  project,  despite a  protest  statement
    presented by the statewide UC Students Association.

    The   grievants  allege  that  the  UCSD  administration   distributed
    referendum campaign literature which grossly misrepresented the impact
    of the proposed fee upon the availability of financial aid funds; that
    there  was widespread illegal  distribution of this literature at  the
    polls;  and  that the measure  did not receive the 2/3  majority  vote
    required for the establishment of a new, self-assessed student fee.

    The  deadline for construction bids for the RIMAC project was December
    3,  1992.  By bringing this  lawsuit, it was hoped that  no  contracts
    would  be  entered  into,  and  that the referendum process  could  be
    examined under a constitutional looking glass.

    Approximately  15  minutes  prior  to  the hearing  on  the  temporary
    restraining order, Defendants Tucker and Watson appeared at Department
    3 of the San Diego Superior Court. They informed counsel and the court
    that the construction contract for RIMAC had just been entered into.

    This  contract contained a  liquidated damages clause which bound  the
    University  of  California to pay an  amount of $3,000 per day in  the
    event  of  non-performance  or  breach.  The  Honorable  Kevin  Midlam
    required  Plaintiffs to post a bond in the amount of $37,500 in  order
    for  the  restraining order  to issue. Plaintiffs, not possessing  the
    resources,  could  not  post  bond.  Thus, the restraining  order  was
    denied.

    A  hearing for a preliminary injuntion was scheduled for December  30,
    1992.  However,  it  was  made  clear that additional  bond  would  be
    required at that time.

    Meanwhile,  Plaintiffs and their  counsel are considering their  legal
    and  political  alternatives. Plaintiffs  are attempting to invoke  an
    obscure  university  policy which  permits students to seek a  hearing
    before  the Board of Regents. Such  a hearing is not normally part  of
    the   administrative  grievance  procedures  available  to   students.
    Plaintiffs  have also taken steps to initiate a new student referendum
    to  determine  if  the RIMAC  fee  should be repealed. To call  a  new
    referendum,  more than 3,000 valid student petition signatures must be
    collected.

    The  practical effect of the University of California pushing  through
    the  contract on the eve of  litigation will likely be to prevent  the
    maintenance  of  this  lawsuit  by  Plaintiffs or  to  compel  radical
    amendment  of their complaint, as Plaintiffs will not be able to  bear
    the  burden  of  litigation  related  costs  and  expenses,  unless  a
    fundraising  drive is successful prior  to the December 30 hearing.  A
    client trust fund has been established and donations are being sought,
    payable  to Tad Mailander, Attorney at Law, 655 4th Avenue, San Diego,
    California 92101.

-30-