The American Civil Liberties Union told State College in a letter Friday that the borough’s proposed “nuisance gathering ordinance,” which is scheduled for a public hearing Monday night, violates the U.S. Constitution.

The ACLU letter, from staff attorney Valerie Burch to council President Elizabeth Goreham, says the ordinance’s “liability scheme … runs roughshod over and through well-established constitutional rights.” If the borough passes the ordinance, Burch says in the letter, the ACLU of Pennsylvania will entertain requests to challenge it in court.

Goreham said Saturday that the ACLU letter “casts a shadow over that ordinance and we really need to look for another way — this is apparently not the way.”

The proposed ordinance was modeled after similar ones adopted recently in two other college towns — Michigan State University’s hometown in East Lansing and Bloomsburg, home of Bloomsburg University, borough Police Chief Tom King told council.

The State College proposal says the host of a gathering of 10 or more people may be held in violation of law and subject to summary offense fines from $300 to $600, or 30 days in jail, if the gathering results in certain illegal activities at or within 100 feet of the location.

The illegal activities of party guests that would result in nuisance gathering ordinance violations by party hosts include: excessively loud noise; brawls, fights, quarrels, obscene conduct or other public disturbances; open containers; underage drinking; public drunkenness; public urination or public defecation; unlawful furnishing of intoxicating beverages; criminal mischief; sale of controlled substance; and lewdness.

The ACLU said the ordinance is “overbroad.” In criminalizing the hosting of gatherings that result in illegal activities, the ACLU says, the proposal prohibits constitutionally protected activities such as political and religious meetings that may inadvertently result in illegal activities.

As an example, the ACLU cites a pre-election meeting whose hosts could be found in violation if a political opponent stands outside the meeting, shouts noisily and litters the street with handbills.

“Such an ordinance chills the right to freely associate, protected by the First Amendment,” the ACLU letter says.

The ACLU also said the proposed ordinance violates the First Amendment by holding those who exercise First Amendment rights liable for the actions of others, and by trying to shift the costs of police services to the organizer of events.

“The First Amendment does not allow government to hold an event organizer categorically responsible for the actions of others … loosely resulting from the event,” the ACLU said.

The ACLU’s third problem with the proposal centers on the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. By punishing the host, the ACLU says, “the ordinance holds responsible those who lack both intent to act illegally and a ‘responsible relation’ to the illegal actors.”

In an interview Saturday, Burch suggested it will take more than just language tweaking to erase ACLU concerns.

“You simply can’t criminalize someone for just having a party,” she said. “You just can’t make a law that violates the U.S. Constitution, and of course the Constitution trumps the borough of State College.”

Penn State student Brett Fisher, a candidate for council in Tuesday’s election, has criticized the proposed nuisance gathering ordinance for the very reasons cited by the ACLU.

Another ordinance scheduled for a public hearing at Monday’s council meeting would change the definition of “student home” in the borough codes to make it harder for single-family homes owned by students or students’ family members to rent rooms in the home to unrelated students.

Still another proposal would specify permit uses of former fraternity houses to include community or day care centers, homes for the elderly, nursing homes, medical clinics, offices or private schools.

Council does not plan to act on either of these ordinances Monday. Final consideration is scheduled for the Dec. 7 council meeting. For more information, go to www.statecollegepa.us. Mike Joseph can be reached at 235-3910.

Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1602036.html#ixzz0VdVPWdWU

Centre Daily Times Opinion Page, 7/28/09

We didn’t know it, but the First Amendment was on the line.

Students started out cheering and hoisting friends into the air and eventually began tearing down light posts and pulling out shrubs. If you weren’t blinded by pepper spray in the eyes, it was easy to see cameras flashing everywhere.

Many of those people were rioters themselves, clicking digital camera buttons to show their friends or snapping pictures on their phones to upload to Facebook.

Yet others of those people with cameras were professional members of the media. One of those media members was Michael Felletter, a photographer for The Daily Collegian who was doing his job as a photojournalist to capture what was happening that night.

Felletter — and every media photographer — had the right to photograph the riot. That night was one of the most newsworthy events at Penn State last year.

Charging Felletter in connection with the riot and saying his photography caused the crowd to become “more exuberant, excited and destructive” was an unreasonable shot at the First Amendment.

Though Centre County Judge David E. Grine dismissed the remaining charge against Felletter because of “unclear” evidence and did not cite First Amendment issues as a reason for dismissal, the ruling is still appropriate.

It’s still a ruling that cries victory for the First Amendment.

Felletter’s attorney Andrew Shubin, who acted on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, deserves commendation for his work in the case. Shubin called arresting a member of the press “un-American.”

We fear that Shubin’s clear understanding of the importance of the First Amendment is far different than District Attorney Michael Madeira’s, who is working to determine whether to appeal or re-file charges against Felletter.

Re-filing charges would be an egregious disregard for freedom of the press.

It’s time for the county to let this case go and to realize there never should have been charges pressed in the first place.

From the Daily Collegian, 7/28/09

A judge dismissed Wednesday the remaining charge against a Daily Collegian photographer who was arrested while on assignment photographing the Oct. 25 riot following a Penn State football team victory over Ohio State.

Citing “unclear” evidence, Centre County Judge David E. Grine dismissed the failure to disperse charge against the photographer, Michael R. Felletter, according to Grine’s ruling.

“The justice system did its part,” Felletter (senior-visual journalism) said. “Hopefully, journalists will feel freer to go out and gather the news without fearing they’ll be charged for breaking the law.”

Now Centre County officials are reviewing Grine’s ruling to determine whether to appeal or re-file the charges against Felletter, Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira wrote in an e-mail.

Felletter photographed the riot, during which thousands of Penn State students flooded Beaver Canyon. Police initially arrested 14 people in connection with the incident.

Police said Felletter’s photographing caused the crowd to become “more exuberant, excited and destructive,” according to the criminal complaint.

It is unclear whether Felletter was following police orders to disperse when they arrested him, according to the ruling.

Grine ruled it is uncertain whether Felletter’s compliance with police orders to “move along” was adequate when he moved from the street to sidewalk.

Additionally, Grine blamed the rioters for their behavior — not Felletter, according to the ruling.

Felletter’s Attorney, Andrew Shubin, who represented Felletter for free, said the ruling represented a victory for journalists and the First Amendment.

“There’s a bigger principle involved,” Shubin said. “It’s a critical principle–the government needs to leave the press alone.”

Shubin said he was disappointed the county pursued the case and said it was an “attack” on the press.

Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said Felletter’s case was “extremely rare” because the county did not immediately dismiss the charges.

While it isn’t unusual for police to cite journalists during an event like a riot, LoMonte said authorities normally immediately realize their mistake.

Felletter was originally charged with five counts of failure to disperse and one count of disorderly conduct after he photographed the riot , according to court documents.

The county later re-filed only one charge of failure to disperse against Felletter last semester, according to court documents.

“What was unusual about this case was the authorities had been so persistent even when it became clear the photographer was just doing his job,” LoMonte said.

Shubin agreed and said it was “un-American” to arrest a member of the press for covering a newsworthy event.

“This is the United States, not China,” Shubin said. “We don’t arrest photographers.”

LoMonte said his organization has dealt with various cases involving student journalists and the First Amendment because authorities often do not take collegiate journalists seriously.

“There is a temptation for the authorities to see them as nothing more than another student rather than a professional,” LoMonte said.

Through it all, Felletter said he never thought of giving up his career as a photojournalist because he believes he is “in the right.”

Collegian Editor-in-Chief Rossilynne Skena agreed and said she was “excited” about the recent news.

“We’ve been supporting Mike the entire time,” Skena (senior-journalism) said. “Mike was just doing his job. He was there to record what was happening.”

A sex offender’s bid to overturn the state prison system’s pornography ban was ended Monday by the state Supreme Court, which sided unanimously with the Department of Corrections.

The justices said inmate Shannon R. Brittain, 34, failed to refute the department’s arguments in a meaningful way. They reversed a lower court ruling that had allowed Brittain’s case to continue.

“Brittain’s submission of self-serving non-expert averments of fellow prisoners, which merely assert that they do not believe their rehabilitation and treatment are hindered by viewing pornography, were insufficient,” wrote Justice Max Baer.

Baer said it is conceivable that some other inmate might be able to make a compelling argument against the prohibition on obscene materials, but “the burden of doing so is high” and Brittain did not meet it.

The Corrections Department in November 2005 announced a ban on “materials in which the purpose is sexual arousal” as well as images of human nudity. The policy was later amended to allow a case-by-case review of items that may have literary or educational value.

Brittain, convicted of rape in Luzerne County, filed a lawsuit in Commonwealth Court two years ago in which he argued his constitutional rights had been violated. To back up his claim, he offered the statements of six other inmates that nudity did not affect their rehabilitation or treatment, cause them to sexually harass anyone or create a hostile work environment for prison workers.

Commonwealth Court declined the prison system’s attempt to throw out the lawsuit, but the state appealed and won the reversal issued by the high court on Monday. Brittain, who is serving as his own lawyer in the case, is currently in the Mahanoy State Prison and could not immediately be reached for comment.

State prison system spokeswoman Sue McNaughton hailed the ruling for aiding “corrections professionals’ ability to set and to change policies that affect the prison system.”

The Corrections Department has offered statistical evidence that assaults and sexual misconduct cases declined after the porn ban was imposed, Baer said. McNaughton said a number of factors are credited with lower assault rates.

At the time, the jail contained 313 inmates, and some were housed in the gymnasium.  Corbin was in jail on an allegation that he violated a protection-fromabuse order issued Oct. 9.  County officials said Corbin was upset because he couldn’t see his children because of the PFA order.  According to the lawsuit, Corbin told sheriff’s deputies transporting him to a hearing that he was suicidal, the lawsuit stated.

Corbin was screened upon entering jail, and the conclusion was that he “presented a significant suicide risk, both in fact and ccording to the prison’s guidelines — that he had a particular vulnerability to suicide,” the lawsuit claims.

Corbin “showed signs of depression, appeared to be unusually embarrassed or ashamed, was acting or talking in a strange manner, was apparently under the influence of alcohol, had a history of bipolar/ schizophrenia, had previously attempted suicide and was thinking about killing himself,” the lawsuit states.

Commissioner Terry Wagner, chairman of the county prison board, said his office has not been served with the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Johnstown.

He said the county would send the suit to its insurance carrier; otherwise, he would have no comment on the civil charges.  Wagner said the county likely faces a second lawsuit from a more recent suicide.

Blair County has been put “on notice” about a lawsuit by an attorney representing the family of Nathan J. Aughenbaugh of Morrisdale, who hung himself June 21. No suit has been filed on behalf of Aughenbaugh, who was incarcerated on a probation violation.  Corbin’s wife, Kayci Lynn Tatsch-Corbin of Bellwood, is represented by attorneys Andrew Shubin and Jere Krakoff, both of State College, and George N. Zanic and Thomas K. Hooper of Duncansville.

Donald Ott, who was warden at the time of Corbin’s suicide, said last year that jail officials followed protocol when processing Corbin. According to the lawsuit, despite the screening and many signs that Corbin was an inmate capable of killing himself, he was not placed on suicide watch and was not assessed by a mental health professional.

He was placed in a general population area, “a much less supervised setting that did not involve close suicide prevention onitoring,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit does not request a specific amount of money but asks for compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees.
Mirror Staff Writer Phil Ray is at 946-7468.

Although an extensive debate between Penn State Judicial Affairs and Olivia Guevara ended last week, the motives behind her prosecution are still being questioned.

Over the past five months, Guevara, a graduate student in the department of labor, has repeatedly challenged Penn State’s decision to prosecute her for vandalism and accused the university of singling her out to squelch her anti-sweatshop activism.

The battle has grown to involve 48 professors, labor departments from other universities, labor unions, concerned students from across the country and a local attorney who said Guevara’s First Amendment rights were at risk.

The charges stem from an incident on Sept. 27, when Guevara and several other activists chalked anti-sweatshop messages on several university buildings, including Old Main. Criminal charges against Guevara were dismissed because of a lack of evidence. However, Judicial Affairs asked for damage fees and issued a seven-year citation on her academic record.

Penn State officials have maintained that Guevara’s Judicial Affairs hearing was fair and that her prosecution was solely a matter of vandalism.

The university was also steadfast in its determination of Guevara’s damage fees to repair a door of Old Main until last week when it reduced them from $408.96 to $136.32, citing an incorrect initial estimation of the damages.

Contrary to past statements by administrators, Guevara has maintained that she never admitted to specifically scratching the doors of Old Main, which is what she must pay the damage fee for. She also said that scratches were never discussed at her hearing.

Penn State has said it had “more than adequate evidence” to prosecute Guevara.

However, neither the police report nor the criminal citation on the incident indicates any scratches on the Old Main doors.

OPP employees have refused to comment on the cleanup or the damages to the door, directing all inquiries to Penn State spokesman Bill Mahon.

Mahon refused to comment on the work order, saying that the university had nothing more to say about “this minor case of vandalism.”

Guevara said this is an example of the university’s ambiguous treatment of the case.

“I’m glad someone finally did their job and made the correction,” Guevara said. “But given the evidence and how things turned out I still question why the university acted the way they did. They haven’t been clear on many things since the very beginning.”

Guevara also said she still thinks she was unfairly prosecuted by the university because her views were hostile to Penn State.

“I can say this confidently because to my knowledge no other student organization has ever been tried for chalking,” Guevara said.

While chalking is a violation of the student code of conduct, administrators have said in the past that chalking isn’t the problem, but the scratches and damages the Old Main door is.

Although Guevara said she is still frustrated with the result, she is also relieved that the Judicial Affairs case is over.

“It’s been a rollercoaster,” she said.

The Chalking Incident and Subsequent Trials

Guevara’s rollercoaster ride began on the night of Sept. 27 when “Adopt the DSP” and “Make Penn State Sweatshop Free” were written in chalk on several university buildings. A surveillance video from Old Main that night shows six or seven activists writing on the buildings.

United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and The Student Labor Action Project (SLAP) have been asking Penn State to sign the Designated Suppliers Program (DSP), a plan that ensures licensed apparel for universities is not made in sweatshops. While Guevara is a member of both groups, neither group was identified by Judicial Affairs as the organizer behind the chalking incident.

Penn State University police used The Daily Collegian archives and Facebook to identify Guevara as one of the people in the surveillance video.

Guevara received notice to appear before Centre County District Judge Jonathan Grine to be charged with criminal mischief involving tampering with private property. She was also summoned by Judicial Affairs for a disciplinary hearing.

Judicial Affairs only prosecutes students for violating the student code of conduct, while the court can try students for criminal activity.

During her first meeting with Judicial Affairs, Guevara was given the option to name the other students of the group who were shown in the videotape to lessen her sanctions, but she refused. She also refused to identify the student groups involved in the chalking.

Guevara appealed the ruling but her sanctions were upheld.

After being informed of Guevara’s case by members of USAS, concerned individuals from labor unions and university labor departments wrote letters to Penn State President Graham Spanier asking him to lessen or drop Guevara’s charges and encouraging compliance with the DSP.

Guevara said multiple letters were sent to Spanier from organizations such as the Cornell Organization for Labor Action and USAS International.

She also said that students at other universities, such as Cornell and Georgetown, wrote to Spanier on her behalf.

Two weeks ago, 48 Penn State professors got involved in the battle when they delivered a letter to Spanier asking him to drop the sanctions against Guevara and to adopt the DSP.

In a response letter, Spanier said the charges would remain.

Before appearing in criminal court, Guevara contacted attorney Andrew Shubin to discuss her charges. Shubin told Guevara he was concerned that her first amendment rights were being violated and that he would handle her case for free.

In trial, Shubin argued that the court was selectively prosecuting Guevara because of the content of her messages. He said other groups that had advertised by chalking university property had never been charged. He showed pictures of chalked messages on campus from mtvU and Lionmenus.com.

Shubin also argued that although the surveillance video shows Guevara chalking a column of Old Main, she could not be clearly identified chalking other parts of the building.

After viewing the videotapes Grine dropped Guevara’s charges because of a lack of evidence.

Despite the dismissal of her criminal charges and the requests of concerned professors, university administrators repeatedly said all of Guevara’s sanctions would remain.

Last week, almost three months after first charging Guevara for damages, the university adjusted the fee.

The Damage Controversy

On Friday, the university admitted that its calculation of damages was wrong.

At the beginning of the criminal hearing on Feb. 5, Penn State police officer Roxanne Snider informed the judge that she was reducing the restitution costs from $408.96 to $381.92 because she did not have sufficient evidence to identify Guevara chalking the doors.

Despite Snider’s reduction of the fees in criminal court, Judicial Affairs kept Guevara’s fee the same.

When Guevara asked Director of Judicial Affairs Joe Puzycki to adjust the fees to $381.82 on Feb. 23, she was told that OPP confirmed the original repair costs.

According to the police report received by Judicial Affairs on Nov. 28, Office of the Physical Plant Supervisor Connie Brumgard determined that there was a $408.96 “cleanup cost” for the chalked messages.

Guevara’s citation for criminal mischief also mentions the $408.96 restitution fee. However, the criminal citation reads “12 hours labor for cleanup” under the restitution fee. Neither report cites damage to the doors or asks for a restoration cost for the scratches.

Brumgard would not comment on the damage and directed all inquiries to other OPP supervisors who said they did not know the details of the chalking incident.

Guevara said she asked both OPP and Puzycki for a copy of the work order, which included the fee to clean the doors, but never received it. When asked for a copy of the OPP fee confirmation letter by the Collegian on Feb. 28, Puzycki did not include it in his e-mail response.

Guevara received e-mail notification from Puzycki the next day saying that her restitution fees had been reduced to $108.32 for labor and $28.00 for equipment.

Judicial Affairs ignored another request by The Collegian for a copy of the newly reviewed work order.

An Admission of Guilt

Guevara’s request for a reconsideration of the damage fee has also raised questions about her alleged admission of damaging the door and the validity of the Judicial Affairs accusations.

Judicial Affairs says that Guevara admitted to damaging the doors in her disciplinary hearing on Dec. 14.

Guevara said that although she admitted to chalking in general, a specific door was never discussed and that the first time she heard of scratches was when a reporter inquired about them in mid-January.

In an e-mail message sent to Puzycki on Feb. 23, Guevara wrote “The description of the charges and our discussion of the sanctions indicated that the monetary restitution associated with the charges was only related to the cleanup of the chalk from the general surfaces mentioned in the police report.”

In Puzycki’s response sent on the same day, he said his “recollection is very clear” that Guevara accepted responsibility.

“The charge that you accepted responsibility for was the University Code 14.08: Damage/Cleanup. These charges were derived from the police report and from the original discussion we had in your Discipline Conference where you admitted to me that you were involved in defacing and responsible for damage to the Old Main doors (along with others that you would not name),” Puzycki wrote.

The e-mail message also explained that Judicial Affairs narrowed the charge to door damage because of video footage that placed Guevara at the Old Main location the night in question, in addition to her disciplinary conference testimony.

“I stand by my word that the Judicial Affairs officer is lying because I never admitted to damaging any door,” Guevara said in a subsequent phone interview with The Collegian.

The Sweatshop Battle Continues

Although Guevara still disagrees with the rulings, she said she paid the fees to avoid disrupting her academic endeavors. The money she is using to pay for the fees is a collection of donations from 48 professors and other student and community leaders.

Guevara said she thinks the case made USAS, SLAP and the anti-sweatshop movement even stronger.

The groups are continuing to put pressure on Penn State to adopt the DSP.

On Friday banners saying “Adopt the DSP” were hanging from Willard and Sackett Buildings, while members of USAS handed out fliers in front of the building.

USAS member Doug Baldwin said an anonymous student sent him an e-mail message informing him that there would be an anti-sweatshop demonstration in front of the buildings around noon and asked the group to hand out fliers.

Penn State has refused to sign the DSP, saying that it raises anti-trust issues and has structural problems. University officials have also said that although it will not adopt the plan, it is committed to combating sweatshop labor.

By Daryl Lang

Collegian Staff Writer

Penn State is considering whether to punish three students who refused police orders to leave a university building during a July protest, the students said yesterday.

The students said the situation is unfair because their case has already been heard in court and the criminal charges against them were all dismissed.

“It’s just a pathetic attempt to try to pin something on us,” said Justin Leto (senior-computer engineering), who organized the protest.

The protest is the third recent incident in which Penn State’s Office of Judicial Affairs has taken on a controversial legal matter, including a case when the office declined to punish a football player charged with assault.

Penn State spokesman Bill Mahon said yesterday that the university’s judicial process concerns whether students broke a university rule, something separate from a criminal charge.

The three student demonstrators — Leto, Robyn Stephens (senior-sociology) and Michelle Yates (junior-women’s studies) — each were called to meet with the director of judicial affairs. The meetings took place over the last two weeks.

Each declined to admit any wrongdoing and will have their case decided at judicial hearings that have yet to be scheduled.

Working as a group called “Redirection 2000″, the students waved signs and banners on July 10 to protest the failure of the National Governors’ Association Annual Meeting to respond to the menu of causes they support.

Several students climbed through a second-floor window in order to hang a sign on a balcony facing a governors event at the HUB-Robeson Center. Penn State Police Services ordered the students to leave and arrested five of them.

“Being on the ledge wasn’t something the university approved of, and it wasn’t safe,” said Mahon, who said he was present at the demonstration.

After their arrest, police charged all five students with “defiant trespass.”

At a July 20 preliminary hearing, District Justice Daniel Hoffman dismissed all the charges against the demonstrators.

But recently, three of the students were called before Joseph Puzycki, Penn State’s director of judicial affairs, for disciplinary action.

Penn State accused Leto, Stephens and Yates of “failure to comply with a directive” and “unauthorized use of university buildings/facilities,” the students said in a statement.

Penn State never figured out who the other two arrested demonstrators were, Leto said.

Puzycki allowed State College attorney Andy Shubin, who is representing the students free of charge, to sit in on one of the meetings, Shubin said.

Shubin wonders why the university keeps pursuing the case even after court testimony July 20 from Penn State University Relations Executive Director Steve MacCarthy. The students said MacCarthy had given them permission to be in the building.

“What’s upsetting here is that the university’s official and the top guy on the scene has already testified under oath,” Shubin said. “That testimony essentially exonerates them from any wrongdoing. . . . Of course, the university is a large institution and maybe the left hand isn’t talking to the right hand.”

Neither MacCarthy nor Puzycki were in their offices yesterday, and Penn State won’t discuss specific judicial cases in the interest of protecting students’ privacy, Mahon said.

But Mahon said the judicial affairs process is separate from the criminal courts.

“We don’t try people in our judicial system for breaking those laws. We take people through our judicial system for violating a university policy,” Mahon said.

The three students involved said Puzycki offered them disciplinary probation at their meeting with him if they would admit wrongdoing, but they refused. Probation is assigned for a specific period of time and can include a number of different conditions, including barring students from certain scholarships, according to the Judicial Affairs Web site.

Leto said the university should be the ones punished for violating students’ free speech rights.

“This is what they’ve been doing the entire time, making us look like the criminals, when it’s really they who are the criminals,” Leto said.

Leto also said it was unfair that the university’s judicial process compels students to talk about their actions, as if they are presumed guilty until they defend themselves.

Several students involved in a July 16 State College riot criticized the Office of Judicial Affairs earlier this month.

They said the office had sanctioned them for their participation in the riot even though they had not yet been tried in court.

Michael Byrne (senior-computer engineering) complained of a double standard.

Penn State quarterback Rashard Casey was charged in connection with an assault in New Jersey but also has not yet been tried. Penn State has taken no action against him, MacCarthy said earlier this month, because the police in Hoboken, N.J., have refused to provide information to the university.

Yates said it was unfair for Penn State to punish the student demonstrators but not Casey, especially since the demonstrators have had their criminal charges dropped.

Mahon said Judicial Affairs has become an increasingly busy office on campus over the last several years, but said it wasn’t attributed to any specific case.

“It’s a system that’s worked very well,” Mahon said. “Normally it (a case) ends very early in the stage.”

(From University Wire)

Byline: Alyssa Owens

Although an extensive debate between Pennsylvania State University Judicial Affairs and Olivia Guevara ended last week, the motives behind her prosecution are still being questioned.

Over the past five months, Guevara, a graduate student in the department of labor, has repeatedly challenged Penn State’s decision to prosecute her for vandalism and accused the university of singling her out to squelch her anti-sweatshop activism.

The battle has grown to involve 48 professors, labor departments from other universities, labor unions, concerned students from across the country and a local attorney who said Guevara’s First Amendment rights were at risk.

The charges stem from an incident on Sept. 27, when Guevara and several other activists chalked anti-sweatshop messages on several university buildings, including Old Main. Criminal charges against Guevara were dismissed because of a lack of evidence. However, Judicial Affairs asked for damage fees and issued a seven-year citation on her academic record.

Penn State officials have maintained that Guevara’s Judicial Affairs hearing was fair and that her prosecution was solely a matter of vandalism.

The university was also steadfast in its determination of Guevara’s damage fees to repair a door of Old Main until last week when it reduced them from $408.96 to $136.32, citing an incorrect initial estimation of the damages.

Contrary to past statements by administrators, Guevara has maintained that she never admitted to specifically scratching the doors of Old Main, which is what she must pay the damage fee for. She also said that scratches were never discussed at her hearing.

Penn State has said it had “more than adequate evidence” to prosecute Guevara.

However, neither the police report nor the criminal citation on the incident indicates any scratches on the Old Main doors.

Employees have refused to comment on the cleanup or the damages to the door, directing all inquiries to Penn State spokesman Bill Mahon.

Mahon refused to comment on the work order, saying that the university had nothing more to say about “this minor case of vandalism.” Guevara said this is an example of the university’s ambiguous treatment of the case.

“I’m glad someone finally did their job and made the correction,” Guevara said. “But given the evidence and how things turned out I still question why the university acted the way they did. They haven’t been clear on many things since the very beginning.” Guevara also said she still thinks she was unfairly prosecuted by the university because her views were hostile to Penn State.

“I can say this confidently because to my knowledge no other student organization has ever been tried for chalking,” Guevara said.

While chalking is a violation of the student code of conduct, administrators have said in the past that chalking isn’t the problem, but the scratches and damages the Old Main door is.

Although Guevara said she is still frustrated with the result, she is also relieved that the case is over.

“It’s been a rollercoaster,” she said.

THE CHALKING INCIDENT AND SUBSEQUENT TRIALS Guevara’s rollercoaster ride began on the night of Sept. 27 when “Adopt the DSP” and “Make Penn State Sweatshop Free” were written in chalk on several university buildings. A surveillance video from Old Main that night shows six or seven activists writing on the buildings.

United Students Against Sweatshops and The Student Labor Action Project have been asking Penn State to sign the Designated Suppliers Program, a plan that ensures licensed apparel for universities is not made in sweatshops. While Guevara is a member of both groups, neither group was identified by Judicial Affairs as the organizer behind the chalking incident.

Penn State University Police used The Daily Collegian archives and Facebook to identify Guevara as one of the people in the surveillance video.

Guevara received notice to appear before Centre County District Judge Jonathan Grine to be charged with criminal mischief involving tampering with private property. She was also summoned by Judicial Affairs for a disciplinary hearing.

Judicial Affairs only prosecutes students for violating the student code of conduct, while the court can try students for criminal activity.

During her first meeting with Judicial Affairs, Guevara was given the option to name the other students of the group who were shown in the videotape to lessen her sanctions, but she refused. She also refused to identify the student groups involved in the chalking.

Guevara appealed the ruling but her sanctions were upheld.

After being informed of Guevara’s case by members of USAS, concerned individuals from labor unions and university labor departments wrote letters to Penn State President Graham Spanier asking him to lessen or drop Guevara’s charges and encouraging compliance with the DSP.

Guevara said multiple letters were sent to Spanier from organizations such as the Cornell Organization for Labor Action and USAS International.

She also said that students at other universities, such as Cornell and Georgetown, wrote to Spanier on her behalf.

Two weeks ago, 48 Penn State professors got involved in the battle when they delivered a letter to Spanier asking him to drop the sanctions against Guevara and to adopt the DSP.

In a response letter, Spanier said the charges would remain.

Before appearing in criminal court, Guevara contacted attorney Andrew Shubin to discuss her charges. Shubin told Guevara he was concerned that her first amendment rights were being violated and that he would handle her case for free.

In trial, Shubin argued that the court was selectively prosecuting Guevara because of the content of her messages. He said other groups that had advertised by chalking university property had never been charged. He showed pictures of chalked messages on campus from mtvU and Lionmenus.com.

Shubin also argued that although the surveillance video shows Guevara chalking a column of Old Main, she could not be clearly identified chalking other parts of the building.

After viewing the videotapes Grine dropped Guevara’s charges because of a lack of evidence.

Despite the dismissal of her criminal charges and the requests of concerned professors, university administrators repeatedly said all of Guevara’s sanctions would remain.

Last week, almost three months after first charging Guevara for damages, the university adjusted the fee.

THE DAMAGE CONTROVERSY On Friday, the university admitted that its calculation of damages was wrong.

At the beginning of the criminal hearing on Feb. 5, Penn State police officer Roxanne Snider informed the judge that she was reducing the restitution costs from $408.96 to $381.92 because she did not have sufficient evidence to identify Guevara chalking the doors.

Despite Snider’s reduction of the fees in criminal court, Judicial Affairs kept Guevara’s fee the same.

When Guevara asked Director of Judicial Affairs Joe Puzycki to adjust the fees to $381.82 on Feb. 23, she was told that OPP confirmed the original repair costs.

According to the police report received by Judicial Affairs on Nov. 28, Office of the Physical Plant Supervisor Connie Brumgard determined that there was a $408.96 “cleanup cost” for the chalked messages.

Guevara’s citation for criminal mischief also mentions the $408.96 restitution fee. However, the criminal citation reads “12 hours labor for cleanup” under the restitution fee. Neither report cites damage to the doors or asks for a restoration cost for the scratches.

Brumgard would not comment on the damage and directed all inquiries to other OPP supervisors who said they did not know the details of the chalking incident.

Guevara said she asked both OPP and Puzycki for a copy of the work order, which included the fee to clean the doors, but never received it. When asked for a copy of the OPP fee confirmation letter by the Collegian on Feb. 28, Puzycki did not include it in his e-mail response.

Guevara received e-mail notification from Puzycki the next day saying that her restitution fees had been reduced to $108.32 for labor and $28.00 for equipment.

Judicial Affairs ignored another request by The Collegian for a copy of the newly reviewed work order.

AN ADMISSION OF GUILT Guevara’s request for a reconsideration of the damage fee has also raised questions about her alleged admission of damaging the door and the validity of the Judicial Affairs accusations.

Judicial Affairs says that Guevara admitted to damaging the doors in her disciplinary hearing on Dec. 14.

Guevara said that although she admitted to chalking in general, a specific door was never discussed and that the first time she heard of scratches was when a reporter inquired about them in mid-January.

In an e-mail message sent to Puzycki on Feb. 23, Guevara wrote “The description of the charges and our discussion of the sanctions indicated that the monetary restitution associated with the charges was only related to the cleanup of the chalk from the general surfaces mentioned in the police report.” In Puzycki’s response sent on the same day, he said his “recollection is very clear” that Guevara accepted responsibility.

“The charge that you accepted responsibility for was the University Code 14.08: Damage/Cleanup. These charges were derived from the police report and from the original discussion we had in your Discipline Conference where you admitted to me that you were involved in defacing and responsible for damage to the Old Main doors (along with others that you would not name),” Puzycki wrote.

The e-mail message also explained that Judicial Affairs narrowed the charge to door damage because of video footage that placed Guevara at the Old Main location the night in question, in addition to her disciplinary conference testimony.

“I stand by my word that the Judicial Affairs officer is lying because I never admitted to damaging any door,” Guevara said in a subsequent phone interview with The Collegian.

THE SWEATSHOP BATTLE CONTINUES Although Guevara still disagrees with the rulings, she said she paid the fees to avoid disrupting her academic endeavors. The money she is using to pay for the fees is a collection of donations from 48 professors and other student and community leaders.

Guevara said she thinks the case made the anti-sweatshop movement even stronger.

The groups are continuing to put pressure on Penn State to adopt the DSP.

On Friday banners saying “Adopt the DSP” were hanging from Willard and Sackett Buildings, while members of USAS handed out fliers in front of the building.

USAS member Doug Baldwin said an anonymous student sent him an e-mail message informing him that there would be an anti-sweatshop demonstration in front of the buildings around noon and asked the group to hand out fliers.

Penn State has refused to sign the DSP, saying that it raises anti-trust issues and has structural problems. University officials have also said that although it will not adopt the plan, it is committed to combating sweatshop labor.
OPYRIGHT 2007 Financial Times Ltd.

(From University Wire)

Byline: Alyssa Owens

Although an extensive debate between Pennsylvania State University Judicial Affairs and Olivia Guevara ended last week, the motives behind her prosecution are still being questioned.

Over the past five months, Guevara, a graduate student in the department of labor, has repeatedly challenged Penn State’s decision to prosecute her for vandalism and accused the university of singling her out to squelch her anti-sweatshop activism.

The battle has grown to involve 48 professors, labor departments from other universities, labor unions, concerned students from across the country and a local attorney who said Guevara’s First Amendment rights were at risk.

The charges stem from an incident on Sept. 27, when Guevara and several other activists chalked anti-sweatshop messages on several university buildings, including Old Main. Criminal charges against Guevara were dismissed because of a lack of evidence. However, Judicial Affairs asked for damage fees and issued a seven-year citation on her academic record.

Penn State officials have maintained that Guevara’s Judicial Affairs hearing was fair and that her prosecution was solely a matter of vandalism.

The university was also steadfast in its determination of Guevara’s damage fees to repair a door of Old Main until last week when it reduced them from $408.96 to $136.32, citing an incorrect initial estimation of the damages.

Contrary to past statements by administrators, Guevara has maintained that she never admitted to specifically scratching the doors of Old Main, which is what she must pay the damage fee for. She also said that scratches were never discussed at her hearing.

Penn State has said it had “more than adequate evidence” to prosecute Guevara.

However, neither the police report nor the criminal citation on the incident indicates any scratches on the Old Main doors.

Employees have refused to comment on the cleanup or the damages to the door, directing all inquiries to Penn State spokesman Bill Mahon.

Mahon refused to comment on the work order, saying that the university had nothing more to say about “this minor case of vandalism.” Guevara said this is an example of the university’s ambiguous treatment of the case.

“I’m glad someone finally did their job and made the correction,” Guevara said. “But given the evidence and how things turned out I still question why the university acted the way they did. They haven’t been clear on many things since the very beginning.” Guevara also said she still thinks she was unfairly prosecuted by the university because her views were hostile to Penn State.

“I can say this confidently because to my knowledge no other student organization has ever been tried for chalking,” Guevara said.

While chalking is a violation of the student code of conduct, administrators have said in the past that chalking isn’t the problem, but the scratches and damages the Old Main door is.

Although Guevara said she is still frustrated with the result, she is also relieved that the case is over.

“It’s been a rollercoaster,” she said.

THE CHALKING INCIDENT AND SUBSEQUENT TRIALS Guevara’s rollercoaster ride began on the night of Sept. 27 when “Adopt the DSP” and “Make Penn State Sweatshop Free” were written in chalk on several university buildings. A surveillance video from Old Main that night shows six or seven activists writing on the buildings.

United Students Against Sweatshops and The Student Labor Action Project have been asking Penn State to sign the Designated Suppliers Program, a plan that ensures licensed apparel for universities is not made in sweatshops. While Guevara is a member of both groups, neither group was identified by Judicial Affairs as the organizer behind the chalking incident.

Penn State University Police used The Daily Collegian archives and Facebook to identify Guevara as one of the people in the surveillance video.

Guevara received notice to appear before Centre County District Judge Jonathan Grine to be charged with criminal mischief involving tampering with private property. She was also summoned by Judicial Affairs for a disciplinary hearing.

Judicial Affairs only prosecutes students for violating the student code of conduct, while the court can try students for criminal activity.

During her first meeting with Judicial Affairs, Guevara was given the option to name the other students of the group who were shown in the videotape to lessen her sanctions, but she refused. She also refused to identify the student groups involved in the chalking.

Guevara appealed the ruling but her sanctions were upheld.

After being informed of Guevara’s case by members of USAS, concerned individuals from labor unions and university labor departments wrote letters to Penn State President Graham Spanier asking him to lessen or drop Guevara’s charges and encouraging compliance with the DSP.

Guevara said multiple letters were sent to Spanier from organizations such as the Cornell Organization for Labor Action and USAS International.

She also said that students at other universities, such as Cornell and Georgetown, wrote to Spanier on her behalf.

Two weeks ago, 48 Penn State professors got involved in the battle when they delivered a letter to Spanier asking him to drop the sanctions against Guevara and to adopt the DSP.

In a response letter, Spanier said the charges would remain.

Before appearing in criminal court, Guevara contacted attorney Andrew Shubin to discuss her charges. Shubin told Guevara he was concerned that her first amendment rights were being violated and that he would handle her case for free.

In trial, Shubin argued that the court was selectively prosecuting Guevara because of the content of her messages. He said other groups that had advertised by chalking university property had never been charged. He showed pictures of chalked messages on campus from mtvU and Lionmenus.com.

Shubin also argued that although the surveillance video shows Guevara chalking a column of Old Main, she could not be clearly identified chalking other parts of the building.

After viewing the videotapes Grine dropped Guevara’s charges because of a lack of evidence.

Despite the dismissal of her criminal charges and the requests of concerned professors, university administrators repeatedly said all of Guevara’s sanctions would remain.

Last week, almost three months after first charging Guevara for damages, the university adjusted the fee.

THE DAMAGE CONTROVERSY On Friday, the university admitted that its calculation of damages was wrong.

At the beginning of the criminal hearing on Feb. 5, Penn State police officer Roxanne Snider informed the judge that she was reducing the restitution costs from $408.96 to $381.92 because she did not have sufficient evidence to identify Guevara chalking the doors.

Despite Snider’s reduction of the fees in criminal court, Judicial Affairs kept Guevara’s fee the same.

When Guevara asked Director of Judicial Affairs Joe Puzycki to adjust the fees to $381.82 on Feb. 23, she was told that OPP confirmed the original repair costs.

According to the police report received by Judicial Affairs on Nov. 28, Office of the Physical Plant Supervisor Connie Brumgard determined that there was a $408.96 “cleanup cost” for the chalked messages.

Guevara’s citation for criminal mischief also mentions the $408.96 restitution fee. However, the criminal citation reads “12 hours labor for cleanup” under the restitution fee. Neither report cites damage to the doors or asks for a restoration cost for the scratches.

Brumgard would not comment on the damage and directed all inquiries to other OPP supervisors who said they did not know the details of the chalking incident.

Guevara said she asked both OPP and Puzycki for a copy of the work order, which included the fee to clean the doors, but never received it. When asked for a copy of the OPP fee confirmation letter by the Collegian on Feb. 28, Puzycki did not include it in his e-mail response.

Guevara received e-mail notification from Puzycki the next day saying that her restitution fees had been reduced to $108.32 for labor and $28.00 for equipment.

Judicial Affairs ignored another request by The Collegian for a copy of the newly reviewed work order.

AN ADMISSION OF GUILT Guevara’s request for a reconsideration of the damage fee has also raised questions about her alleged admission of damaging the door and the validity of the Judicial Affairs accusations.

Judicial Affairs says that Guevara admitted to damaging the doors in her disciplinary hearing on Dec. 14.

Guevara said that although she admitted to chalking in general, a specific door was never discussed and that the first time she heard of scratches was when a reporter inquired about them in mid-January.

In an e-mail message sent to Puzycki on Feb. 23, Guevara wrote “The description of the charges and our discussion of the sanctions indicated that the monetary restitution associated with the charges was only related to the cleanup of the chalk from the general surfaces mentioned in the police report.” In Puzycki’s response sent on the same day, he said his “recollection is very clear” that Guevara accepted responsibility.

“The charge that you accepted responsibility for was the University Code 14.08: Damage/Cleanup. These charges were derived from the police report and from the original discussion we had in your Discipline Conference where you admitted to me that you were involved in defacing and responsible for damage to the Old Main doors (along with others that you would not name),” Puzycki wrote.

The e-mail message also explained that Judicial Affairs narrowed the charge to door damage because of video footage that placed Guevara at the Old Main location the night in question, in addition to her disciplinary conference testimony.

“I stand by my word that the Judicial Affairs officer is lying because I never admitted to damaging any door,” Guevara said in a subsequent phone interview with The Collegian.

THE SWEATSHOP BATTLE CONTINUES Although Guevara still disagrees with the rulings, she said she paid the fees to avoid disrupting her academic endeavors. The money she is using to pay for the fees is a collection of donations from 48 professors and other student and community leaders.

Guevara said she thinks the case made the anti-sweatshop movement even stronger.

The groups are continuing to put pressure on Penn State to adopt the DSP.

On Friday banners saying “Adopt the DSP” were hanging from Willard and Sackett Buildings, while members of USAS handed out fliers in front of the building.

USAS member Doug Baldwin said an anonymous student sent him an e-mail message informing him that there would be an anti-sweatshop demonstration in front of the buildings around noon and asked the group to hand out fliers.

Penn State has refused to sign the DSP, saying that it raises anti-trust issues and has structural problems. University officials have also said that although it will not adopt the plan, it is committed to combating sweatshop labor.