The dissenting justice argues that the case should not have been accepted for three key reasons: 1) The decision being appealed was made over four months prior to the case submission, outside the 10 day statute of limitations. 2) Information provided to the judicial council misled them about the timing of the original decision. 3) Accepting appeals of much older decisions could establish a poor precedent and be outside the council's authority. While the outcome agreed that overturning disbursed scholarships was not within their powers, the justice believes this case never should have been heard at all.

1. 1
The Office of Associate Justice Caleb L. Green
Culley v. CSUN Scholarship and Grants Committee
JUSTICE GREEN delivered a Dissenting Opinion
I. Background
On Monday, November 17, 2014, the CSUN Senate Scholarship and Grant
Committee approved a CSUN Study Aboard scholarship to, now, former CSUN Nevada
Student Affairs Director, Daniel Waqar. The scholarship recipients were posted on
November 17, 2014 and the public as well as CSUN officials were made known of the
scholarship recipient, which included former Director Waqar. On February 3, 2015,
College of Liberal Arts Senator, Alex Culley, (Petitioner) filed a case submission
requesting a Judicial Remedy of an Appeal of a CSUN entity’s Decision regarding if the
scholarship distributed to former Director Waqar violated CSUN Bylaws, Chapter 801,
Section 02, Subsection A. On February 4, 2015, the Judicial Council unanimously
accepted to hear this appeal, as submitted by the Petitioner. On February 11, 2015, seven
members of the Judicial Council, the Petitioner and the Respondents – CSUN Senate
Scholarships and Grants Committee chair and vice-chair, College of Liberal Arts
Senator, Jordan Nelson, and College of Sciences Senator, Javier Aget-Torres – as well
members of the general public were all present at this public hearing. The Judicial
Council members argued this case and released a decision the same day – February 11,
2015. The results of this decision were 6-1-1, with Chief Justice Cunningham recusing
herself from the case and myself, as the sole dissenting voter.

2. 2
II. Issues
The Petitioner presents the following issues in the submitted case: (1) whether a
CSUN member receiving a stipend from CSUN can be considered for CSUN
Scholarships; and (2) whether Former NSA director Daniel Waqar should be able to
keep his CSUN Study Abroad Scholarship.
III. Rule
A. CSUN Bylaw 801.02.a:”Any student receiving a stipend from CSUN
government shall not be considered for any CSUN scholarship.”
B. Judicial Council Operating Policy Article III, Section A, Subsection 2(b): “If a
case deals with any other type of appeal or unconstitutional action, the case
must be submitted within ten (10) CSUN business days of the alleged action
or can otherwise be accepted by a majority vote of the whole Council”
IV. Application
The Judicial Council has the power to accept an Appeal case of a CSUN entity’s
decision per the Judicial Council Operating Policy Article III, Section A, Subsection
2(b) given the entity’s decision has been within ten (10) business days or the Majority
of council votes in favor of accepting the case.

3. 3
V. Conclusion
Reason for my disfavor of the opinion of the majority voting bloc of the Judicial
Council, resulting vote in the Cully v. CSUN Scholarship and Grant Committee (2015)
and this dissenting opinion hinge upon a few factor I expressed during deliberations
over this case. The first (1), the provisions in the Judicial Council Operating Policy, as
aforementioned, lends two situations of which a case of an appeal of any CSUN entity’s
decision may be accepted by the Judicial Council – (1) if the decision of the CSUN entity
in question “has been within ten (10) business days” or (2) if “the Majority of council
votes in favor of accepting the case.”
The second factor (2) is the lack of the information made ready to the Judicial
Council at the time this case was submitted. While I cannot speak on behalf of the rest of
the Council, I speak on behalf of myself when I state that I was not made aware of the
time of this decision – to consider former Director Waqar for the CSUN Study Abroad
Scholarship by the CSUN Senate Scholarship and Grants Committee. I was under the
understanding that the scholarship was released within the ten (10) business day
“statutes of limitations”. Due to the documents and evidence made present to my
knowledge at the time this case submission was presented to the Council, I was led to
believe that the decision was based upon the proposed scholarship disbursement date,
January 26, 2015, and this was within the statutes of limitations, given the submission
of this case on February 2, 2015.
The third (3) and final premise of this argument is that of my voting history and
precedence set within the Judicial Council when considering cases of appeals for
acceptance. Personally, I have embraced the pattern of approaching cases of appeals to a

4. 4
CSUN entity’s decision by voting in favor of hearing the case a midst the fulfillment of at
least one of the following conditions: (1) the decision is within the ten (10) business day
statutes of limitations or (2) the decision sincerely carries potential weight to infringe
upon the due process of the Petitioner. Given that neither of the aforementioned
conditions were met or mentioned in the Petitioner’s request for appeal, I stand firm in
my argumentation of the acceptance of this case. However, given my understanding of
the initial submission, I was led to believe that the former condition – submission
within the statutes of limitations - was met. During deliberations, it was made clear to
me that the decision of the CSUN Scholarship and Grants Committee – consideration of
former Director Waqar for the CSUN Study Abroad scholarship - was made on
November 17, 2014.
The case submission did not warrant, it my eyes, a potential for infringement
upon the due process of the Petitioner, and therefore does not meet the aforementioned
conditions for which I would have accepted such a case. This can be seen in my voting
history regarding two prior cases. Due to the fact that the details of these cases have not
been released to the public, I will only disclose details necessary to describe the
reasoning of my stance concerning this decision. The cases I am referring to were both
submitted by College of Hotel Administration Senator, Alex Murdock, and both were
cases of an appeal to a CSUN entity’s decision. Both cases were requesting an appeal of a
decision released nearly three months prior to the date the said case was submitted.
After further deliberations and discussion among the other Justices, I adopted the
aforementioned methodology of reasoning when dealing with cases of appealing a CSUN
entity’s decision and hence voted in disfavor of both cases. The case at hand, Culley v.
CSUN Scholarship and Grants Committee (2015), reflects similar details and fails to

5. 5
meet the conditions outlined in my aforementioned methodology of approaching appeal
cases.
My only issue with this case is that information regarding the date of
the decision was miscommunicated to me, leading me to believe that it was
a decision made within the states of limitations, outlined within the Judicial
Council Operating Policy. Had I understood the actual date of the decision –
November 17, 2014 - I would have voted in disfavor of hearing this case rather than
voting in favor to hear it. Let me be clear. I do not think this case should have
been heard. Information was not clearly specified within the Petitioner’s case
submission which led to the Judicial Council accepting a case for which I believe, under
different conditions, would not have been heard in the first place.
However, it is important to note that, regardless of my perspective on the matter
and resulting vote concerning the appeal, I agree with some portion the end-result of the
majority. I do believe it is outside of the scope of the Judicial Council to overturn a
scholarship once it has been disbursed. This re-affirms my position and my
methodology for approaching appeals of CSUN entities’ decisions and why the Judicial
Council Operating Policy has a “statutes of limitations” clause within it. If we allow
appeals of decision outside of that scope, we risk major casualties. Per the situation
outlined in this case, overturning a disbursed scholarship is outside of the realm of
powers granted to the Judicial Council. Had this decision been protested and a case
submitted within the ten (10) business days, the Judicial Council would have
jurisdiction on ensuring such a situation was avoided initially and could provide proper
judgment. However, given the fact that information was miscommunicated and a case
was accepted, on my behalf, under false pretenses, we are faced with a daunting task to

6. 6
consider appealing a decision that is four (4) months removed from the initial decision
and offering some form of Judicial remedy. Let me be clear! I am not comfortable
deciding in favor of such an appeal. This appeal does goes against the very
methodology I have adopted in addressing appeals and I firmly believe is a
prime example of why the statutes of limitations clause is within the
Judicial council Operating Policy.
There comes a point and time when a decision is too far removed for
the Judicial Council to appeal it. This is evident in the points outline above
and the surrounding circumstances in this case. Imagine if, in the future, a
Petitioner requests an appeal of a decision removed by five months, a
year, or even three years prior to the case submission. The ramification of
hearing such a case and ruling in favor of that case are nearly infinite and
may, as in this case, be outside of the scope of the Judicial Council to
remedy. In order to avoid establishing poor precedence, this case should
have been denied at its inception.
I conclude by stating that this case NEVER should have been accepted. I hold
myself accountable for the miscommunication surrounding this case. I should have
reached out to ensure information provided and omitted from the case submission were
accurate prior to voting in favor of hearing this case – specifically the date the decision
of the CSUN Scholarship and Grants Committee “to consider” former Director Waqar
for the CSUN Study Abroad Scholarship. Given the correct information, I, or another
Justice, could have informed the other Justices and potentially changed the outcome of
the acceptance of this case. In the future, I would like to see the Petitioner’s provide
more detailed information in their case submissions when requesting an appeal of a

7. 7
CSUN entity’s decision. Hopefully, in the future, we can avoid appealing decisions too
far removed from the dates of said decision. I also encourage my fellow Justices to
consider the reasoning behind this dissenting opinion, as well as, adopt or develop a
methodology of reasoning when faced with appeal cases as to avoid situations in which
we issue judgments on issues too far removed.
Sincerely,
Caleb L. Green
Caleb L. Green, Associate Justice