In my opinion, your editorial “Jon Marker’s Union” (Jan. 24, p.8) is, to say the least, a blatant abuse of editorial power that only remotely skirts the truth of the matter for a cheap, sensationalist attack on a good man. Instead of simply noting that Jon violated the Union constitution, perhaps it would have been more accurate to also note that, in its current edition, the Constitution had nothing in place to deal with a situation where the General Assembly was not yet elected. Is this a shortcoming of the current text? Of course, but it is important to remember that the Union constitution in its current incarnation is only a year and half old, and if we had assumed that our U.S. Constitution was complete a year and a half after it was drafted, you wouldn’t have even been able to publish this editorial (as the right of the press to publish materials critical of any non-federal government wasn’t formally granted in law until the Supreme Court’s 1931 decision in Near v. Minnesota).

You imply that Congress would not be as lenient toward a U.S. president as the General Assembly was toward Jon. Historically, when the Constitution has not addressed a particular right or power, the Court has more clearly defined what the boundaries of power are. Jon’s actions were only a “violation” because they weren’t addressed in the Union constitution, and how can you criticize the Assembly for wanting to prevent such confusion in the future? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jon would have approached us with this event if we had been in session at the time. I think it’s also worth noting that, since Jon was unable to bring this before the Assembly, he ensured that every cent used was covered by the Dean’s Office before he brought this to the administration. The mayoral issues forum, may I remind you, received rave reviews from all who attended it; had Jon waited, we almost certainly would not have been able to put together this event. It’s not his fault that Marc Weber abruptly resigned, and I think that the fact that he tried to move the Union forward this way speaks more toward his desire to make a difference in the BU community than it does for his disregard for “another piece of paper.” I can’t speak for my fellow assemblymen, but I know I have no desire to impeach Jon Marker just because the Union constitution didn’t formally prevent Jon from doing what he did.

Perhaps the editors at the Free Press should try harder to present the whole story instead of picking and choosing the facts to suit them. You should be ashamed of yourselves for attacking Jon Marker as you have, and you should consider yourselves very lucky that he is too busy trying to lead the students in new and exciting directions to waste his time dignifying your baseless implications.

Andrew Golden CAS ’06 Student Union Assemblyman