Off The Record

By Kelsey Gustafson

I received an e-mail from Brian Cihacek last night in response to my previous post, “Cihacek’s ‘04 Senate Controversy.”  He sent me a brief statement commenting on the 2/24/05 Record article I posted a link to, and also told me about a letter to the editor written the following week. I’ll be posting both those here, and I encourage anyone who read the 2/24/05 article to read these as well.

Here is Cihacek’s statement:

The cult of the political pundit argues that the American population loses interest if answers are too long or too fraught with nuance or too intellectual. These pundits push for a ten word answer which is oversimplified to speak to the largest audience in order to influence the voter to their position. The unfortunate fact is the life and how we live can never be put into a ten word answer and trying to create a situation in ten words is both disrespectful and degrading. It is disrespectful because it assume that anything over ten words is far too much for the average person to understand, that somehow we are nation which has a limited capacity versus a nation which has unlimited potential and promise. The supposition of short attention spans, of limited intellectual understanding is degrading both the human person and to the values and goals of our collective, American identity. Complexity is never a vice. We must demand from our information sources the highest level of factual evidence and the highest level of objectivity.

The article concerning my impeachment from the Saint John’s Senate does represent either one of these goals. It is both vague in its wording and presents no evidence to clarify the charges outside of myself and other senators, it does not describe the methods of the Ethics Committee or how this process reflects the then environment of the Senate. This is not a mea culpa in which I will tell the real story; it would achieve little almost four years later when almost of the principal players have moved on and the charges never went beyond the Ethics Committee to either action by the university or action in a legal case. This short essay is to say evaluate news source carefully, examine multiple sources, and establish the context of the article. Question and consider the evidence, look to actions which precede and followed the event named in any article and then draw a conclusion. It is not agreeing with claims made by party or another but it is about being informed enough to make your own claims.

I am more than willing to discuss this event with anyone interested or who has questions, comments or concerns.
-Brian Cihacek

Here is the letter to the editor, which was published on 3/3/05. There is no online link, so I’ll be typing it out for you. The letter says:

Dear Editor,
Last week’s Record article, ‘SJS treasurer impeached,’ provided an unfair representation of the situation. 

Besides faulty fact-checking and misleading statements, the article failed to acknowledge the positive impact Brian Cihacek had on clubs and the CSB/SJU communities during his unfortunately short term. 

The club leaders represented below would like to take this opportunity to thank Brian Cihacek for his dedication and genuine desire to improve both of our communities. 

Cihacek was one of the few senators who directly reached out to clubs and could be relied upon to get things done.  When other senators responded with apathy, Cihacek was willing to listen to clubs and take action, even if that meant stepping outside his ‘jurisdiction’ at times.

The trial and subsequent impeachment of Cihacek was a great disappointment and a slap in the face to the effort he put into his position.

The St. John’s Senate has lost a good man and his absence will be felt by many in the CSB/SJU community. Cihacek was a senator who made it possible to give credence to the SJU motto. Whether others follow his example remains to be seen.

Signed John Van Rooy, Maytsua Thao, John Nelson, Carl Johnson and Greg Ruhland.