Vis Lupi Est Grex

Fill 'er up, with cronyism and corruption

A cursory review of tonight's ASUN Senate agenda (Word Doc warning) reveals that the Senate will consider--but not without violating its rules--nominations to fill the vacant positions on the Election Commission. (The Nevada Sagebrush has the story, as well, but yet again misses the more important issues.) But at least they're getting filled, right? The relevant portion of the agenda:

10. MOTIONS TO FAST-TRACK APPOINTMENTS
The motion to fast-track a resolution of appointment confirmation shall be in order only if recommended by the committee of relevant jurisdiction.
a. The Senate will consider the following nomination to an Association office:
1. Assistant Chair – Tony Gallian
2. Poll Coordinator – Jeremy Jones
3. Publicity Coordinator – Jeremiah Todd
4. Ballot Coordinator – Austin Davisson

Anybody notice that one? Jeremiah Todd. As in former vice presidential running mate with Eli Reilly.

As in the 75th Session senator who was censured for violating the Nevada Open Meeting Law. The text of the censure resolution (S. Res. 75-55) is embedded below.

Todd Censure Resolution
Eli commits another epic error in judgment in putting forward a crony to help oversee an election in which Reilly is running for reelection. So much for feigning impartiality. So much for following the requirement that "[m]embers [of the Election Commission] shall be chosen on the basis of their experience, integrity, impartiality, and good judgment" (Election Code, sec. 2(a)(3)) (ironic emphasis added).

I'm sure Mr. Todd has grown from the experience, but is this really the best face to put on ASUN's publicity efforts for elections? Is this really an "impartial" candidate, given his deep association with Eli? Is Todd really an example of "integrity" and "good judgment," given his censure for violating the Open Meeting Law?

Makes you wonder about the other nominees, huh?

Violation of Senate rule suggestion
In considering tonight's nominations to the Election Commission, the Senate will have to violate one of its rules (surprise!) to act upon the item. As cited above, the explanation for the agenda item states that a "motion to fast-track a resolution of appointment confirmation shall be in order only if recommended by the committee of relevant jurisdiction."

Interestingly enough, there is a Senate rule which governs this. Rule XV (d)(2) states "The motion to fast-track a resolution of appointment confirmation shall be in order only if recommended by the committee of relevant jurisdiction" (Senate Rules).

The committee of relevant jurisdiction, the Conduct and Appointments Committee, can only recommend fast-tracking confirmation of appointments to Association office if the Committee held a properly noticed meeting (under the Open Meeting Law) and took up the issue as to whether it would allow the Senate to fast-track the appointments.

If the committee were to grant its permission tonight, or at any other time without holding a legal meeting, a violation of the OML would occur. A review of recent agendas of the committee shows that the committee did not ever properly consider this item.

(Rule XX of the Senate's rules and ASUN Public Law 75-37, the Appointment Regulation Act, provide further guidance on nominations to Association office. Our guess is neither of these provisions have been followed either, creating further instances of legally questionable actions.)

Politically speaking, the Senate may be justified in overlooking these transgressions tonight, given the importance of having elections officers (and never mind the fact that only 2 weeks remain until the election). But it does not excuse the complete disdain for procedure.

Another defect is with the agenda item itself. The item does not mention that this has anything to do with Election Commission offices, in possible violation of NRS 241.020(2)(c)(1) ("Written notice of all meetings must be given at least 3 working days before the meeting. The notice must include: ... (c) An agenda consisting of: (1) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting.") . This certainly would not be the first time the Senate has violated the OML this year, and that their "leader," Priscilla Acosta, has been "punished" for violating the law (Acosta OML Resolution).

I guess so long as everybody "does the right thing," no harm, no foul.