Vis Lupi Est Grex

Is Our Senators Learning: Rules? What Rules?

After nearly a week, through a close friend of the blog, we have obtained copies of the resolutions the Senate adopted at its first meeting of the session. They are, um, interesting. Yeah, that's the word. In this part of our "Is Our Senators Learning" series, we examine whether the Senate adopted rules of its proceedings at its first meeting of the session.

First of all, it looks like the Senators have the right idea behind all of this. But where their enthusiasm and good intentions abounds, their attention to form and detail lacks.

Executive Summary
For those who want our points in quick-and-dirty form, here they are. For those who want a more detailed explanation, keep reading. We will do these quick summaries on our more complicated IOSL posts. We would strongly encourage all Senators to read the full posts, but certainly the Speaker and the committee chairs, who will need to be experts in legislation to do their jobs well.

• The resolution does not adopt rules; it says that rules have been adopted
• The resolution is too vague
• The rules of one senate do not continue with force into the next Senate unless they are adopted by that senate
• Precision in language is very, very important
  

Below is a copy of S. Res. 77-4, a resolution purporting to adopt rules for the Senate.

S. Res. 77-4: Adoption of Senate Rules

There's just a slight problem. That resolution doesn't actually adopt rules. Below is a specimen version of what a proper resolution adopting rules would have looked like.

S. Res. 77-4: Adoption of Rules--specimen

Can you tell the differences between the two yet? This is why the use of precise and clear language is incredibly important in the Senate. Let's first examine what the Senate passed this session (77th).

A Resolution
Adoption of the Senate Rules

Resolved, that the Senate has adopted the Rules of the Senate pursuant to Article II sec. 2(c) of the Constitution of the Associated Students.

Short Title
  This Resolution may be cited as the "Appointment of the Secretary of the Senate"

We'll ignore the stylistic concerns for now (which are considerable) and look only at substance.

"Has adopted" Does Not Equal "are adopted"
This resolution does not adopt Rules of the Senate; it merely says "that the Senate has adopted the Rules of the Senate" (emphasis added). In other words, all this resolution does is say to the world that the Senate did something. The problem is they never actually did that something. Reading the resolution, which rules are adopted?

The form of the resolution in the specimen is exactly the same as the resolution the 76th Session adopted at its first meeting (except for the designation of which session). The specimen states more specifically,"That the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Sixth Session, including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate, are adopted as the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Seventh Senate."

Ignoring the business about "applicable provisions of law", the resolution states "That the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Sixth Session ... are adopted as the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Seventh Senate."

Now you tell me, which resolution is clearer and will provide better information to people looking back at what the Senate did? I am sure the 21 Senators sitting around the table one week ago today all thought that they were adopting rules, but the instrument they passed that actually represents the formal, legal action does not do what they thought they did.

As a legal matter, it appears the Senate did not adopt rules. As a practical matter, since the Senate is the only body who gets to judge its rules, this is likely just an academic exercise. But why shouldn't it be? This is a university and this is a student government. This is a learning opportunity.

The Rules are not continuing in nature
Why is it that the Senate can't simply say that they have adopted rules and just use the rules from the previous session without specifically saying so? The Rules of one Senate session do not continue in force beyond a session. They are not considered to be continuing in nature. Laws have continuing force beyond Senate sessions. They are permanent. However, what one senate does with respect to itself cannot bind future senates. Thus, the rules cannot continue from one session to another.

The legal and parliamentary way around that is to have the new senate adopt the previous senate's rules as its own. Thus the specimen says, basically:

• We are adopting rules
• We are using the last session's rules
• Those rules are adopted as our session's rules

What the 77th Session did is okay in that it presents a learning opportunity. To take advantage of that learning opportunity, the Speaker should place the item back on the agenda so the Senate can have the mistake explained, so they can learn from that mistake, and correct the error.

Is this nitpicky? Hell yes. Does it matter? Absolutely. The Senate is a legislative body and the words it uses matter a great deal. Do we fault them for the error? No---so long as they correct it. It should be fun when some devious senator discovers that the rules are not actually in force, as a legal matter, and tries to take advantage of that fact. Fun indeed.