Vis Lupi Est Grex

Was The Law Broken? Does it Matter?

Obviously, this is a question only a court is allowed to answer in a formal way, but sometimes another process can play out.

Because of the adversarial nature of the conflict between Corinna Cohn and the ASUN and its officers, I think something has been lost. There are a couple simple questions I hope the Senate and Speaker Geremia ask themselves before proceeding to trial against Ms. Cohn.

1. Do I think I violated the Nevada Open Meeting Law?
   
2. If so, should I try to correct my own mistake?

In the instance of a mis-posted agenda, this is pretty simple. The following might be hyperbole, but I doubt it's far from the truth. In the three years I've been involved in ASUN, probably every single committee chair and speaker has mis-posted an agenda. Think of it as a rite of passage. The difference between most of those cases (specifically when individuals and/or the body became aware of the problem) and what I see happening now (and last year) is that there doesn't seem to be very much interest in admitting error and correcting it.

In two cases (AN-001 and AN-002) the remedy is quite simple for ASUN. In the case of the meeting agendized as occurring in 2008 (it didn't occur in 2008, it has held in 2009), the remedy is perhaps stupidly simple. Agendize a meeting with all the actions that occurred during that meeting and redo the actions. It might take like 10 minutes if there is no public comment on items. It wouldn't even require seeking settlement with Ms. Cohn. If it was done properly, the Judicial Council would have no interest in the allegations because the complaint becomes moot. In cases involving inadequate notice (i.e., insufficient detail), the solution is similar, although slightly more difficult to execute. But a solution might work something like this.

1. Ask Ms. Cohn what agendas her evidence found to be deficient.
2. Find the actions items under those agendas.
   
3. Find thedocuments (e.g., bills, resolutions, minutes)
   
4. Properly agendize the items for a new meeting
   
5. Pass it all

If there are no objections to recreating the actions of previous meetings, which there shouldn't since all the people voting are operating under the assumption it all passed regardless, the meeting part should be inconsequential. The difficult part will be finding all the documentation.

But, alas, all this is premised on the assumption that the 77th Session admit the 76th Session did something wrong. And it requires the Speaker to be willing to work with Ms. Cohn and Ms. Cohn to work with the Speaker. And perhaps the animosity that has built is too much to overcome at this point. But dammit this is not hard to fix.

---

Updated at 10:35 a.m. by Lupus
I added links to the referenced cases.