The government operations committee, am I told, is considering a bill to require (a reiteration of the effort made earlier this year, which was previously written on here) the Executive branch to follow the Nevada Open Meeting Law (NOML) [the law; NOML Handbook; Regent's Policy on the NOML as it applies to student governments].
A little under three years ago I sat a table with a handful of senators for three weeks over winter break. During that time, we wrote the constitution now being used by ASUN. One of the issues we spent considerable time debating was how to construct an executive branch in such a way as to obviate the executive branch from having to follow the NOML. This was done for numerous reasons. However, for the sake of brevity, the most important thing to note is that it was done deliberately and with great consideration--as a review of the 74th sessions records would reveal.
What has transpired to transcend or negate the wisdom and consideration of that deliberate change?
Why is the Senate, or members of the Senate, attempting to recreate the meaning of the law? The record is very clear on the intentions of the drafters of the constitution. The record is very clear on the support granted by the 74th Session and by the students of the University that year to the changes . If we can assume the Regents were aware of the changes and the implications of the changes (not an assumption I would make), they and System legal counsel apparently felt the constitution created a government consistent with Regents' policy.
My impression of the debate that is being crafted is the senators are going to law and policy to win their argument. While the law, when combined with Regent's policy, is sufficiently ambiguous to allow them to win, if this contest is to occur, I hope the sponsoring senators have a clear and honest reason for pursuing this change. Especially given the fact that the opposite move was made only three years ago after nearly a year of consideration.
As a side note, the recent expenditure of over $11,000 was accomplished--in concluding a deal outside of the legislative process given untenable time constraints imposed by the NOML--in a manner consistent with the structural changes of the Executive.
Posts
Boy, amazing how fast the senators are rejecting the new constitution, huh, Shane?
ReplyDeleteI chaired that committee. You and I were there. We know what was discussed, what the reasoning was. Only three sessions removed from that, the institutional memory is already lost. Except that's what written reports are for. For any enterprising senator who is curious or wants to impress their fellow senators with their knowledge of the past, check out this report.
The senators risk opening a Pandora's box of all kinds of nastiness if they decide to go down this road, which they are perfectly within their rights to do. Require certain executive structures of ASUN to comply with the OML, particularly the programming arms, and you're back to the previous constitution--a definite step backwards.
The $11,000 billboard expenditure, while consistent with the intent to make the executive branch more able to act quickly, I do not believe was proper. But I'll leave that for someone else to debate.
I'm the one (at least one person) that asked you guys to create limiting definitions for the accounts, if my memory is working correctly today.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what exactly you mean by "limiting definitions," but I'm going to try anyway. Forgive me if I take this in a wrong direction.
ReplyDeleteWe passed a very complicated, quite comprehensive, though imperfect, budget control act that sets up the financial framework on the ASUN side. One needs to understand how this is all intended to work to see why what is being done now is not what was designed.
The long and short of it is this. The ASUN Const. states that money can only be spent in consequence of an appropriation. The Senate makes appropriations through the laws it passes. The way that looks is the Senate takes money from the treasury (all the money) and divvies it among the various accounts. In a most general sense, those account divisions define the object for which the money is to be spent. The budget act states that money appropriated can only be spent on the object for which it was appropriated.
An example: money is appropriated to the homecoming department for its expenses. The object of that appropriation is for the operating expenses of that department's lawful activities. The homecoming department's function is to plan and execute ASUN's homecoming activities. Thus, if it's an expense for homecoming, it is to be drawn from the homecoming department's account.
The budget act also says that money cannot be spent beyond an appropriation. If the Senate appropriates $10,000 and the department spends $10,500, a violation occurs.
The problem in your footnote, I will admit, is gray. The office account really doesn't have a great definition in law, and the laws really don't codify a lot of ASUN's structure and practices, something the Senate should work to fix. But tell me how spending money on advertising for homecoming is logically connected to the administrative support for ASUN, which is what that office account is generally all about?
I think the limitations are already there, but no one understands that fact. People seem to be more worried about doing good things than stopping to question whether they are being faithful to the laws as written.
Another hypothetical. Say the Senate appropriates $30,000 to buy one van. Let's say ASUN gets a steal and only needs $15,000 to buy a van. Can the remainder be used to buy a second van? Can it be used for something else? The law says no. That would be an expenditure without and beyond an appropriation.
Why does this all matter? What good is the Senate's constitutional power to determine what money gets spent on and how it gets spent if the executive can substitute its judgment for the Senate's? The Senate gets to decide these things. But the executive doesn't get to decide it wants to spend $50,000 on homecoming when the Senate said $35,000. This business the Sagebrush has reported appears to be nothing more than accounting sleight of hand, and poorly disguised at that.
The key here is how specific the Senate wants to be with its appropriations. The Senate might find value in allowing money to be shifted from one account to another for certain purposes. But the law needs to say that. I'm not suggesting the Senate approve every purchase of pens and sticky notes before they are made, but I am suggesting that there be more fidelity to what is plainly in place.
Having wasted five minutes of my day, I think you got what I was saying:
ReplyDelete"The problem in your footnote, I will admit, is gray. The office account really doesn't have a great definition in law, and the laws really don't codify a lot of ASUN's structure and practices, something the Senate should work to fix."
Can we talk about Kealy's proposal that the Senate doesn't have to follow NOML that was brought up at the last meeting?
ReplyDelete