Vis Lupi Est Grex

A committee of the Senate is not the Senate

2010-06-02T00:57:00.000-07:00

The 78th Session senators have now had a few weeks' taste of summer, which means it's time for the Senate to recess until August and leave those poor souls who are in Reno (and who volunteer) to handle the Senate's business.

What usually occurs (at least in every interim period since 2007) is the Senate establishes an interim committee that has the authority to consider legislation within the jurisdiction of the standing committees and report it to the Senate by the time the Senate reconvenes from its break. Below is the model resolution establishing an interim committee (S. Res. 75-29).

Associated Students Statutes at Large Volume 75--Unofficial

When the Senate adopts rules of the Senate at the beginning of a session in the model fashion, readopting this type of resolution is unnecessary (sort of discussed here and here). Anyway, that's sort of off topic.

Enter Sen. Jesus Palma, who has introduced S. Res. 78-25 (thanks for numbering legislation!), scheduled to be considered at today's Senate meeting. The resolution would create an interim committee that is "entrusted with the full power and duties of the Senate," including the authority to pass legislation. That legislation would automatically sunset when the Senate reconvenes following a recess. The resolution is creative, no doubt about that, but it is fatally unconstitutional. Before I get to the constitutional concerns, a couple nitpicky points.

The legislation says the committee (called the "Summer Session" in the legislation, but let's call a spade a spade) is to have a number of members "not to equal or exceed a majority of the full Senate; but must consist of at least twelve Senators." With a 22-member Senate, a majority is 12. The reason staying below a majority is critical is because generally under the Open Meeting Law, whenever a quorum (defined as majority) of a public body meets, it must be noticed and conducted under the OML.
Ignoring that this committee would have power to pass legislation, it's exceedingly rare for the presiding officer of the parent body to also chair a committee (a continuing problem for the Oversight Committee) because a presiding officer should maintain the appearance of impartiality; the chair of a committee must advocate for the committee's positions, creating an inherent conflict.

Constitutionally, this "Summer Session" idea is dead on arrival. The ASUN Constitution is explicit about the enactment of legislation. In order for a bill to become law, it must first have "passed the Senate." ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 4(a). While the Senate may have all the legislative power of the Association, ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 1, and have the power to make all laws necessary for ASUN, ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 3(a), that doesn't mean it has the power to rewrite by rule the constitutional process for enacting laws. Sen. Palma's proposed committee would do just that.

The proposed committee also deprives the students of their representation because the full Senate is not considering the legislation before it goes to the President for him to sign or veto. Those senators who are not on the committee will have no vote, and thus the students who those senators represent will be unrepresented.

The proposal also leaves some questions unanswered. Does legislation the committee "passes" have to be presented to the President for approval? If so, what if the President vetoes a bill? Does it go to the committee for an override? What about the constitutional provisions governing veto overrides by the Senate, ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 4(b)-(e)? Does this committee obliterate the President's power to make recess appointments, ASUN Const. art. III, sec. 2(c)? If the committee truly has the "full power" of the Senate, can it expel senators from the Senate under article II, section 2(c) of the ASUN Constitution? And the list goes on. This alone should be sufficient evidence that this "committee with full power" proposal is a bad idea.

Finally, the Senate cannot delegate to a committee the constitutional powers that are explicitly vested in the body as a whole (e.g., enacting legislation, confirming executive appointments, proposing constitutional amendments). To do so would circumvent the exclusive processes laid out in the constitution.

This proposal reminds me of a couple of proposals that were considered during the 74th Senate Session (selected documents here). Assuming this proposal is based on one of those, a critical point that Sen. Palma seems to be unaware is that the previous ASUN constitution did not explicitly dictate how legislation became law; the present one does. That single difference precludes this proposal.

Rarely does the Senate need to take immediate action during the summer. If the need does exist, however, convening a special meeting with distant senators teleconferencing or video-conferencing should not be much of an impediment to achieving quorum.

In short, the model interim committee established during the 75th Session should be adequate, and it carries with it none of the constitutional concerns as does this proposal, since it is a committee of the Senate just like any other. Sen. Palma's proposal is certainly creative, but the constitutional concerns make it unworkable.

Budgets and appropriations

2010-05-19T13:27:00.000-07:00

One of the more nuanced items in ASUN is the difference between a budget and appropriations. The ASUN Constitution states that the Senate has the power "[t]o set a budget for the ASUN, but no money shall be spent from the treasury without appropriations made by law." ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 3(a)(2). This clause clearly indicates there is a difference between a "budget" and "appropriations made by law."

It may help to have some definitions. Black's Law Dictionary defines budget as "[a] statement of an organization's estimated revenues and expenses for a specified period, usu. a year." An appropriation is defined as "[a] legislative body's act of setting aside a sum of money for a public purpose." An appropriations bill is "[a] bill that authorizes governmental expenditures." And a budget bill is "[a] bill designating how money will be allocated for the following fiscal year."

Applying these definitions to ASUN, in its simplest form, a budget bill is one that sets an estimate of the amount of money coming into ASUN (revenues) and the amount going out (expenditures). A budget does nothing more than that. It does not authorize spending. That is what an appropriations bill (or several) is for. This distinction is important because the fiscal year 2009 budget was invalidated in Judicial Council Case No. AN-006 in part because proper appropriations were never made. That brings us to tonight.

The Senate is going to take up a bill setting the budget, which reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated students,[*]
That the budget of the Associated Students for Fiscal Year 2011 is hereby made effective as set out in Schedule A of this law.

[*] Could someone seriously fix the bill template to capitalize "students," as it is supposed to be?

So if this is all the Senate passes, ASUN cannot legally spend any money in the next fiscal year because no appropriations have been made by law. So what does a proper appropriation look like? I'll give a current example. Below is a properly drafted appropriations bill using figures in the proposed budget for next fiscal year.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated Students, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Senate for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, namely:

SENATE
Compensation, Officers and Employees
For compensation of officers, employees, and others as authorized by law, $72,573.70, which shall be paid from this appropriation without regard to the following limitations:

office of the secretary
For the Office of the Secretary, $15,810.00.

fringe benefits
For fringe benefits expenses, $2,155.70.

Expenses of the Senate
For expenses of the Senate and its officers and employees, $6,000.00.

Travel
For travel expenses as authorized by Senate resolution or law, $6,000.00.

Hosting
For hosting expenses, $1,500.00, of which $500.00 is for summer training and $1,000.00 is for the outreach efforts of the Senate.

This Act may be cited as the "Senate Appropriations Act, 2011".

That is a proper appropriations bill for just the Senate. Repeat for each department, office, account, or other unit of ASUN. The appropriations process is one way by which the Senate can exert control over the executive on how to spend money.

If the reader needs more evidence that this is the proper appropriations process, look up appropriations bills from the 75th Senate Session here. One note, ASUN Public Law 75-2 is a special case because the budget and spending authorizations for that fiscal year were adopted under the previous constitution. That law was intended simply to make effective under the new constitution the prior authorizations. It was not meant as a model of a proper appropriations act for subsequent fiscal years.

N.B.: Changes to appropriations were not made by striking dollar amounts in the budget and inserting new ones (as has become the practice since the 75th Session), but were made by enacting new appropriations bills. See, e.g., ASUN Public Laws 75-23, 75-24, and 75-30. For an example of a rescission, see ASUN Public Law 75-31. For an example of capital spending, see ASUN Public Law 75-43. (I'd link to the individual files on the ASUN website, but they've been needlessly scrubbed.)

Stop pretending it didn't happen

2010-05-18T10:54:00.000-07:00

To whomever had the brilliant idea to scrub the ASUN website of history:

Please stop pretending it never happened. Yes, I know the Senate repealed all legislation and reintegrated it into a comprehensive codification, but those documents exist. They happened. Repealing them doesn't make them go away; it just means they don't have present force or effect. By scrubbing the website, you're making historical research next to impossible to conduct solely on the web.

K thx.

[Bottoset] sucks. Hard.

2010-05-04T18:00:00.000-07:00

I thought long and hard about writing (and posting) this entry. The (non)story doesn't deserve the attention. Neither do the people who are responsible. But to let it go without response would be even worse than staying silent.

The Sagebrush, which seems to have taken an interest to ASUN again (maybe they just didn't like those in the 77th Session), reported today that a couple of genius senators have introduced a bill to abolish ASUN. Okay, that's really being overly generous, because the bill does no such thing. The operative part of the bill:

Therefore, be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated students, that ASUN and all it encompasses be abolished immediately, and that fees stop being collected from the student body.

The evidence for this proposed enactment?

a. ASUN represents a small minority on this campus, as evidenced by a 10% voter turnout during elections.

b. Compulsory fees are unethical, and create pay for a handful of bureaucrats while wasting student money on pizza and frivolous expenditures.

c. ASUN has abused its authority, and must be stopped.

d. ASUN sucks. Hard.

This bill, just like the petition UNR SFL has been circulating, is destined for failure. Epic failure.

First, the Senate cannot abolish itself, much less the rest of ASUN. It doesn't have that power. Even the voters in ASUN do not have the power to force the issue. The only entity with the legal authority to abolish ASUN is the Board of Regents.

Second, as most (except the bill's sponsors) readily acknowledge, it's a joke. Third, the sponsors clearly haven't thought the bill through. What happens if it passes? Seriously. This more than anything else I'd like a response to.

One last little question. Doesn't supporting this bill, and especially voting for it, either explicitly or implicitly constitute a violation of the oath ASUN officers take to support the ASUN Constitution? Why is that not grounds for expulsion from the Senate? If being clearly subversive to the body you are bound to support doesn't qualify as an offense sufficient to expulsion, I don't know what does.

I hope a senator gets wise and objects to this bill's consideration or moves to indefinitely postpone this joke of a bill. To do otherwise invites ridicule.

Update: May 5 at 9:20 p.m.
Turns out the bill is heading to Sen. Bottoset's committee, Government Operations, for a hearing. This will certainly be interesting to watch unfold.

Disaster in Anarcho-Capitalist Utopia

2010-05-02T08:27:00.000-07:00

An oil drilling company critically underestimates the potential harm from having its oil rig fail, and millions of gallons of crude begin pumping into the Gulf of Mexico. The drilling company immediately defaults.

Who cleans up the oil?

The Free Rider Problem

2010-05-02T05:31:00.000-07:00

Over at UNRSFL, poster Keabag has posted a set of questions raised by Barry Belmont's Anarcho-Capitalism II lecture. Keagbag's 12 questions more-or-less center around the free rider problem, but I have seen Barry dance around answering direct questions about this apparent flaw in his philosophy on several occasions, and I'm curious to see if he will do so again.

The main problem with idealistic cities-in-thought (e.g., anarcho-capitalism, communism, pure capitalism) is that they gloss over the problem of members who are either not able or willing to make equal contributions to society.

Philosophies like Barry's tend to take a hard-line approach: people who do not contribute will face social pressure to conform, or else they will be excluded from essential functions of society (dating, selling, etc…), and that people who are incapacitated (the elderly, the severely handicapped, orphans) will either be taken in and cared for by their families, or else private individuals will raise the necessary capital to provide for those folks as an altruistic gesture. But this solution ignores the history of humanity that shows that even when private entities attempt to intervene to help those in need, there are still many who are unable to receive the assistance they need in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

I expect Barry would deny that such a result would occur in his idealistic system of government. Yet, even Ludwig von Mises, one of Barry's anarcho-capitalist heroes, argued that government was necessary for a limited number of functions, and it was because, as a practical matter, human self-interest is not sufficient for ensuring the smooth operation of society. Only governments, through their monopoly on the legal application of force, are in a position to solve market failures such as the free rider problem (even if they do so inefficiently).

It will be very interesting to see how Barry responds to Keabag's insightful questions. I suggest following the discussion.

A logical reason to not be mean

2010-04-28T23:07:00.000-07:00

Basis: A person tends to ignore statements—regardless of the statements validity—from individuals the person dislikes while receiving openly statements from individuals the person does like.

Assumption: An individual’s aversion to mean people is predicated on biology or sociology (the way in which the brain is wired or matures due to cultural influences, etc) and is therefore not easily overcome and not instantly arbitrary.

Proposition: When attempting to convince others of one’s own correctness the stated assumption should be accounted for.

I make a claim I would like others to take seriously.
I know it is more likely to be accepted if I am well received.
I know I can increase my chances of being well received if I propose my claim respectfully.

Conclusion: Propositions (e.g., criticisms) should always be as truthful as possible. However, presenting propositions with respect and dignity will never harm one’s chances of being heard. Therefore, not being mean is a logical route to convincing others of one's own correctness.

Mean

2010-04-28T18:04:00.000-07:00

Our good friends at UNR Students for Liberty have a post discussing meanness. Reading the title, I immediately filled in the blanks and assumed Mr. Belmont was going to confess to making average arguments. However, he was only ardently defending his juvenile approach to debate. Alas. However, I was interested enough to look up mean in the dictionary.

We all know mean is the sum of a group divided by the number of members, in other words, the average.

But did you know that mean is also defined as inferior and poor? As in He has a mean and narrow understanding of human relationships.

BUT, mean also means excellent, very skillful or effective. As in He is a mean debator.

So, mean can describe anything along the continuum from crap to cream of the crop.

Sagebrush awakens to ASUN's problems

2010-04-20T06:39:00.000-07:00

Hallelujah! Although, just a few demonstrably false facts. Some comments too, where appropriate.

[F]ormer university student Corinna Cohn ... filed [complaints] to the student judicial council that the senate violated Nevada Open Meeting Law in several instances, in part by not posting meeting minutes online and not keeping complete and accurate minutes in 2008 and 2009." (Emphasis added)

In the complaint for Case No. AN-005, Cohn actually complained that the Senate did not produce written minutes of several of its meetings, as the Open Meeting Law (OML) requires. It was the Judicial Council order that got its reasoning wrong. It wasn't because the minutes weren't online; it's because ASUN could not prove they were ever produced by handing them over.

Although passed properly by both the senate and president in 2008 and 2009 the bills did not go through legal channels for certification after their passing as the senate rules require.

Not entirely true. There are other bases for invalidation, including countless OML problems, but the Judical Council arguably exceeded its authority by not declaring the actions void on the grounds of the OML problems that Cohn complained of, despite the Council making specific findings to the contrary and despite the defending parties' lack of denying anything in her complaints.

If you do what I argue is the prudent thing, which is to apply the Council's holdings to all items specifically complained against, you get a much different list of what is invalid and why. Remember, the ASUN never disputed Cohn's complaints. I argue that just because the Judicial Council hasn't said an act is void doesn't mean that the facts can independently demonstrate to the Senate and President that there are errors that need to be cured.

Eli Reilly, who served as the student body president during this time ... said he didn’t know bills weren’t being enrolled properly because “I sign it or I don’t. It’s not my job to make sure that clerical things are being followed through.”

Although Eli is, I suppose, technically correct that he has no independent duty to ensure the Senate follows procedural rules it must abide by, one complaint specifically alleged that Eli did not perform specific statutory duties required of him, like create an adequate record of when bills were presented to him and when he signed them into law.

Many Associated Students of the University of Nevada leaders say the procedural mistakes come from lack of instruction between sessions.

So do the advisors have a duty to become intimately familiar with the system the students created? Aren't they really the only substantial common thread from session to session?

“There just wasn’t any training[," Geremia said.]" Since then, the senate has enacted a training session during the transition period.

And a lot of good that training did for the 77th Session, which engaged in much of the same despicable conduct. The next graf in the story is my personal favorite.

Just one year before the errors, the senate of that time re-wrote the entire ASUN Constitution, transforming the roughly 10-page document to nearly 200 pages.

This single statement could not be more demonstrably false. The present ASUN constitution. The previous ASUN constitution. Notice how the current constitution is about half the size the old one. Where did this 200-page number come from? From all the laws enacted in pursuance of the present constitution. Big difference.

“It’s part of the issue of the complexity of the laws they’ve created for themselves,” ASUN advisor Sandy Rodriguez said. “It was inevitable based on what the 75th session wrote and its complexity.”

Very noticable what isn't said here (it's not my job to teach the senators what their job requires). Also, notice the tone. Blame the guys who really created the mess, the ones who made everything so damn complicated. Nice deflection. So how do you explain the people who created the system didn't find it so complicated?

The seven meetings declared null ... failed to comply with the constitution’s open-meeting laws.

The ASUN Constitution does not contain open meeting laws. The state legislature has required the Board of Regents to require student government to comply with the state's open meeting law, but also requires the Board of Regents to enforce it. NRS 241.038. The Regents have essentially said, student governments, you must comply with every letter of the OML. So how did the ASUN Judicial Council get to this? It found that since ASUN enacted this law, it gave the Council a way to apply the OML under ASUN law.

The judicial council ruled to void the meetings after all parties agreed Nevada Open Meeting Law was violated when the minutes detailing the meetings were deemed missing.

Well, Fryman, you got that fact correct here, so why didn't you get it right in your story's first graf?

Some claim that advisors failed to step in when the body was violating state open meeting laws. Rodriguez, however, sent 2008-09 Speaker Priscilla Acosta a five-page document detailing the issue of missing and incomplete minutes three months before Cohn filed any grievances.

This is perhaps the most interesting issue that has come to light in all of this: whether the ASUN's business manager has a duty under Regents policy to stop spending when spending was not lawfully approved under the student government's constitution.

On the whole, this story is exactly what the student body needs to see. Hopefully, it starts discussions about whether the advisors have a duty to ensure ASUN plays by its own rules and whether the advisors really understand the shift to a more formal system of student governance the students demanded with the present constitution's adoption.

Hypothetical

2010-04-19T16:36:00.000-07:00

Here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's say you are a director of a student association. You realize that your current group of student legislators (let's say there are 76 of them) don't know what they are doing. They cannot pass their legislation, and they are fudging up everything they touch. You send them a harsh letter telling them that they need to get their act together.

(1) Does the letter establish the director had notice that the student government was not legally enacting bills?

(2) If so, is that sufficient to show that the director knew she was violating Regents policy by spending money that had not been approved by the students?

There may be an exam on this material.

ASUN AG Macaluso nails it

2010-04-19T09:29:00.000-07:00

In a recent ASUN Attorney General opinion to President-elect Jose (at the time of the opinion), AG Macaluso correctly opined that the ASUN Constitution does not require nominees for the Judicial Council to have earned 60 credit hours in residence at the University of Nevada. See the opinion here.

Of particular pride for me was this mention: "[T]he writers of our constitution recognized the fact that transfer students would desire election or appointment to [office] and [the constitution] provides them this opportunity."

Yes, yes we did.

So what all is now void, and what remains?

2010-04-18T17:06:00.000-07:00

Bringing order to chaos once again will be a difficult task for the 78th Session of the Senate. As I recently pointed out, the first thing they should do is get their bearings. As a gesture of good will, the fine folks at VLEG have compiled a couple of documents that might prove helpful. They are linked below.

Acts Voided Under Judicial Council Cases

Legislative Acts Invalidated

One caveat: I am applying the ruling's findings to all items the petitioner complained against, even if the Council did not specifically address it. My reasoning is two-fold. First, for consistent application and in hopes of finding a holistic solution, logic demands it. The fact is insufficient practices persist, and the rulings give instruction.

Second, procedurally, the defending parties in the cases all admitted liability and did not dispute any material facts. Thus, petitioner was entitled to the judgment she sought in her complaints.

One last point: these documents advocate for corrective action. The Senate is on abundant notice that, as a matter of ASUN law, the standards in the state's open meeting law apply internally and are judicially enforceable. The Senate should now seek to avoid new harm and mitigate past harm by curing it. Indeed, I am merely an observer providing my two cents, but I hope I have demonstrated I am a knowledgeable observer.

Briefing the cases making waves in ASUN

2010-04-18T16:42:00.000-07:00

Since the Judicial Council has issued its final orders in cases virtually erasing the 76th Senate Session's acts, and some 77th Session acts, too, now seems an appropriate time to review what the cases were about, how the Council ruled, and the rulings' immediate effects.

BRIEFS OF CASES

Case No. AN-001: Open Meeting Law (OML) complaint; a notice of a meeting that misstates the date of the meeting by including the wrong year does not satisfy the clear and complete agenda requirement.

Facts: The Senate held a meeting on April 22, 2009. The posted notice of the meeting said the meeting was for "April 22, 2008."

Held: A notice of a meeting that incorrectly states the date the meeting is to occur violates the Open Meeting Law as applied under ASUN law.

Reasoning: The clear and complete agenda requirement under the OML requires that an agenda clearly state when a meeting is scheduled so as to give actual notice to the public. An error that causes confusion, even when inadvertent or minor, is no excuse.

Notes: Although the Council did not declare actions taken during that meeting void, the OML states that any action taken in violation of the law is void.

Case No. AN-002: OML complaint; agenda items must satisfy clear and complete agenda requirement to give public notice of what public body will discuss or decide at meeting.

Facts: Petitioner alleged certain agenda items, for meetings held between May 7, 2008, and May 6, 2009, violated the OML's clear and complete agenda requirement, as elucidated under Nevada case law and state attorney general opinions. Specifically, Petitioner alleged agenda were vague and misleading, giving the public insufficient notice of what would be discussed or decided at public meetings of the Senate. Additionally, the failure to list the numbered designation of legislation on agendas confused the public by not giving them actual notice of what the Senate would consider at meetings.

Held: The Senate must adhere to the complete and clear agenda requirements applicable under state law. Because complaint was unchallenged, Petitioner's summary judgment granted.

Reasoning: The OML's standards apply to the ASUN with equal force as at the state level. When agendas are vague, the public is not on notice of what their representatives will discuss and decide.

Notes: Although not expressly declared, since summary jugment was granted in full, all items listed in Petitioner's complaint are, under the OML, void.

Case No. AN-003: ASUN law case; bills certified properly enrolled and having passed the Senate in the form of the enrolled bill by a secretary of the Senate who was appointed after the bills passed the Senate were fraudulently certified.

Facts: The Senate passed bills numbered 76-1 through 76-19 during the period of May 7, 2008, to February 25, 2009. The secretary of the Senate who certified passage of those bills was not appointed until March 4, 2009.

Held: The Secretary of the Senate cannot certify the passage of bills that predate her appointment. Any bills so certified are fraudulently certified and cannot withstand scrutiny. A secretary of the Senate must have actual knowledge of the passage of bills to certify them. Therefore, all such acts so certified are void.

Reasoning: Bills not passed and certified correctly undermines the legislative record's integrity, creating doubt about the legitimacy of enactments.

Case No. AN-004: OML complaint; written minutes of meetings must comply with the OML standard that the substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided are included.

Facts: Petitioner alleged that minutes of Senate meetings did not comply with minutes standard because they were vague and did not provide sufficient detail so the public could know the substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided at meetings of the 76th and 77th Sessions of the Senate (up to the date of the complaint).

Held: Minutes that do not comply with the OML standard are insufficient to give public notice of what occurred during the meeting.

Notes: Council declined to void actions taken during the meetings at issue. However, under the OML, where violations are found, the acts are void as a matter of law.

Case No. AN-005: OML complaint; minutes must be produced within 30 working days of a meeting.

Facts: Petitioner alleged that numerous sets of minutes from meetings of the Senate were not produced within 30 days of a meeting, many of which were never produced at all.

Held: Minutes for a meeting that are not produced within 30 working days of a meeting violates the OML. When minutes are not produced within 30 working days of a meeting, the actions taken at the meeting are void.

Reasoning: Without minutes minutes being published in a timely manner, the students have no way of knowing what their representatives did in their name and with their money. Voiding the acts taken at meetings with no minutes is only real option because there is no way to determine if the meeting occurred, what happened at the meeting if it did occur, and, should disputes arise about what was decided at a meeting, what did in fact occur. Without a record, the meeting must be presumed, under the OML, to not have occurred.

Notes: Council decided to not declare meetings void when Senate, as of the date of the order, had published minutes. However, under the OML, where violations of found, as a matter of law they are void.

Case No. AN-006: OML and ASUN law complaint to invalidate FY2009 budget; minutes not produced within 30 working days of a meeting creates a void meeting; audio recordings must be produced within 30 days of a meeting, and when not produced creates a void meeting; meeting held when notice and agenda was not posted in enough locations is void; agenda that does not list the location and place of a meeting with particular clarity creates a void meeting; when acts creating evidence of essential steps in the legislative process are omitted, proof of valid enactment cannot be verified; enactment of a budget by itself does not create a constitutionally recognized appropriation; successive amendments to a budget or appropriation are void in and of themselves when the base enactment is void; spending without lawful authorization is illegal; promulgation of a bill, within a reasonable time of enactment, is required.

Held: Because Respondents admitted liability, Petitioner granted summary judgment on all grounds listed in complaint. All enactments related to the ASUN budget for fiscal year 2009 are void.

Reasoning: Respondents did not challenge allegations, thus creating no issue.

Notes: This case served to invalidate all spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year.

Inheriting a mess

2010-04-16T13:57:00.000-07:00

Newly elected Senate Speaker Brandon Bishop, along with 21 other senators who began their one-year terms of office Wednesday night, have inherited a mess, mostly not of their doing. It's a terrible situation to be in. You're new, you're excited, you don't really know what's going on, though some of the cockier senators may think they do (I'm looking at you, incumbents), and that's difficult enough, but now the Judicial Council has just pissed on your joyous day by erasing much of what a Senate did two sessions ago and created precedents that could spell doom for much of the previous session as well. Sucks, don't it?

How Bishop immediately leads the Senate through these murky times will speak volumes about his potential as Speaker. Humbly, I submit three things he should do immediately, so as to not create further damage.

First, get your bearings. You need to figure out what the Council said and how it applies to the here and now. Just because the acts invalidated happened ages ago (not even 2 years ago, to those of us existing in the real world) doesn't mean it won't have repercussions on what happens on today and tomorrow. For instance, the fact the Open Meeting Law was violated and bills were not properly enacted isn't the only reason the FY2009 spending was invalidated. It's also because enacting a budget doesn't satisfy the appropriations clause of the ASUN Constitution. (Senators who just read that and are lost, welcome to the real world.)

Second, make damn sure you don't make new mistakes, especially on the same grounds as the old ones. This should be pretty obvious, but sometimes student leaders can be particularly thick-skulled. Bishop seems pretty level-headed, so hopefully he won't disappoint. Indeed, he already seems to be off to a much more competent start than his predecessor given his first agenda. Each session does not exist in a vacuum. Institutions like the Senate must be cognizant of what happened in the past because often it has an effect on what can be done in the present.

The Open Meeting Law is the most immediate thing Bishop needs to become proficient in. As short as the law may be, it covers a lot and has a lot of nuance to it. Seek out competent help, and I can tell you right now, it doesn't exist among the ASUN student development personnel. You can decide to go it alone, but I hope you can see how well that worked out for Speakers Priscilla Acosta and Gracie Geremia. That's not to say the advisors are completely worthless, but learn their weaknesses.

Third, once you have your bearings and have ensured you won't make the same mistakes twice, or new ones for that matter, it's time to start cleaning up the mess. That's going to be considerably more complicated than it may appear now. It will take time. It will take patience. It will take assistance from others. Don't rush this step, because doing so will increase the likelihood of mistakes.

Oh, I almost forgot: while all this is happening, you've got until June 30 to enact a lawful budget and make appropriations for ASUN for the next fiscal year. Don't get too excited now.

Finally, be aware that although the Judicial Council may have ruled, this story ain't over yet. Others will be gunning to point fingers and assign blame to someone. It will go beyond the confines of the ASUN sandbox. Just be aware. Others still might decide to have some fun at ASUN's expense and start picking away at the 77th Session's acts, now that the heavy lifting of establishing some precedents is done. All I can say is learn, and learn quickly.

It may seem the whole world is instantly against you, but it just seems that way. Seek outside advice. You may find your biggest assets are not in the ASUN bubble. This is somewhat self-serving, but seeking help from exceptional former senators might be a good idea. Some are willing to help, they just need to be asked.

Now that's a press release

2010-04-16T10:23:00.000-07:00

Corinna Cohn is taking her cases to the court of public opinion. Maybe the Ostrich Times will decide this is worth covering now. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

STUDENT GOVERNMENT AT UNR SPENT $1.6 MILLION ILLEGALLY

A bill authorizing spending for the Associated Students of the University of Nevada (“ASUN”) during the 2008-2009 fiscal year was one of nineteen bills the ASUN Judicial Council has ruled was illegally enacted. The ruling means that the Association never approved its $1.6M budget in accordance with its constitutional requirement. Board of Regents bylaws require expenditures be approved by the student association in order to guarantee financial accountability.

The rulings follow from a series of complaints filed in March 2009 by Corinna Cohn, a 2009 UNR graduate, who charged ASUN officers with violating provisions related to the Nevada Open Meeting Law after the ASUN Senate established a pattern of not publishing accurate meeting agendas and minutes, and for not following the Association’s own procedures for legally enacting legislation. The Council released its opinions this week after ASUN officers wrote letters admitting their errors and after the Council found gross errors in essential processes.

Cohn filed the complaints after UNR administrators informed her that they would not interfere with what is essentially a student affair until the Association’s Judicial Council made a ruling on whether any ASUN laws had been broken. However, Regents policies require administrators to serve as a check on the student government to ensure ASUN conducts its business according to both state law and association rules.

The ruling means that any expenses paid by ASUN during the 2008-2009 fiscal year were done so without legal authorization. Examples include contracts for goods and services, operating expenses for the student newspaper, grants to school clubs, and salaries paid to student workers and professional administrators.

The University recently announced plans to reduce its budget by $11 million to meet requirements set by the Nevada legislature during its March special session.

The Press's Civic Duty

2010-04-16T10:19:00.000-07:00

Much is different between the University of Nevada and the school in the southern desert wasteland of Nevada, but one difference recently struck me as surprising, and disappointing.

The UNLV Rebel Yell, in Thursday's edition, had three news stories that directly mentioned the happenings in CSUN, the undergraduate companion to ASUN, two of which were on the front page. Hardly an issue of the Rebel Yell goes by without a story about what CSUN, and particularly its Senate, is doing.

It struck me because when I look to the Nevada Sagebrush, ASUN is lucky to get any mention at all, much less front page coverage, particularly on important stories, like how the Judicial Council has been picking away at the Senate's actions because they didn't follow important procedural rules (the ASUN Constitution).

The Sagebrush has a civic duty to keep the undergraduates at Nevada informed about the happenings of their student goverment, to which each student is compelled to pay $5 per credit. Instead, the venerable Sagebrush seems more like the Ostrich Times for all things ASUN.

I find this entirely relevant because Sagebrush Editor-in-Chief Jessica Fryman, who this past weekend was renewed for a second year as editor, seems awfully timid when it comes to covering ASUN, especially compared with some of her predecessors.

Maybe she's just doing what other Sagebrush editors were afraid of doing: cutting ASUN coverage because hey, nobody gives a shit about ASUN. Maybe the Sagebrush's declining coverage is partly to blame for that attitude among the student body. But maybe she doesn't cover ASUN because there's no point in giving valuable column inches to a bunch of rank amaterus who are consumed with self-aggrandizement and patting themselves on the back for working hard but never delivering results. Maybe it's because the Senate in particular is largely irrelevant, even though it is supposed to take front and center in ASUN.

I have always been a fan of the Sagebrush, even after they took their various shots at me. Although I was never a staffer, I was proud when they earned a Pacemaker Award under the leadership of Brian Duggan. But something's amiss lately, and I hope they find their cojones once again. Keep a fire to the asses of everyone in ASUN. It keeps them honest.

Is the Sagebrush shirking its civic duty? I welcome comments.

ASUN spending of $1.6M illegal, Council finds

2010-04-15T20:15:00.000-07:00

Last night and early this morning, the ASUN Judicial Council released its orders in three remaining cases challenging the legal sufficiency of several acts of the Senate during its 76th Session, including bills authorizing spending for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. (Last discused here.)

In unanimous opinions, the Council declared the 2009 fiscal year budget was not legally passed and thus all money ASUN spent was without legal authorization. The Council also invalidated most of the 76th Senate's actions because of gross violations of the Open Meeting Law and because the Senate's secretary fraudulently certified the passage of legislation.

The opinions effectively wipe the 76th Session from the books, finding that the Senate and other ASUN officers did not fulfill their legal and constitutional requirements during the course of enacting legislation.

The Council excoriated the Senate, its Speaker, and ASUN President Eli Reilly for not following the proper, legal processes. These rulings come after the defending parties in the cases admitted liability but plead the Council look past the errors since they were not committed with malicious intent.

With these rulings, experts in ASUN process agree that they could serve as valuable precedents to overturn much of what the 77th Session did, including the budget for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30.

These rulings come on the heals of 78th Session convening last night. The Council also ordered the opinions to be read to the new senators in an open meeting so they can be apprised of the seriousness of the situation they now find themselves in.

We expect to have a fuller analysis in the near future.

Updated to clarify that Geremia was not held personally responsible. The office was sued, and she was in the office at the time these rulings were signed.

Making history

2010-04-15T16:47:00.000-07:00

My everlasting admiration (whatever that's worth) to the first person who can explain how, in my mind, what is depicted in this photo made ASUN history. Note to the persons depicted in the photo: you are ineligible to receive my everlasting admiration.

Clarification: I'm referring only after the current ASUN Constitution took effect, so since 2007.

WTF is up with club funding

2010-04-11T00:21:00.000-07:00

When I was an ASUN Senator--my first time around, nearly four years ago--the UNR Rugby club was just starting to become something exceptional. They were gaining national recognition, had managed to get a very good coach and were looking for opportunities to improve their name recognition. They came to ASUN for money to augment their travel fund. Their budget request was heard at the same meeting as a request from the Apple Boppers (a club dedicated to destroying apples in the pursuit of Nirvana or some such BS).

I made the argument that support of a club like the Rugby Club, because of the recognition it could garner for the school, is probably more valuable than support for a club like the Apple Boppers (especially in an environment of scarce resources).

Sandy disagreed. All clubs are created equal. Who are mere senators to create distinctions, she argued. A reasonable ideological distinction to be sure. It was not some form of the philosophy I argued at that meeting that became the dominant one in the execution or drafting of club funding policies over the next few years. It was Sandy's.

I believe this is a fundamental flaw in ASUN. Not all ideas are created equal. Not all pursuits are equally valid. Not all clubs are equally beneficial. A club like the Pack Patriot or UNR-SFL or RHA or AASA does much more for the campus culture and the students directly involved than clubs like the Apple Boppers or Club 1457, but the funding procedures don't recognize that. They don't even hope to attain a level of awareness that would allow intelligently directed "investment" in the campus' future.

This is unfortunate given the high demand for funds in the face of the limited supply. The ASUN should seek to achieve a funding structure that supports campus community, education and development.

Don't get no respect...

2010-04-09T18:05:00.000-07:00

ASUN Senator Jessica Purney, a two-term representative for the College of Education, called out two-term ASUN President Eli O'Reilly in her status, writing: "Eli Reilly once again has no respect for the legislative body by vetoing an almost unanimous bill from the 77th session because of his opinion."

On one hand it seems like Sen. Purney's rationale completely misses the obvious point that the ASUN Constitution establishes a separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, and that it is the President's prerogative to veto legislation just as it is the Senate's prerogative to override a veto.

Furthermore, the Senate is by far the more powerful branch of government. Sen. Purney complains that the executive pushed the Senate to pay for mascot uniforms for the athletic department, and that he created high-paying positions on his cabinet. However, those positions were funded by the consent of the Senate, and the Senate can destroy those positions at nearly any time (so long as they are not constitutional offices).

On the other hand, I think it says something about the ASUN advisors that even with two years of experience, ASUN government officials seem to have so many gaps in their institutional knowledge. As an undergrad I probably would pointed the finger at Sen. Purney and impugn her competence for complaining about problems that have constantly been within her domain to address and fix. Having developed a broader view of ASUN, I think it is more appropriate to ask why the faculty advisor to the Senate has not provided more guidance to the legislature to inform them of their legal powers.

Most senators end up serving only one term. That is not enough time for them to learn on their own what power they wield. They must rely on someone else for assistance. If that advisor is indifferent, or worse, calculating, there is a risk that ASUN will be less able to fulfill its mission to serve the needs of all students.

This raises the question… what portion of the ASUN budget goes to feed the salaries of ASUN professional faculty?

What happens to an office when it is repealed?

2010-04-07T13:30:00.000-07:00

Tonight the ASUN Senate will consider a bill to create an ASUN Department of Traditions. Overall, the reorganization of the existing Homecoming Programming Department to include other large events seems to be an interesting idea, although there still isn't a clear reason why there needs to be two programming departments in ASUN.

One thing, though, caught my eye in the bill. It repeals the act establishing the Homecoming Programming Department and the Director of Homecoming Programming without dealing with those who hold office with unexpired terms.

It appears that someone holds the office of director right now. The current officer's term, under the act, expires November 30, 2011. So what happens to this officer should this bill become law?

To me, the critical issue is whether an incumbent has a vested right in continuing to hold office until the natural termination of the term. I really don't know the answer to this question. It seems reasonable to me that the Senate has the unfettered power to abolish the offices it creates, but it also seems reasonable that an officer has some sort of contract right in her appointment to an office.

Thoughts?

A response to legal questions with Faceboook and ASUN?

2010-03-31T18:35:00.000-07:00

Timing seems awfully coincidental.

Ken Munsterman, March 31 at 3:03pm

Hello everyone! Just to give you the heads up, we have created a new ASUN fan page! This new page is your source for everything from your student government, from activities to important reminders. Please join the page as this group will be shut down in two weeks.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Associated-Students-of-the-University-of-Nevada-Reno/294825107734

Maybe this is a response to the legal issues I posed here.

What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.

2010-03-27T15:46:00.000-07:00

It is easy to assume one's cause so virtuous as to justify any action in support of it. The youthful libertarians of UNR Student's for Liberty convinced themselves their recent Abolish ASUN event was a justified attack on a system they find wasteful. Not too many people were amused with the event. Many expressed disgust. However, the political savants at UNR-SFL remain unapologetically unabashed. Those who are annoyed, bemused, confused, disgusted, enraged, flabbergasted, etc are just too simple-minded to get the enlightened point being made by UNR-SFL.

Well, John Russell has proved his assumed beliefs might be just a little too large for him to wear intelligently. His recent post condemning ASUN's Flipside Productions recent event suggests he still does not get why people will label him and his fellow club members hypocrites and still support Flipside's event.

You stand on a soapbox professing disdain for waste and then engage in waste yourself; regardless of the purpose, you are a hypocrite. The club's petty behavior may have made a point, but it was not done elegantly. It was done with contempt and displayed rank hypocrisy.

p.s. Another reason you are all hypocrites is your voluntary attendance at a tax supported state sponsored school.

Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
~Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Wasteful spending is wasteful spending

2010-03-27T15:08:00.000-07:00

As rare as this occasion is: Agreed.

Now, that's not to say that all entertainment programming is wasteful. Spending on entertaining as part of larger events, such as Homecoming and Mackay Week, is probably more justifiable than just a random event. This spending might also be justified as providing students something to do late at night as an alternative to drinking.

Holding two events with essentially the same activities within a short time period seems duplicative, as well. Duplicative events by their nature are wasteful. To our friends at UNR SFL, I pose this question: Ignoring your premise that ASUN is wasteful because it coercively takes from all to support the "annonyingly active," is all programming spending wasteful? If not, what is not wasteful?

There might also be First Amendment issues implicated by ASUN's practice of banning from their Facebook pages individuals who express dissenting views. Even though government is utilizing a private service (Facebook), the government cannot act in ways that violate a person's constitutional rights. And guess what, ASUN is a government actor. At the very least, ASUN might want to consult with an attorney to determine what its First Amendment liabilities are with respect to its use of Facebook and other social media outlets to connect with ASUN members.

And we're not the only ones to notice this as an issue. The problem with the ASUN's Facebook pages is it appears ASUN and ASUN officers create forums with no announced limits on participation--an open forum--and then engage in editorial control over comments and membership--censorship. This is a no-no and potentially opens ASUN and the University to liability in a civil rights suit.

Senate should abandon laws revision

2010-03-24T17:10:00.000-07:00

Given the recent revelations about the cases filed against the Senate and other ASUN officials challenging their legal sufficiency, the Senate might want to wake up and take notice about what is happening.

Just today the Judicial Council informed the parties that it intends to grant summary judgment against ASUN on all remaining cases in light of two ASUN officers admitting liability in the cases.

Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's project to revise and codify all ASUN law is in serious jeopardy given these cases. Practically, the Senate should scrap this project so it can get its bearings in light of the Judicial Council decisions. Much of what ASUN has done during the 76th Senate Session is now invalid, and the application of the precedents could invalidate much of what the 77th Session has done.

The biggest problem at this point is it is entirely unclear what is the law and what is not the law given the decisions against ASUN. Sen. Hostmeyer's project only works if what is being revised and codified is in fact currently law. But under the Open Meeting Law (OML), any action taken in violation of that law is void. The Judicial Council has now ruled that the Senate has engaged in countless OML violations. This is fatal to the revised statutes (now called the revised code) project.

Although in three of the cases the Judicial Council declined to declare the ASUN actions invalid under the OML, ASUN should nonetheless treat them as invalid for a couple of reasons. First, it is the right thing to do. Second, the University and Board of Regents could later step in and invalidate the acts with much more severe consequences. And if some other entity invalidates the underlying acts, the revised statutes would instantly become worthless. There would be no ability to rely on it, defeating its very purpose. The safest thing to do is treat any actions taken as invalid, within the scope of the considered cases, and fix them. Therefore, the senators should scrap the revision proposal, at least until they determine where everything stands. This will take some time.

Most of my previous concerns with the project still apply. I have new concerns about the implementation bill because it creates an inherent conflict in what is the law. The original enactment and the codification? This isn't how codification works. Since ASUN's law and constitution borrows much from the federal system, the Senate would be well advised to borrow the code style the feds use. This would promote consistency and stability, as well as promote the ability for students to learn the styles because many resources are readily available.

Update: For anyone who cares, this is our 200th post. Yay us!

BREAKING: Judicial Council rules against Senate, Speaker, President

2010-03-24T11:46:00.000-07:00

The ASUN Judicial Council today announced it would issue summary judgment in favor of Corinna Cohn in her remaining cases pending against the ASUN Senate, Speaker of the Senate, ASUN President, and other ASUN officers, including a case to have ASUN's spending during fiscal year 2009 declared illegal.

In the statement filed today, the Council canceled Friday's scheduled hearing on the cases and said that, in light of the admissions of liability from ASUN Senate Speaker Gracie Geremia and ASUN President Eli Reilly, it would issue summary judgment in Cohn's favor. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.) The Council said it would meet Friday to discuss the summary judgment orders and release them in a timely manner.

Two of the pending cases alleged the ASUN Senate violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) by not keeping and timely producing written minutes of its meetings and violated ASUN law by not properly preparing bills for presidential consideration. The third case challenged the validity of ASUN's budget for fiscal year 2009 on multiple grounds, including several OML violations.

These three cases and three cases decided last month could have far reaching consequences. With respect to the budget, the Council's forthcoming ruling will declare that the ASUN illegally spent around $1.5 million last year. The cases regarding OML violations could have the effect of invalidating much of what the Senate has done in the past couple of years.

The rulings could also open Geremia and other senators to individual liability under the university's code of conduct. Any violation of the OML found under the code of conduct can result in automatic removal from office, as well as other disciplinary sanctions.

Check back later for analysis and commentary.

ASUN officers admit liability in cases challenging laws

2010-03-22T12:26:00.000-07:00

ASUN President Eli Reilly and Speaker of the Senate Gracie Geremia admitted liability in three cases alleging violations of the Open Meeting Law (OML) and ASUN laws governing enactment of legislation.

In separate statements filed yesterday, respondents Reilly and Geremia admitted that laws, processes, and safeguards were not followed in the Senate consideration and enactment of several bills. Shortly after the filings, the petitioner in the cases, Corinna Cohn, requested the Council issue summary judgment in her favor since nothing at issue was in dispute. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.)

In his statement in the case to invalidate the fiscal year 2009 budget, Reilly said, "I will admit that process was not entirely followed surrounding the signing into law of the Association budget for fiscal year 2009." Reilly further pleads that none of the omissions were done "in a malicious or intentional manner."

Regarding the case challenging the Senate's failure to timely produce written minutes of its meetings, Geremia blames noncompliance on poor advisement, the fact that student government officials and employees receive no formal training on the law's requirements, and have a high turnover rate from session to session. Geremia also claims that the 75th Session committed similar violations, but that is not before the Council. Geremia concludes that the problems will cease with proper training and advisement.

In the case challenging the proper preparation of legislative measures after Senate passage, Geremia writes, "I recognize that the process was not carried out in the correct manner.... There are many reasons to (sic) why this process wasn’t followed, ranging from a transition in Senate advisement to the resignation of the Secretary of the Senate." Geremia similarly concludes that improved communication will ensure mistakes like this do not occur in the future.

Geremia's statements tended to point the blame at others, particularly ASUN administrative faculty, while Reilly's statements accepted responsibility but claimed the liability was of no consequence since it wasn't done with malicious intent.

None of the statements explicitly indicates the Senate or executive branch should escape the consequences of liability, but all intimate that the Council should overlook the violations of the law.

The statements are in response to three cases still pending from more than a year ago. In February, the Council ruled against ASUN in three other cases alleging various violations of the OML, but refused to invalidate the underlying Senate actions (VLEG coverage here).

To date, the Senate has taken no action in response to these cases. No item has listed these cases on a Senate agenda, and presumably no formal discussion has taken place at Senate meetings regarding these cases. It does not appear Geremia issued her statements admitting liability with the consent of the Senate, possibly exceeding her authority as speaker. The Senate is named as a respondent in the cases and the Senate never delegated authority to the speaker to answer the cases.

Geremia's admissions of OML liability also open her to university disciplinary sanctions under the NSHE Code. The punishment for being found liable for OML violations is removal from office and other possible sanctions under the code of conduct, including disciplinary notation on the violator's transcript.

All six cases, if ruled in Cohn's favor, will create binding precedents that will invalidate much of the 76th Senate Session's actions, and could have application to the acts of the current Senate session as well.

The three cases pending are scheduled for argument on March 26. With the admissions of liability, it is possible the Council will cancel argument and issue summary judgment.

The cases pending are numbered AN-003, AN-005, and AN-006 (available here).

Still pending, three years later

2010-03-19T21:22:00.000-07:00

Another ASUN Election has passed, and a constitutional amendment ratified by the students an eternity ago (three years) is still pending. This has been well discussed in this space before. Since the previous posts have been getting some traffic lately, perhaps someone has noticed this somewhat important oversight.

Previous posts:
What Constitutional Amendment?
Oh, That Constititonal Amendment
Another BoR meeting, constitutional amendment still pending

Since the amendment was ratified back in 2008, the Regents have enacted a policy delegating the approval power over student government constitutions to the Chancellor. See section 1.3.6 of Chapter 1, Title 2, Board of Regents Handbook. Thus, the Regents do not have to approve the amendment, but the amendment still must be formally transmitted to the university president, and ASUN law is explicit about whose duty that is.

Once again, in hopes of making this all so utterly easy a caveman could do it, below is a specimen certificate, updated for current Election Commission Chairman Jeremiah Todd. All he needs to do--literally--is print out the certificate the number of times required under ASUN law, sign them, and send to them to the required recipients.

I have to say, I'm hard pressed to think of anything more embarassing to anyone ever involved in ASUN, the administrative faculty included, than letting the people's votes go ignored, particularly on something so important.

Specimen Certificate to UNR President on ASUN Constitutional Amendment_rev 2010-03-19

Please, someone, anyone, fix this so I can stop writing about it.

Congratulations to the President and Vice President elect and the Members of the 78th ASUN Senate

2010-03-11T20:55:00.000-08:00

As promised, some brief analysis.

Jose won by an 8-point margin
Sadykova won by a 14-point margin
All 5 incumbent senators won reelection. The only ASUN insider to lose was Shirley Diaz, although it was inevitable for an insider to lose in that race.
14 men and 8 women were elected to the Senate
About 12 percent of the undergraduate student body voted, about the same as in the past few years
Both advisory funding questions passed by more than 60 percent of the vote
The closest race, in the School of Journalism, was decided by three votes

Once we have the numbers, we will compare voter turnout rates by college.

The most surprising result from this election was student support for increased fees. By significant margins, both questions passed. It is evidence that even in times of increased tuition and fees, students are willing to pay additional fees for specific programs and services.

Also of note is how smoothly this election was conducted. Major kudos to Commission Chair Jeremiah Todd and his entire crew. Their hard work is apparent and they deserve our praise. Great job, guys!

2010 ASUN General Election Uncertified Results

Winners in bold; NOTA stands for none of the above. Some analysis later.

President of the Associated Students
Charlie Jose-850
Casey Stiteler-713

Vice President of the Associated Students
Shirley Diaz-657
Leissan Sadykova-855

Senator for the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources (2 seats)
Jeffrey Fine-49
Corey Jokerst-78
Randy Pares-38
Chelsea Truax-61
NOTA-0

Senator for the College of Business Administration (3 Seats)
Jake Butera-151
Richard Corn-117
Jacob Crawley-91
Mathew Neben (Incumbent)-157
NOTA-20

Senator for the College of Education (2 seats)
Ashlee Benton-35
Jourdan Douglas-17
Edna Meza-43
David Ronan-48

Senator for the College of Engineering (2 Seats)
Alexandria Hill-70
Adam Khan-70
Roger Przybyla-53
NOTA-16

Senator for the College of Liberal Arts (8 Seats)
Joseph Barrett-124
Brandon Bishop (Incumbent)-231
Mitch Bottoset (Incumbent)-162
Samuel Crampton-144
Christopher Day-164
Branden Jung-167
Tatiana Kosyrkina-113
Lea Moser (Incumbent)-187
Ann Newsome (Incumbent)-164
Joey Nizuk-123
Jesus Palma-242
Jordan Weaver-119
NOTA-58

Senator for the College of Science (2 Seats)
Joseph Agor-38
Angel Arias-33
Jennifer Masters-54
Natasha Monga-87
Lauren Riley-74
NOTA-0

Senator for the Division of Health Sciences (2 Seats)
John Haller-51
Reynaldo Veloz-67
Kim Williams-70

Senator for the School of Journalism
Jonathan Moore-61
Misha Ray-59

Ballot Question 1- JV $5 Art Fee
Yes-865
No-506

Ballot Question 2- JV $25 Student Support Services Fee
Yes-855
No-534

Flashback to 2006

2010-03-11T10:08:00.000-08:00

Taking no opinion on the votes expressed here, notice anything amiss?

Bragging rights go to the first person to answer what is wrong and cite to some authority.

Just what exactly do they hope to accomplish?

2010-03-09T21:39:00.000-08:00

The UNR Students for ~~Liberty~~ Ludicrousness want to Abolish ASUN. So what exactly do they hope to accomplish? Oh, right. Abolish ASUN. Unfortunately, their latest endeavor in ludicrousness is destined to fail. Putting aside their pure hypocrisy, why are their efforts wasted? Because what they want can't happen.

What exactly is their petition seeking? A student ballot question to dissolve ASUN? Board of Regents action to eliminate ASUN? The petition is unclear as to its effect. Without the petition's legal effect being clear, it is insufficient to be recognized. Aside from the petition's lack of clarity, other concerns exist.

First, as a matter of ASUN law, the petition does not propose a proper popular initiative. The ASUN Constitution limits popular initiatives by petition to constitutional amendments and popular enactment and repeal of legislative acts (i.e. laws subordinate to the constitution). There is nothing in the ASUN Constitution that authorizes the dissolution of the Association (compare student government constitutions that contain express dissolution provisions). As a matter of ASUN law, the petition seeks something that the government cannot grant: a popular vote on whether to abolish ASUN. (This is predicated on my understanding of what the petition in fact seeks.)

Second, the petition is directed to the Board of Regents, suggesting that the petition is not intended to implicate ASUN's electoral process at all (can you understand my confusion about what this petition is asking for?). The Regents are not inclined to abolish ASUN without the consent of the students. But if ASUN cannot legally place a dissolution question on the ballot, this question will never get to the Regents. The only way I see the Regents abolishing ASUN is if the organization becomes so demonstrably corrupt that wiping the slate clean is the only option.

Third, even assuming that ASUN could place a dissolution question on the ballot, what vote would be sufficient to abolish ASUN? A majority of those voting? A majority of the membership of ASUN? It is entirely unclear what vote is necessary, as a matter of law, to dissolve a student government. To me, it seems that an absolute majority of the membership is required. Also, keep in mind that ASUN is not self-chartering. The Board of Regents is the chartering authority. Thus, to eliminate ASUN requires their approval, and as I've said, it's unlikely they'll grant it.

Fourth, the electronic version is an unacceptable medium in which to circulate the petition. ASUN law does not allow for petitions to be circulated electronically. Thus, the ASUN Attorney General has no authority to accept such a petition.

Finally, what the petition is against, namely "a student government that funds itself through a compulsory student fee," implicates a solution that is worse than what exists now. Implicitly, UNR SFL is in favor of an ASUN that does not obtain revenue through a mandatory fee. But it's that mandatory fee that prevents ASUN from engaging in content and viewpoint discrimination when deciding who gets funding and who does not. In other words, if UNR SFL requested funds for its "Abolish ASUN" event under a voluntary fee system, ASUN could deny the request simply because it didn't agree with the message. It is because ASUN has a mandatory fee that the U.S. Constitution prevents ASUN from engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

One last thing to consider: Getting rid of ASUN isn't going to make college less expensive by $5 per credit. The Regents will happily reallocate that money to something else. In short, doing away with ASUN will do more harm to students than good because the students will lose their official representation.

Sweet, sweet video evidence

2010-03-02T20:23:00.000-08:00

At the risk of giving Mitch Bottoset and Chris Day attention they do not deserve, we give you this YouTube video.

Pay particular attention at the 2:30 mark in the video. A couple of thoughts.

The Code of Elections makes it a violation to "[use] ASUN authority, facilities, funds, or resources for campaign purposes." Section 14(b)(5). A plain reading of that statute seems to indicate that filming campaign videos in ASUN offices is prohibited.

Bottoset and Day (probably for show, given this is intended to be a funny campaign video) appear to pick the lock to ASUN Vice President Charlie Jose's office. Ignoring whether they actually picked the lock, were they authorized to enter that office? If yes, then the only issue is the issue above. If no, is this trespassing or gaining unauthorized entry to an office, in violation of the System Code and state criminal law?

Update: As I initially suspected, the candidates state they were authorized to be in the office. As to my first question, they indicate that even the Election Commission is unclear about how the statute should be applied. Personally, I am torn as to whether this particular instance should be prohibited, never mind if it actually is. In any event, it's clear that this particular statute needs some tweaking to cure its vagueness.

A sure way to lose a debate and a giant in the room

2010-03-02T17:16:00.000-08:00

A great way to lose a debate: agree with your opponent(s). That is all Jacob Camp, candidate for ASUN President, did in last week's debate. I'm pleased to see the Nevada Sagebrush picked up on this, which was, to several observers of the debate, a giant gorilla in the room. So kudos to the Sagebrush for paying attention to and reporting on the details that mattered. I don't think it's a stretch to say, as far as ASUN coverage is concerned, this is so far the best issue under Editor-in-Chief Jessica Fryman.

That said, there was another giant in the room during the "debate," (available online here--apologies for poor audio) and it wasn't Eli Reilly's epic ego or Casey Stiteler's sense of entitlement, not even Jacob Camp's love fest (but no homo!). It was how painfully obvious how woefully unfamiliar the candidates are--even insiders!--with what ASUN is.

You want to know what ASUN is? An excellent--nay, the only--place to start is with the charter document, the ASUN Constitution, included below for your reading pleasure. For, in the words of "West Wing" character Toby Ziegler, referring to the U.S. Constitution, "in all it is the owner's manual and we should read what it has to say!"

Constitution of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada, 2007

What should we take away from that reading? A few things.

ASUN is an association composed of every undergraduate student at Nevada.
The purpose of the undergraduate student body in establishing ASUN under this constitution is, according to the Preamble, to "advance our interests, set forth our duties, and provide for meaningful participation in the governance of our University." Basically, look after the interests of all undergrads.
The association is governed by a tripartite representative government, and it looks a hell of a lot like the federal government. Although true, this is a government composed of students (i.e. "student government"), it is a government nonetheless.
ASUN is governed under a rule of law.

Now that you've read the ASUN Constitution, we have a framework within which to review the debate. The most evident conclusion is that no candidate is familiar with the owner's manual, the ASUN Constitution. Even Jacob Camp, who claimed superiority over his opponents because he had a copy with him, botched a most basic issue about which offices are created in the constitution. His response after the debate was, "oops."

Particularly with the vice presidential candidates, each has a notion of what the vice president should be, not what it is under the constitution. For those who are curious, the vice president's only constitutional obligations are to be able to succeed to the presidency if need be, to preside over the Senate during judicial impeachments, and do what the Senate or President delegate. That's it. All the jockeying of who is better for diversity was pointless.

I know this next point is nitpicky, but precision with language matters.

Legislator, n., a member of a legislature
Legislature, n., a body composed of legislators
Legislation, n., a written document legislators debate in a legislature

The terms are never interchangeable. Get these right or you'll lose life points.

Last point, universal among the candidates is the idealism to "do good," to "do the right thing," or to help make the campus better. Those are all laudable motivations, but that isn't your job. Getting elected to ASUN means getting elected to run, manage, and lead a government. It is a job with public weight. It means legal duties and obligations, and legal consequences if mistakes are made.

Too often students believe that ASUN is a popular place to be, a resume builder (the perpetual favorite), and really not that serious a thing. But ASUN is more than that. It is a proving ground for future elected leaders. It is a place to learn about functions of government, how governments work. It isn't a sandbox on some playground. So candidates, stop treating it like it is. You'll earn much more credibility if you do.

A little presumptuous?

2010-03-01T13:50:00.000-08:00

Maybe it's just me, but it seems just a little bit presumptuous to start inviting people to the presidential debate you ~~will~~ hope to appear in before you've even won a spot in the general election.

"The President shall give to the Senate information of the state of the Association"

2010-02-22T18:12:00.000-08:00

The ASUN Constitution requires the President to "give to the Senate information of the state of the Association, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he or she shall judge necessary and expedient." ASUN Const. art. III, sec. 2(d). This language, borrowed directly from article II, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, basically means the ASUN President must give a State of the Association address, if we can assume an intent to mirror the practices (I was there, and we can).

Although this provision did not exist under the previous ASUN Constitution, in 2006 the Senate invited ASUN President Jeff Champagne to deliver his annual address before the Senate. 74 ASUN Stat. 11. The invitation was issued under a Senate statute that required the president to deliver an annual address in the fall semester. ASUN Senate Statutes, section 350.1 (April 11, 2007). Since the Senate acts and communicates through the legislation it passes, the invite was a formal resolution.

Since then, the practice envisioned under the current constitution is dramatically lost. During the 75th Session, rather than coordinate a date with the Senate so the address could be attended formally, as it was during the 74th Session, ASUN President Sarah Ragsdale decided to go it alone: she scheduled the event on her own, sent out her own invitations, and never consulted the Senate until after invites were sent out.

The Senate attempted to salvage the event by formally inviting the President to deliver her address before the Senate, as constitutionally required, but the resolution was not agreed to. The Senate felt it had been snubbed (rightfully so, given that the address is to be given to the Senate), and the result was the Senate largely boycotted the speech.

ASUN President Eli Reilly never did deliver a message to the Senate during the 76th Session.

This year, President Reilly is borrowing from Ragsdale. He appears to be going it alone. Why President Reilly is continuing this poor practice is unclear, but it might have something to do with the lack of a professional interbranch relationship between Reilly and Speaker Gracie Geremia.

It is not an accident that we used the language from the Federal Constitution in the ASUN Constitution's rewrite, now all of three years old. We intended the practice to mirror the Congress and the President's State of the Union message. I'd suggest the Senate fix this misunderstanding, take the upper hand, invite the President, and get the practice back in order, but we all know how well the Senate follows procedure and the intended practice set by those who preceded them.

Three strikes against Senate in Council rulings

2010-02-18T21:49:00.000-08:00

In three unanimous decisions released yesterday, the ASUN Judicial Council ruled against the ASUN Senate for various violations of the Nevada Open Meeting Law (OML) and ASUN laws implementing the OML.

About a year after initially being filed, the decisions in these cases represent a victory for the petitioner, Corinna Cohn.

In the three cases, the Council found the Senate violated the OML several ways: (1) including an incorrect date on an agenda for a meeting that was held, (2) not satisfying the "clear and complete" agenda requirement, and (3) publishing minutes that do not reflect the substance of what was proposed, discussed, or decided at a meeting.

In none of the cases did the Council decide to invalidate the actions taken in violation of the OML, citing the desire to issue warnings first. But the Council noted it is within its constitutional and statutory power to invalidate actions should similar cases arise in the future.

It is unclear whether the Council exceeded its authority in declining to invalidate the actions, given the plain language of NRS 241.036, which states that any action taken in violation of any provision of the OML is void.

In the case regarding meeting minutes, the Council had especially harsh words for the Senate. "Minutes not recorded with careful and required detail of all actions occurring during the meeting of the Senate is in no way acceptable and is deemed intolerable by requirements of ASUN Law," the Council said in its written decision.

Although these cases have no teeth in and of themselves, they could serve as valuable precedents to invalidate other actions of the Senate, as similar deficiencies have been noted in Senate practice the last two sessions.

These cases were ruled on summary judgment, meaning that the Council found that the petitioner made her case and that the Senate could present no reasonable defense. Some believe that this bodes well for future petitioners who wish to challenge Senate actions based on OML violations.

These cases also could serve as a foundation for seeking individual officer liability under the University code of conduct. ASUN officers who violate the OML are liable to disciplinary action for violating a stated NSHE policy. Such discipline can extend to removal from office and a disciplinary note being placed on a violator's transcript.

Still remaining to be argued are three more cases. One challenges whether the secretary of the Senate can certify to the accurate enrollment and passage of bills purportedly passed before her appointment. The second seeks to invalidate actions taken at meetings where no minutes were published. The third seeks to invalidate the fiscal year 2009 budget. Although that fiscal year has passed, any ruling on that case could set precedents for what is acceptable budgetary practice. The third case also contains several OML violation allegations.

The cases are numbered AN-001 through AN-006. All six cases, evidence, and the rulings are available here.

BREAKING: Judicial Council rules against Senate

2010-02-18T16:00:00.000-08:00

According to official records, the ASUN Judicial Council yesterday ruled on three of six complaints against the ASUN Senate for various violations of the Nevada Open Meeting Law. Details to come.

Diversity: The Paradox of Paradox

2010-02-09T00:52:00.000-08:00

ASUN has a diversity commission that has the supposed goal of helping to push individuals understanding of identity beyond traditional defining characteristics. We should not see black, brown or white. Male and female, there is no difference. Gay, straight, bi, trans-gender, etc does not matter.

There are a few things that are hard to articulate surrounding this particular topic. Sean's attempt at levity and irony attempted to hit on this. There are nearly 40 comments--some not very civil, others noteworthy--on the post, most of which demonstrate a lack of rhetorical skill. Being a vainglorious bastard, I hope to provide some tools here to help some of the people talking about this. I also hope that this might move the discussion, if it continues here, in a more civil direction.

It seems to me, in my very humble and often humbled opinion, that we must recognize the extant notion of diversity to move beyond using it to define people. We cannot flip a switch and divest the world of bigotry, racism, hatred, sexism, ageism, zealotry etc. These are cultural patterns that are in some cases millennium old. They are ingrained in the cultural psyche (gasp, how dare I), embedded in History. This is the unfortunate ambiguity facing the Diversity Commission.

There is also the notion of identity with which to contend. Starting with the premise that individuals are in fact unique presents a problem in attempting to define someone's identity. In the West (gasp again) at least, there is I think a prevalent notion that the individual has a unique identity. And in fact that identity is a natural right. In the simplistic bifurcation of society into state and individual, the state has not the right to demand conformance to social norms (unless the norms protect other individuals from harm) and most not attempt to subsume the individual.

But if we demand an identity, must we not have means to define that identity? Undoubtedly, a concept such as race fails utterly in capturing essential characteristics of an individual. However, other things like religion, geographic location and nationality do often capture parts of a persons identity. And this line of reasoning leads to the trap of accepting these ideas, but we must not accept them, because by accepting them we acknowledge their legitimacy, and we started off not wanting to recognize that they have a legitimate role in defining the individual.

It is here that reality strikes a blow.

Barry Belmont, who I believe confesses to the egregious sin of being a Libertarian, wrote the following in a post belittling Speaker Geremia's apparent non-stance stance (which, unlike Belmont, I think had some valid criticism on contributor Sean's puerile post),

Put yourself [in a blind [wo]mans place] for a day, Gracie. Try to feel how much better the world is when you stop trying to categorize others and realize we’re all just hurtling around this big ol’ universe on a tiny rock. We’re not men, we’re not women, we’re not white nor black nor brown, we’re not Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, we’re not vegetarians and meat-eaters, not gay or straight, not the differences that divide us. We’re just people.

We’re 99+% of the same genetic stuff. It’s time we start acting that way.

I'm honestly a little surprised by that stance, but delving into why would be too many words tangent to my point. To the point, Belmont is from what I have perceived a man of ideas. He has, although I am only acquainted with his writings on SFL, impressed me with his knowledge, logic and rhetoric. I know him solely for his ideas. And he has claimed it is the merit of a person's ideas that is what is worth recognition. However, it is in these ideas themselves that we cannot easily or simply escape from religion or race or sex, because it is these ideas that define, at least in part, identity.

I hold very strongly my belief in the sovereignty of the individual. And I also unequivocally believe my feelings on this have been very heavily shaped by my socioeconomic status and my opinions on religion. These nebulous ideas do play a role in helping us use language to capture the essences of identity. They may be flawed, and each of us has a unique definition for them, but they nonetheless do help create an ultimately imperfect definition of who we are.

And it is for this reason, I see legitimacy for something like the Diversity Commission to exist. However, I have not seen anything from the Diversity Commission that attempts to engage students in this dialogue.

UNR Students for Liberty and Beautiful Irony

2010-02-07T14:25:00.000-08:00

In an ingeniously cruel move, the UNR Students for Liberty have secured funding from ASUN for an Abolish ASUN event. I can't imagine a more brilliant way to demonstrably validate their view that ASUN bureaucracy is a joke.

What's more disturbing is the ease with which the funding was given. You can view the brilliant discourse had by the club commission in a video provided by SFL. I'm sure there are some legal ramifications I am unaware of that might compel the government to fund SFL without discrimination, but that is not what happened.

I grow regularly more and more convinced ASUN serves little purpose. When the club commission cannot stand in defense of the government it purports to serve, the institution has a problem. I've always stood behind ASUN as a great tool to help students learn, but I've seen very little in my years to suggest that SFL is not correct. It seems all ASUN is good at is taking money from all students to redistribute to more active students. ASUN must learn how to advocate for students on issues students care about and be able to defend at least some part of its institution against the funny, but childish antics, of SFL.

Response to budget cuts: let's hold hearings!

2010-02-07T11:11:00.000-08:00

With the latest round of state budget cuts threatening to put the state back to the stone age, and cuts to higher education that are practically inhumane, students across the state are rallying for action. Students at UNLV are planning a walkout (Nevada State College students reportedly are joining). UNLV students have an activism page set up on facebook, SaveUNLV, and they even have a Web site. Students from the College of Southern have consistently been vocal against budget cuts at Board of Regents meetings. The student response at Nevada? Let's hold some hearings!

Now, we can debate the merits of a walkout, which to me seems like a stupid, misdirected effort at activism, but at least it's activism. But ASUN? Holding hearings? Now? Really?! The time for hearings has passed. You guys are way behind the curve. Now is the time for activism.

I look at the ASUN Web site, and there is not a single mention of budget cuts. Instead, I'm told about scholarships, some thing called "The Conference," and some useless waste of money about stereotyping through words.

Instead of spending time in a room insulated from your peers, it's time to start rallying them to Carson City to lobby the legislature that budget cutting is not the solution. Instead of spending money on a sexual health week and a leadership conference, why not spend it on flooding legislators with letters explaining why the state must consider diversifying revenue to spare higher education?

One thing is clear, Nevada: It's time to take matters into your own hands, because the ASUN is busy looking out for their selfish interests, not the interests of its 12,500 undergraduate members.

At least not all hope is lost. Some Nevada students seem to have the right idea.

A year later, cases coming to trial

2010-02-07T10:28:00.000-08:00

Nearly one year after being filed, six cases variously against the Senate, its leader and secretary, the President, and other ASUN officials are finally coming to trial.

In March 2009, student Corinna Cohn (who is a contributor to this blog) filed six complaints in the ASUN Judicial Council alleging gross violations of the Open Meeting Law and of the ASUN Constitution in the passage of legislation during the 76th Session of the Senate.

The first case docketed is AN-005, a case that alleges the Senate violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) by failing to keep written minutes of its proceedings, is scheduled for February 17, during a Senate meeting.

The OML requires public bodies, which the Senate is, to keep written minutes and produce them within 30 working days after a meeting. Failure to do so constitutes a violation. The consequences of a judicial finding of a violation include invalidation of the actions taken at the meeting. If handled by the university conduct office, consequences include removal from office and a disciplinary note being included on the offender's transcript.

The result of invalidation would be far reaching, voiding many pieces of legislation, including last year's budget. All of the cases have the potential to wipe the 76th Session from the books. And since practice has not changed since that session, a favorable ruling for Cohn could lead to challenges of the actions taken during this session, as well.

Respondents in the case, purportedly being represented by the Senate's leader, Speaker Gracie Geremia, complained in documents filed with the Council that Cohn no longer has standing to bring the complaints because she has since graduated.

Geremia has also questioned the ethics of hearing complaints from individuals who are no longer students. "The students of the Association are paying into a system that's paying for judicial wages. As of now, our judicial council is working on cases from an individual who is no longer a student. How is this ethical. (sic)," Geremia wrote in a filing with the Council.

The Council has rejected both arguments, noting that Cohn was a member when the cases were initially filed and thus has standing to see the cases through. The Council did, however, require Cohn to find a representative to argue her cases, which she did.

The cases, which were originally scheduled to be heard in May 2009, were indefinitely postponed because then Chief Justice Ashley Nikkel graduated. The new Chief Justice, Ebeth Palafox, was out of the country for most of the summer, and the cases languished on the docket. Nothing was done until last month, when Cohn received a communiation from Palafox notifying her that the cases were on.

Also of note is Justice Taylor R. Anderson, who formerly recused himself from the cases back in May, is now back on the cases, causing Geremia to take exception. "Ms.Cohn (sic) and Mr.Anderson (sic) have discussed and agreed upon this issues in my presence, prior to his appointment as a justice," Geremia wrote. So far, the Council has instructed Geremia to ask for a recusal hearing if she believes it is warranted.

These cases also rekindle interesting constitutional and parliamentary questions about who can properly represent the Senate in these cases (previously discussed on VLEG here). Although the Senate considered a resolution to allow the parliamentarian to represent the Senate, there is no record of it being agreed to.

Recently, the Judicial Council has been critical of the failures of the Senate and President to properly handle the reapportionment of the Senate for the next two years.

Code of Elections now up-to-date

2010-02-03T12:44:00.000-08:00

In our continuing desire to be a service to those in and those interested in ASUN, we have taken the liberty of updating the Code of Elections, because apparently compiling a document is too much work for those whose jobs it is. You can find our compilation of the document here.

Also, coming soon is a guide to the elections. In it, we will discuss key election policies, some homework all candidates should be doing, and whether or not any of that stuff in the Election Code is actually valid.

One more thing, the candidate packet published by the Election Commission, which was curiously updated after the filing deadline, is not at all accurate. You might as well ignore it.

Cheers!

Sagebrush incapable of basic fact checking

2010-02-02T08:24:00.000-08:00

The Nevada Sagebrush, in its latest show of being incapable of even the most basic fact checking, embarrassingly (and erroneously) states that Division of Health Sciences students will be without representation when Sen. Geremye Teeter resigns this week. Sen. Renee Freeman recently resigned.

But, what's this? DHS has three senators, you say? Indeed, it does. Sen. Kimberly Anichowski. Can't she get any love for representin'?

And guess what's worse? They have an editorial cartoon about it this week, too.

Now, in the Sagebrush's defense, they might have gotten confused about DHS losing a senate seat under the reapportionment for the next two sessions. But that doesn't take effect until after the elections.

This is really sad, Sagebrush. I'd expect this kind of rank amateruism from the senators.

The morality of a filing fee

2010-02-01T21:59:00.000-08:00

I don't intend this to be a discussion of the legal standing of erecting a monetary barrier to running for an ASUN office.

I have one simple question, in which I ask the concession of one assumption. Assume a student has a desire to run for office but doesn't have the means to pay the $50 fee held against potential campaigning violations. What recourse is available to said student under official ASUN policy that would allow the student to run?

I am unaware of any official mechanism in place to afford such a student the opportunity to run.

As the title of this post implies, the moral implications are disturbing. Perhaps the system should be modified?

Fewer candidates file for election

2010-02-01T12:42:00.000-08:00

Fewer students filed for ASUN elections this year than last, according to government records. As of the filing deadline Friday, 48 students filed for executive and legislative races, with 3 each in the presidential and vice presidential races, prompting a primary election on March 3-4.

Last year, 54 students filed in the executive and Senate races, 2 each for president and vice president and 50 for the Senate. In 2008, 41 students filed for office.

Of the 48 who filed, 3 have not yet qualified to run, all in the Senate, according to official listings. To qualify for election to the Senate, a candidate must have a 2.75 GPA, be enrolled in at least 7 undergraduate credits, be a member of the college in which the candidate is running, and pay a $50 filing fee.

Five incumbents are running for reelection in the Senate. Mathew Neben, in the College of Business, and Brandon Bishop, Mitch Bottoset, Lea Moser, and Ann Newsome, all in the College of Liberal Arts. Last year, 5 incumbents ran for reelection, all but one winning reelection.

Two candidates who ran for Senate but lost last year have filed again this year: Christopher Day and Tatiana Kosyrkina, both for the College of Liberal Arts.

In the presidential race, Casey Stiteler, who is the Director of Programming, will face off against Vice President Charlie Jose and Jacob Camp. Jose previously removed his name from candidacy but reapplied before the deadline.

In the vice presidential race, Sen. Shirley Diaz (Liberal Arts) will face Leissan Sadykova, a club commissioner, and Ryan Childers. Sadykova ran for Senate last year and lost.

The general election is March 10-11. All officers are elected to single year terms beginning on April 14.

University e-mail going bye-bye

2010-02-01T12:00:00.000-08:00

Some of our more "in" readers may know that in a budget saving move, NSHE System Computing Services will no longer provide centralized, systemwide student e-mail support. This means that Fallon Mail is going bye-bye. The Nevada Sagebrush reported on this back in September, after a senator mentioned it during a Senate meeting.

Each campus has the option to implement replacement services for students. Many students expressed displeasure, arguing that cutting student e-mail service would make it much more difficult for students to prove eligibility for online software discounts.

The lesser university in the southern portion of the state, Nevada Southern (a/k/a University of Nevada, Las Vegas), is replacing their student e-mail system with Google Mail, which is provided free to educational institutions.

So if UNLV can afford the nominal increase in costs for existing staff to manage the system, why can't Nevada? It isn't because UNLV is better than Nevada, is it?

And why isn't the ASUN Senate doing anything about this? You want to tackle something that matters to students, this is a great issue.

A Republican would call this diversity

2010-01-31T16:31:00.000-08:00

Silly me, I missed the bigger story related to the ~~Diversity~~ Unity Commission.

Charlie Jose
Unity Commission Chair

Rebecca Coleman
Unity Commissioner

Jenna Erickson
Unity Commissioner

Christy Markwell
Unity Commissioner

Nishelle Robbins
Unity Commissioner

Kristen Sroczynski
Unity Commissioner

Diversity Boxscore
Men: 1
Women: 5

Hispanic: 1
White: 5

Diversity indeed.

Sexual Diversity?

2010-01-31T16:22:00.000-08:00

Could someone explain how hosting a sexual health week fits in with the mission of the ASUN Unity Commission? (Official ASUN page; formerly Diversity Commission; Unity Commission renaming law. Before that, there was a Diversity Department, headed by its own director, charged with executing a diversity week, but that law was repealed.)

The function of the Commission is to plan and execute a diversity week along with other unspecified "diversity initiatives." The Commission says its mission is to "promot[e] understanding, communication, and respect among all members of the university community" and to "recognize the value of difference and to stimulate an exchange of perspectives between people of varying races, religions, genders, sexual orientations, abilities, socioeconomic statuses, cultures, backgrounds, and life experiences." In short, "[w]e strive to break social stereotypes."

It seems a bit of a stretch to link sexual health and breaking social stereotypes. What stereotypes are we breaking? Embrace UNR's shockingly high STD rates? Individuals with AIDS are people too? Rape: it's not just for men? Black and brown people can use condoms, too? Virgins: the new sluts? I know I'm being flippant about delicate and serious issues, but these things don't seem to mesh well with promoting diversity among the university community. Maybe they're having a hard time coming up with ideas on how to spend their $13,000. Or maybe Charlie Jose needs something recent to point to as an accomplishment during his presidential election campaign.

If I recall correctly, sexual heath programming used to be something Flipside did. So what changed? Don't get me wrong, I think educating college students about sexual health is a worthy activity. I just question whether it has anything to do with diversity.

Wasteful Spending

2010-01-30T10:16:00.000-08:00

President Reilly recently sent a proposal (warning: .doc file) to Senator Hostmeyer, Chair of the Committee on Budget and Finance. He is asking for $5,000 for the purchase of WAC Basketball Tournament tickets and nearly $8,200 so ASUN can pay for the replacement suits for Alphie and Wofie.

I'll address my concerns regarding purchasing new mascot outfits. In 2009, Athletics was to receive $7 million from the state, with $2 million going to athletic scholarships.¹ The department ended up with around $5.85 million.² The department also expected to generate $17 million in self supporting revenue.³ The figure to date is $15.1 million.⁴

What's my point? ASUN has a budget that sits at a little over 10% of the athletic budget. Yet ASUN can afford an expenditure of $8,200 but athletics can't? I'm dubious. But, let's accept the premise. Then, we can conclude ASUN has more money than it knows what to do with, if 9 months into a term it has that much money lying around. This is just one example of many of why ASUN does not need more money. Note, this money is not coming out of the contingency fund, but the nearly $30,000 that still remains uncommitted. Thirty-thousand dollars out of a discretionary fund of somewhere around $600,000.

I would personally like to see the top coaches and department heads, all of whom make make very nice six-figure salaries sacrifice a little for the respect of Nevada. How very populist of me.⁵

I won't say much on the $5,000 for WAC tournament tickets other than that I paid for my own tickets back in 2006, and I'm pretty sure there was not an inadequate supply of similar minded fans. This is, in my mind, just another example of wasteful, unnecessary, hard to justify spending. But, when you have more money than you know what to do with, it's easy to throw it at things. Like the geniuses over at SFL.

References

¹ Parker and Shively, "University Budgets: A Guide for the Perplexed", 2009.

² 2009-2010 State Appropriated Budgets.

³ Parker and Shively, 2009.

⁴ 2009-2010 Self-Supporting Budgets. (warning: .xls (Excel) file)

⁵ Executive Salary Schedule.

Senatorial Compensation Act is unconstitutional without student vote

2010-01-27T20:08:00.000-08:00

In 2008, ASUN voters approved a ballot measure to grant to the Senate the authority to set senator compensation at a maximum of a $500 grant per semester in addition to the equivalent to the cost of 14 undergraduate credit hours per year (in 2008, that equated to almost $2,700 at the maximum). ASUN Public Law 75-42. See also Senate Report on the bill here. That question passed by the requisite majority. See election results certificate here. The Senate never acted on this authority.

Tonight the Senate considered a bill to implement the authority the voters granted back in 2008. There's just one problem: this might not be constitutional.

The ASUN Constitution states "The elected members of this government shall receive a compensation to be set by law. Any increase in compensation will take effect after the next intervening general election, which shall be subject to approval by a majority vote of the students voting in the election on that question." ASUN Const. article I, section 1(e). Broken into its component parts, in order:

Compensation set by law. The Senate passes a law.
Any increase cannot take effect until a general election intervenes. This means members of one Senate cannot raise its compensation knowing if they had been reelected. This is designed to limit corruption.
The voters must approve the law in the general election for it to take effect.

The problem is the law passed back in 2008 didn't actually set anything; it merely asked for authority for the Senate to do it later. This is a problem because nothing is set for the voters to pass judgment on. Furthermore, many years could pass between the time the authority was granted and the authority is acted upon, effectively depriving the voters of their review power.

Now, to be fair, the provision at issue in the Constitution is subject to several reasonable interpretations; indeed, at the time I supported the view the Senate is now acting on, that it is permissible to ask for the authority now and act on it later. But I now believe my reasoning then was flawed, and perhaps clouded by my proximity to the senatorial pay issue.

What if the Senate asked for the authority to set compensation at a maximum that, in its judgment, was reasonable? This is at the core of why what the Senate did in 2008 is not permissible. Nothing was set. The only difference in the two situations is in the one the Senate asked for authority bound by an upper cap and in the other there is no cap, but in neither case is anything set, fixed, determinate.

The phrase "set by law" as used in the Constitution implies a determinate figure, not some indeterminate permission to "set by law" the actual compensation in the future, so long as the voters agree. Should this bill pass, which is a poor judgment call after University President Glick told the senators tonight the University is facing budget cuts that will set the campus back at least a decade, it should be challenged in the Judicial Council and held invalid.

And we're so humble, too

2010-01-26T16:30:00.000-08:00

You're welcome. In fact, were it not for our posts on this subject, CABNR would probably still have its single seat for another two decades. I might as well go ahead and state the obvious.

VLEG: Where the Nevada Sagebrush turns to for ASUN News.
VLEG: The ASUN Instruction Manual.

ASUN Veep Charlie Jose drops race before it begins?

2010-01-26T13:45:00.000-08:00

Seriously? What's going on here? ASUN Vice President Charlie Jose filed for election for president, but his name no longer appears as a candidate. If Jose does not run, this practically ensures a win for Casey Stiteler, the Director of Programming.

UPDATE on Jan. 29. 2010 at 2:44 p.m.
Observation of the ASUN election Web site indicates Charlie Jose may have decided to reenter the race. His name once again appears as a candidate. The filing deadline is 5 p.m. today, so this may change once again, and even once the filing period closes, a candidate has some time to have his name removed from the ballot.

Unity Commission

2010-01-25T17:29:00.000-08:00

I’m flabbergasted by the Unity Commission on Diversity. I see Charlie Jose has uploaded an image to Facebook that reads: “BECAUSE ASUN DOESN’T HAVE TO BE SO CUT THROAT AND POLITICAL.” I can’t even imagine what this is supposed to promote. Cut throat and political are not two of the first words that I would use to describe ASUN. Here are, I think, better ones:

Wasteful
Incompetent
Mismanaged
Petty
Corrupt
Pointless

According to the helpfully misnamed ASUN Informed Blog (run by the current speaker Germinia Gracie and not updated since October, 2009) the ASUN Diversity Commission received $6,500 for “projects” which, as far as I can dig up, so far has been limited to reminding people that ASUN Vice Pres. Jose Charlemagne is not a “chink.” I guess in their new campaign they are also trying to break “social stereotypes.”

The stereotype I wish they would break is that student government nerds are useless, self-important, wasteful bureaucrats.

Judicial Council rebukes President, Senate

2010-01-25T15:30:00.000-08:00

In a rare use of its constitutional power, the ASUN Judicial Council Wednesday unanimously ordered the Election Commission to implement a new apportionment scheme for Senate seats. In an unsigned order (meaning no single justice claims authorship), the Council found that both ASUN President Eli Reilly and the 22-member Senate failed to carry out their constitutional and legal responsibilities to apportion the seats in the Senate for the next two sessions.

According to population figures, the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources is entitled to a second seat, at the expense of one seat in the Division of Health Sciences. This shift is due to increased enrollment in CABNR degrees, primarily as a result of realignment of degree programs in the past year.

The ASUN Constitution requires the Senate to reapportion its seats every two years based on the number of students in each college and school. In 2008, the Senate passed a law delegating this function to the President, requiring him to transmit to the Senate by the first week of December every two years a statement showing the population in and the number of seats to which each college and school is entitled.

The Council found President Reilly failed to carry out his duty, noting that he does not dispute he failed to do his duty--indeed he readily admitted to the Council in writing of such failure. Further, since the deadline the Senate set has lapsed, the Council found that the Senate failed to accomplish its constitutional duty as well.

The Council's order indicates that it became independently aware of this situation. VLEG was the first to report on this issue. Neither the Senate nor President Reilly have commented on their failures.

The order directs the Election Commission to publish the new seat distribution in the Nevada Sagebrush and in election packets immediately. As of today, the numbers on the ASUN election web page are correct, but there is no indication it is because of the Council's action. Indeed, there is no record of the order on the ASUN Web site. The order was obtained only after VLEG requested the order directly from the Council.

There is no record of the Council ever exercising this power before Wednesday. This power existed under the previous ASUN Constitution, which voters revised in 2007.

Since filing for election to the Senate closes next week, the Judicial Council's order should have no effect on the election. Experts believe that the Council decided to act now rather than after the election so as to not prejudice any candidate's chances for election.

In Re Reapportionment Order 1-20-2010

Last week to file, most races empty or uncontested

2010-01-25T15:29:00.000-08:00

As of 3 p.m. today, only one college will have a competetive Senate race in the upcoming ASUN Election on March 10-11. The Reynolds School of Journalism, which is entitled to one seat, has two candidates filing for candidacy. Info on who has filed is available here.

Worse, three colleges--Business (three seats), Education (two), and Science (two)--have no candidates filed at all. That's seven seats--or about one-third of the Senate--that will sit vacant come April, unless more candidates file by the deadline, Friday at 5 p.m. If that vacancy rate remains, the Senate must hold special elections to fill those vacancies.

There will be a primary for the presidency, as three candidates have filed. It remains to be seen if the decline in candidates is due to the $50 filing fee implemented last year or if it is because marketing efforts are failing. Last year 50 candidates ran for the 22-member Senate. So far, only 14 candidates have filed this year.

Sad.

Right to a speedy trial

2010-01-21T13:51:00.000-08:00

In my inbox today, 10 months* after filing complaints, about 7 months after the last contact I received from the Judicial Council:

Over the last semester, the Council has gone through its rough patches in organization and efficiency, but as the Council begins a new semester and with far more organization with our work, it is very important that we make sure every lose end is tied. In May of 2008, 6 cases were filed on your behalf, raising a variety of issues regarding ASUN. As we, the Council, look at our docket, it is very important that we fulfill with our duties as part of being representatives of the University of Nevada, Reno. Your cases are still pending decision. The line is thin now on whether or not it makes sense to begin any discussion on your filings, 1. because of the time frame from filing to present, and 2. your status as a graduated student, meaning you are no longer part of the Association, although you were at the time of the original filings. It is not fair that the Council make the assumption that you no longer wish to continue your cases against certain actions of ASUN, therefore we are asking for you stance on your filings, and whether you wish to withdrawal some or all of your cases at this point in time. If you do wish to continue, you must find a spokesperson, who is in fact a member of the Association at this present time and continue with the charges at hand. The date by which this is necessary is FEBRUARY 3, 2010. If by that time, I have not heard from you and you fail to find a spokesperson, the Council will meet to discuss further action and dismissal of your filings. I appreciate your time, and hope to hear from you soon.

Respectfully,

Ebeth R. Palafox
ASUN Chief Justice

Any takers?

[Edit: was 10.5 months, closer to 10 months]

BREAKING: Judicial Council to reapportion Senate

2010-01-20T19:48:00.000-08:00

In an incredibly rare exercise of its constitutional power, the ASUN Judicial Council will issue an order to reapportion the Senate, due to the failure of both the ASUN President and Senate to satisfy their constitutional duties, sources close to the Council said this evening. We'll have the order once it's made available to us. We were the first to discuss this issue here.

UPDATE 1/21/2010: The ASUN Website appears to be offline, and we have not yet received a copy of the order. If this experience is any indication, I suppose I shouldn't expect to see the order for seven months or so.

Trying to solve the wrong problem

2010-01-20T16:50:00.000-08:00

Tonight the Senate will resume consideration of a bill to create a codified version of ASUN law, the ASUN Revised Statutes. I have previously discussed the bill here. In light of the President and Senate's joint failure to follow the ASUN Constitution and laws on reapportioning the Senate (discussed here), it has become ever more clear to me that Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's bill is unnecessary.

The bill is in fact trying to solve the wrong problem. And, beyond that, the bill will exacerbate the problem that does exist: no one knows the law, and no one is willing to invest the time and energy required to acquire a basic understanding of just what is governed by the law, much less the nuances. Until that problem is solved, everything else is just ugly window dressing.

When the President outright fails to do the duty clearly outlined in statute to report to the Senate the population figures in each college and school and, based upon those figures, the number of seats each college and school is entitled, it indicates he either had no clue a law existed giving him that duty (worst case) or he willfully decided to ignore it (best case). I call willful negligence best case because at least it wasn't willful ignorance. Worse, no senator has, to our knowledge at least, caught this oversight (an overly charitable term, given the circumstances).

The problem isn't that the law is scattered all over the place in several different acts. The problem isn't that bills amending prior law make it difficult to keep the law up-to-date. The problem isn't that all law should be in one place. The problem isn't that the law is inaccessible. No, the problem is much more fundamental. If you don't take the time to find out what law exists, you are in a hopeless position. It's like trying to explain how to tie a shoe to a person who has no conception of what a shoe is, or like asking a blind person to tell you what the color blue looks like. Without a conceptual understanding of the world surrounding them, the best we can expect the senators to do is muddle along.

The problem is the senators and other ASUN officials do not take the time necessary to survey the law for themselves, to take notice of what is spelled out in law, and what is not. After all, with respect to government, the law is just an instruction manual. It tells you what, when, and how to do something. But if you're ignorant of the law, that something will never get done until enlightenment occurs. This reapportionment debacle is case in point.

Before creating another level of complexity, which is all this codification bill really does, the senators and officers need to go back to the basics. Only when the players in this game have mastered the basic skills should they attempt to tackle more complex issues. Listen to any Senate meeting and it is readily apparent that no one has mastered the basics, yet they all share a duty to represent the students, and representing the students implicitly means knowing the basics.

The Senate is not only an extracurricular activity, not only is it something one volunteers to do, but it is essentially a job, a public job. The voters gave them their trust that they'd do a good job. As with any job, a good employee needs to make an effort to be minimally competent at the job. The fact is no senator is, despite all their self-aggrandizing talk about how much good they do for students.

This is a cyclical problem. It has happened in years before I was a senator, it has happened in years since I was a senator, and it will continue to happen until the powers that be make revolutionary changes to how senators are orientated, how they learn what their job is, and how they learn the special skills necessary to be successful senators.

The perennial defense of my criticisms is that I expect too much of them; after all, they are only students. That is true, they are students. So why don't they act like students and start learning?

Election season kicks off...with two fails?

2010-01-17T23:59:00.000-08:00

The annual ASUN election cycle is a story of one debacle after another. In the past several years, elections have been mired in procedural and substantive errors, including questionable ballot counting practices, wholesale negligence with respect to following election rules, and officers who fail to perform their duties, but I have a feeling that this year will take the cake.

Already we have reported about two failed attempts of the Election Commission to meet this year, under the inspired leadership of a failed vice presidential candidate and former senator who was censured for Open Meeting Law violations, Jeremiah Todd. [UPDATE: A scheduled third meeting apparently happened, but a fourth meeting won't since the agenda never made it online. So the Commission has successfully held only 25 percent if its scheduled meetings this year.] Already we have reported on ASUN President Eli Reilly's failure to follow the law on Senate apportionment. Tonight we have proof.

This facebook page has surfaced stating the number of seats each college is entitled in the next Senate session. [UPDATE 1/20/2010: A more official source, the ASUN web site, contains the same info.] Notice anything wrong? CABNR gets screwed out of its new seat. According to the fall 2009 undergraduate headcount figures, CABNR is entitled to a second seat at the expense of one of the Division of Health Sciences seat (see our analysis here).

Unfortunately, since President Reilly never bothered to run the numbers and transmit them to the Senate, we're operating under an erroneous apportionment scheme. It's pretty sad considering we did all the hard work (30 minutes worth, tops) and even gave an example of what an appropriate statement looks like in our post here. Practically all that was required was to fill in the blanks.

Perhaps the Judicial Council will exercise its constitutional power under Article IV, section 2(d) to take over the apportionment process. [UPDATE 1/19/2010: We have received credible information that the Judicial Council is in fact examining whether to exercise its constitutional power and duty in this matter.]

Candidate packet misreports the law
The election packet misreports the Election Code. It does not include the amendments that were made to the code in the 76th Session that were scheduled to take effect in this election. Don't forget that the legal status of those amendments, among most everything else that came out of the 76th Session, was seriously in question, but was never resolved. (Hint hint to some enterprising candidate. Filed documents available here. Second hint: the issues in the cases are still viable.)

If anything, since record keeping is so abysmally poor from the 76th Session forward, good luck trying to determine what is law and what is not. Heck, even the government won't publish an accurate, up-to-date compilation of the Election Code (that link is now two elections old and no active links point to it--it took a Google search to unearth it).

And don't even get me started on the constitutional amendment that the voters ratified but still hasn't been included in the document.

Any bets on whether the Sagebrush has picked up on any of this. Or maybe they've made it policy to ignore ASUN entirely.

So if the goal is to out-do (in a bad way) past elections, this election is off to a commendable start.

Peace and love.

Teabaggers want ASUN to go away; world yawns

2009-12-18T10:23:00.000-08:00

We've discussed UNR Student for Liberty before, particularly their radical views and single-mindedness. We didn't realize just how crazy these folks are until a recent comment popped up on their blog (the one about constitutions not having binding force). Traditional libertarians argue for the minimization of the power of the state so as to maximize individual liberty. UNR Students for Liberty adhere to what they call "anarcho-capitalism," but let's get straight, what they advocate is anarchy. Libertarians recognize that the state is sometimes necessary to secure individual liberty.

Enter their "10 Days Before Christmas" campaign for improvements to ASUN. On the one hand, they believe no government can have legitimacy and thus no government should exist. Ever. On the other hand, they are telling ASUN what it is doing wrong and offering ideas for improvement. Leaving alone their condescension, these guys might be taken more seriously if it weren't for their total hypocrisy about government. (This was a problem for their political party, UNR START, which we explored here.)

If your underlying position is "ASUN should not exist," why should anyone listen to any of your ideas? What they are doing is like a vegan telling a burger lover how to cook his meat for a juicier burger.

If the Senate is looking for ways to improve the club funding policies, let's start with an easy one. Pass a law prohibiting the fraudulent use of club funding. If a club files a request that is approved but tries to spend the money on something else, not only will the club not get reimbursed for the expense but it will risk losing institutional recognition. In other words, lie and risk losing recognition.

None is this will actually change their views or behavior. You can't engage in a constructive dialog with those who are so single-mindedly immature they can't agree to middle ground.

ASUN Revised Statutes: An interesting idea, but poorly executed

2009-12-16T17:36:00.001-08:00

Tonight, the ASUN Senate is set to take up Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's ASUN Revised Statutes bill. The bill is an attempt to create a single volume codification of ASUN law of a general and permanent nature. The bill, while an interesting and even anticipated idea, is poorly executed.

My initial remarks about why the Open Meeting Law will be violated in relation to this bill still stand. Item 18(d) on tonight's Senate agenda suffers from exactly the same deficiencies I pointed out to Sen. Brandon Bishop in a personal e-mail, and if the Senate acts tonight, it will do so in violation of the OML. Fair warning. By the way, the penalty for OML violations, if found, is removal from office by the University, so it's kind of a big deal.

Quickly, my remaining concerns about the bill are below. I have shared all of these concerns with Sen. Hostmeyer in a personal e-mail.

The codification makes substantive changes to existing law. This is the biggest reason it violates the OML. Making substantive changes to existing law in a codification bill is not appropriate. It denies the Senate, its committees, the public, and the President from having a meaningful opportunity to exercise their powers.

The codification, as executed in its implementing legislation, opens a reasonable door that the codification itself is not the law, while at the same time repealing all the general and permanent law already in force. The end result: no law at all in ASUN. Codification is a complicated process. You need to very carefully transition from the "old" law to the "new" codified, compiled, restated law. This bill does not do that. This is probably the single most dangerous flaw.

The codification is duplicative of other "codes." The Code of Elections is already a code. The Rules of the Senate and of the Judicial Council, while not law in the traditional sense, are also "codes" in that they are the rules codified into a single document that can be amended directly.

The style of the Revised Statutes Sen. Hostmeyer has presented departs from the intended (and used) style of choice for ASUN legislation, which is the style the Congress uses for its legislation. If you look at a lot (but certainly not all) of the stuff drafted in the 75th Session, it adheres to this stylistic choice. Arbitrarily departing from this style could create confusion later on. As one example, each section of a bill is intended to become part of a "code" without needing to reorganize the subordinate sections. The ARS style necessitates changing all the cross references within a single bill.

Codification isn't going to solve the problem of officials not reading, knowing, or following the law. Compilation of the laws by official might be a better intermediate step so this codification effort can be fully hashed out, and it's a step that won't require any Senate action. Anyone can make a compilation.

The bill "creates" several departments in ASUN which until this bill have never had any implementing or authorizing legislation under the new constitution (e.g. Inkblot, Sound and Lights, etc.). Creating this new law in a codification bill is inappropriate.

In sum, I think this codification idea has merits, as I told Sen. Hostmeyer, but the Senate would benefit greatly from some informed criticism. Acting without knowing the difference between a codification, compilation, and restatement is just asking for trouble.

Hot, sexy empowerment

2009-12-16T09:24:00.000-08:00

It looks like Sen. Lea Moser, who introduced a resolution this week to commemorate the biggest feminist professor on campus, is showing off her feminist credentials for everyone to see. Originally, we noticed that she had her official Senate portrait on her entry, but it was quickly removed. I wonder who frowned on that.

By the way, trying to curry favor with a professor whose class you are taking by introducing a resolution, and doing so before grades are posted, is not only shameless but unethical.

Apportion what?

2009-12-14T14:43:00.000-08:00

The ASUN Constitution, in article I, section 1(b), requires the Senate to apportion its seats every two years according to number of students in each college or school. The 75th Senate enacted a law to largely remove itself from the apportionment process. ASUN Public Law 75-28. That law provides that the ASUN President is to transmit a statement of the apportionment and of the Senate for the next two years. This is to be done by the first day of December or one week thereafter. To my knowledge, this has not been done. (For an example of what such a statement looks like at the federal level, see this. By the way, ASUN's apportionment law is modeled after the federal House of Representatives apportionment law.)

Some senators, at a recent Government Operations Committee meeting, while discussing Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's efforts to create revised statutes for ASUN, expressed concern over the President having control of apportionment. (Surprisingly, it sounded like it was the first time they had read that provision, given their tone, but that's another story.) That's a farce, because the ASUN President really doesn't have control over anything. The numbers are the numbers, and the equal proportion method dictates how many seats each college gets.

Under my quick count, using the fall headcount numbers (my math here), CABNR will get its long-awaited second seat at the expense of a Health Sciences seat. One little note that could use some senatorial attention is how, if at all, to count the 160 interdisciplinary students, University Studies Abroad Consortium students and bachelor of science neuroscience students. Typically, they are lumped in with Liberal Arts, since all undeclared majors are counted there. Where they get counted shouldn't matter, as they probably wouldn't get counted in a college where 160 could change apportionment.

Another thing that should be looked into is the basis for the headcount numbers. In the 75th Session, the University's method of counting as the basis for ASUN's apportionment caused some controversy. See section 5 of the ASUN law and this report, particularly my dissenting view. Basically, the University's system was claimed to be incapable of counting a single student more than once, as in the case of multiple majors or degrees. This could substantially throw off the apportionment, as is demonstrated in my dissent when using student credit hours as the basis of the apportionment. Just wanted to share my knowledge.

Two for two

2009-12-14T10:28:00.001-08:00

The Commission on Association Elections, under the dazzling leadership of censured former Sen. Jeremiah Todd, is two for two this year--that's two for two in canceled meetings. Sure have been a lot of canceled meetings in ASUN this term. At least he hasn't violated the Open Meeting Law, the basis for his censure as a senator.

Blatant hypocrisy

2009-12-13T17:45:00.001-08:00

Come on guys, when even Coffin and Keys is pointing out your hypocrisy, you should probably take it down a notch or two.

UNR Students for Liberty have some legitimate beefs with ASUN, but you can't assert you do not acknowledge the legitimacy of government while at the same time suckling from the government's tit.

You've already shown that you don't quite buy into this "government is not legitimate" notion by accepting public funds, so why don't you guys abandon it in favor of encouraging real change in ASUN. You guys have a student judiciary available to you that would be more than willing to be used once and a while.

Can anyone explain this to me?

2009-11-29T23:27:00.000-08:00

I don't want to spend too much time on this since most probably do not care, but I'd like those who read this to mull this over and give some feedback.

It is indisputable that the Open Meeting Law applies to the ASUN Senate and its committees. The law provides that public bodies can take action on items only when the public is noticed through an agenda that contains "[a] clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting" and "[a] list describing the items on which action may be taken." NRS 241.020(2)(c)(1)-(2).

The idea here is that the public should know what it is their representatives will be doing. When a public body takes action beyond the scope of its notice, it violates the law. (More on the clear and complete standard and scope provisions available here.)

The Committee on Government Operations had an item on its agenda, and the Senate has the same item on its agenda for its meeting this week, which reads as follows

Senate Bill 77-__ To Establish the ASUN Revised Statutes.

On its face, the item appears to be quite vague. However, using the commonly understood legal meeting of "revised statutes," it would appear that the Committee was considering creating a codification of ASUN law. Codifications themselves are never used to make substantive changes to law.

In addition to considering whether to create a codification of ASUN law, the Committee did the following:

Made substantive changes to existing law regarding compensation of ASUN officials, senators, and employees
Created new law governing the Speaker of the Senate
Created new law governing the Secretary of the Senate and that officer's compensation
Changed the title of an official publication of the Association
Made substantial changes to existing law governing the Vice President of ASUN and the Unity Commission
Changed the number of programmers and assistant programmers in the Programming Department
Changed the number and name of assistant directors in the Homecoming Department
Made a change in the name of the Executive Schedule for officer compensation ("level" to "tier")
Changed the terms of office of clubs commissioners
Changed the terms of office of programmers
Changed the compensation scheme of elections officers
Changed spending limits on election campaigns
Changed removal procedures when Student Union is closed due to catastrophic emergency
Changed funding obligations ASUN scholarships
Changed requirements on ASUN Archives to keep digital copy of the archives
Created brand new law on the following programs and services, including compensation and discussion of Federal labor laws and minimum wage laws

Legal Services
Sound and Lights
Inkblot
Advertising Department
Campus Escort
Administrative support

Created new law governing the relationship of ASUN to student publications

So where exactly in "Senate Bill 77-__ To Establish the ASUN Revised Statutes" does it say that the Committee and Senate would discuss and take action on all of that? Never mind the fact that the committee made substantive changes to law it has no jurisdiction over. If someone can answer that for me, I'd much appreciate it. I'm particularly interested in obtaining the view of Sen. Brandon Bishop, the Senate's parliamentarian and member of the Committee.

Oh, by the way, there wasn't a single ASUN member, other thnt the senators on the committee, who was present to offer testimony on this bill.

GSA is receiving ASUN funds

2009-11-19T13:35:00.001-08:00

My suspicions that GSA was receiving money from the ASUN Bookstore, even though an agreement to provide for that revenue sharing was not renewed in 2008 (first reported here), is now confirmed with official sources.

According to the annual financial statements of student governments prepared for the Regents, GSA received over $24,000 from the bookstore in fiscal year 2009. Why GSA received this money, given the fact that the revenue sharing agreement was never renewed, is beyond me. Any enterprising ASUN senator want to look into this, perhaps a member of the Budget and Finance Committee?

UC Regents raise fees 32 percent; NSHE next?

2009-11-19T12:42:00.000-08:00

University of California system regents raised fees by 32 percent today (link). It's only a matter of time before Nevada students see similar fee hikes. Nevada is still plunging deeper into recession (when do we start calling it a depression?) and we rank among California, Arizona, and Michigan as the states most in fiscal peril, according to the Pew Center (link).

As the ASUN senators are considering what to do with ASUN President Eli Reilly's $75 per semester fee package, they might want to start thinking of the tuition and fees battle that is on the horizon. Some have called Nevada's budget crisis worse than California's. If that's so, similar double-digit fee increases are not out of the question. Now that to me sounds like something students care about.

Senate tables JV2017 plan

2009-11-10T20:00:00.000-08:00

Thus spake Balathustra

This is the smart thing to do. The plan as written was half-baked and seemed to have been drafted by a certain someone with a real hard-on for ‘leadership development’. I wonder who that was.

I hope the plan will become more student-focussed with, you know, students working on it. Good on the Senate for taking the initiative to exercise their power in a responsible and useful way.

Overappropriation of funds or overtaxation? Take your pick.

2009-11-09T17:36:00.001-08:00

Just a quick note about some figures that Shane put together (here). The total balance forward of all accounts in ASUN realized this fiscal year was $204,801.56 (I'll call this $205,000). The balance forward is basically any money left in an account at the end of the previous fiscal year.

Last fiscal year, ASUN collected about $1,326,000 in student fees (taxes). About 15.5 percent of what was collected was unspent. The table Shane put together demonstrates the balance forward as a percent of this fiscal year's allocations. I don't know what an appropriate figure is under governmental accounting theory, but the idea of government spending is to go from all of the money (all that is taken) and to go to none of the money; basically, be good stewards of the public's money and to not overtax and hoard the public's money. Now, since ASUN is not allowed to run a deficit, some underspending is natural, but 15 percent seemed awfully high to me. Turns out, it probably is.

According to the Nevada Governor's Executive Budget, for this biennium the balance forward statewide was 5.7 percent. The Washoe County School District's balance forward was 3.7 percent of revenues. The University of Nevada, Reno's balance forward last biennium was 0.2 percent--infinitesimally small in comparison to ASUN. Given these three examples that use the same accounting principles that ASUN does, fund accounting, 15 percent is a very large number.

Even when making a more relevant direct comparison to the student governments in the state, 15 percent is high. In FY08, the largest was 24 percent at Nevada State College; however, that is explained by the fact they were created in 2007 and were still building a reserve. TMCC was next at 17 percent. Most, however, were below 10 percent. Some governments overspent their fee revenues: UNR GSA, at 14 percent overspending, was the largest. ASUN's reported figure in that fiscal year was 5 percent. CSUN's figure (UNLV's undergrads) was 13 percent. The average for the NSHE as a whole was 6 percent.

Given the ideas behind governmental accounting, an increase from 4 to 15 percent is alarming.

[Updated historical figures to apply to only student fee revenues.]

It's not a [g]reek conspiracy

2009-11-08T20:30:00.000-08:00

In response to our friends and fellow bloggers over at UNR For Liberty, I thought I'd respond to this post about how it is the campus's social elites and special interests who control the ASUN Senate. Those elites and special interests? The Greek community. My response in a nutshell: so what?

To me it seems natural that a constituency that votes in higher numbers than the rest of the population (I don't have hard data readily available) would elect more people to the Senate. Wait, I do have data. In 2006, a survey was conducted to determine who votes and what determines whether they do (link). I'll round to 1,000 for simplicity of calculation. 1,000 students voted in that election, out of an undergraduate population of 12,000 (again, rounded). So like 8 percent of the eligible voting population voted. Of those who did vote, nearly 30 percent were self-identified as Greek members. Using John Russell's figure of how large Greek life is on this campus (7 percent), and assuming the proportion was the same in 2006 as it is now, then it's pretty apparent that Greeks outvote non-Greeks by more than three times their actual proportion.

Now, Russell is right that the Senate is composed of a disproportionate number of Greeks, but is that really a problem? What was the proportion of Greeks to non-Greeks who were in the election? I'd be willing to bet a similar proportion exists in both the Senate and in the candidate pool at election time. If more Greeks run, isn't it natural that more will get elected?

Russell's data also indicates the strength of a voting block. Greeks vote for other Greeks. Hardly a news flash there. While they aren't large enough in numbers to fix the outcome of an election, they certainly will have a measurable sway on the result. UNR START? Nice idea, but it didn't work out as a voting block. Why that's the case is anyone's guess. Could've been a message that didn't resonate with enough people, ineffective campaigning, lack of numbers. Whatever it was, the idea of an organized political party in ASUN was fascinating, and in fact anticipated among those who drafted the new constitution and election code. Common platforms are nice because they let people easily distinguish many disparate candidates. But back to the subject at hand.

All of this indicates that Greeks are more involved in campus affairs than your average, non-Greek undergrad. Big whoop. Same is probably true for those who live on campus versus off campus (I didn't examine the data for that correlation, but it's all right there). There's probably the same kind of correlation when looking at club members, too. Now, true, it is a problem that more non-Greeks aren't running and getting elected, but that reflects on ASUN's outreach efforts and the interests of less connected students to become involved, not on the Greek community. Can you really fault them for being more civicly minded and connnected to their campus than most other students? I wasn't Greek and I managed to get elected and re-elected. Being Greek definitely helps, but it's not the be all and end all to getting elected. Campaigning and getting your name out there more than anything else is what matters.

This would be a story if the senators disproportionately disbursed money to Greeks because of their Greek affiliations, but I suspect John Russell and his peers would have a hard time trying to prove that. To me, the Greek issue is a non-issue. Besides, where would this argument be if START had been successful in electing 10 people to the Senate, a near majority in that body? Sounds like an awful powerful voting block to me.

Back to square one on JV 2017?

2009-11-05T12:38:00.000-08:00

After yesterday's University Affairs Committee meeting, it's time for the senators to step back, assess the situation, and pick up the pieces. Oh, and figure out just exactly what it is they did last night. I know procedure like the back of my hand, and I'm still not certain about what it is they did last night, and it certainly doesn't help when there are n ideas of what happened, where n equals the number of committee members.

First of all, I congratulate the senators on their resolute stand to take all the time they need to come to a reasoned judgment on this plan. As Sen. Mitch Bottoset said yesterday on The Voicebox on Wolf Pack Radio, this is an 8 year plan, so if it doesn't take effect for another year or two, it'll still be a success. This is a responsible attitude. So kudos to the senators. You made me proud. Also kudos to ASUN President Eli Reilly for realizing that his tact to try to shove this down the senators' throats was probably not the best.

From my notes and watching the meeting (I'll have to wait for the audio recording or video to be posted online for me to double check), my interpretation is one of two things "happened":

The Committee indefinitely postponed (killed) further consideration of the JV 2017 plan.
The Committee indefinitely postponed a draft resolution regarding JV 2017.

Option two probably was not proper, as the question of approving and reporting to the Senate the draft resolution was never before the committee. (This is why legislation is supposed to be introduced in the Senate first, not originate in committee.) Option one was probably not proper for the same reason. This is all complicated by the fact that Robert's Rules doesn't mesh well with a legislative body such as the Senate (and its committees). (Sorry for all the parentheticals, but I'm trying not to overly complicate this, which is hard because parliamentary procedure is complicated.)

UPDATE: After further review, based on Sen. Brandon Bishop's (erroneous) advice, and perhaps Chairman Teeter's poor planning, the Committee killed a draft resolution believing it was the only thing in front of it. More procedure, but enough. If the senators are interested in figuring out the procedure, they know where to find me.

The problem is committees are often dealing with original measures (stuff originating in committee) and not a tangible, written, already-introduced measure. These original measures haven't been written yet, so the committees deal with something in concept. The practical reality is committees often vote on concepts and direct its chair to draft the legislative language of the actual legislation. It just takes too much time for committees to write the legal text of legislation.

Another thing to keep in mind is parliamentary procedure is relaxed considerably in committees. Motions do not require seconds. Debate is unlimited (limiting debate or moving the previous question is not in order) and chairs can debate and make motions and often do because they drive the committee's business.

Procedurally, a few errors need correcting, and luckily the Senate now seems to be in a position to do just that. When the executive communicates to the legislature, it is typically in writing so that a record of the communication can be preserved in an accessible medium. JV 2017 is such a communication. The executive addresses the item to the legislature, the legislature takes notice of the communication by receiving it and reading it in open meeting (reading usually dispensed with by unanimous consent), and typically refers the communication to the appropriate committee(s) for any further action the committee(s) may deem desirable. This process seems to be misunderstood and is not applied.

The fix: have Eli transmit the plan under a cover letter to the Senate. Under the agenda item for receipt of correspondence, the Speaker notes the receipt of the communication and refers it. The documents referred then become the property of the committee(s). (UPDATE: This is further evidenced by the committee not knowing if it had jurisdiction and custody over the entire document. Not knowing, the committee did the best it could, which was to wait for the Senate to start over and try again.)

When a matter properly falls within the jurisdiction of several committees, the Senate has a couple of options of proceeding. First, it can concurrently refer the matter to the committees of jurisdiction. Each committee would consider the parts of the matter that it has the authority to consider. Budget and Finance would consider budgetary implications of the plan. Government Operations would consider the implementing legislation the plan may require. So on and so forth. Second, referral could be sequential, meaning that it goes to one committee first and if reported back to the Senate, then referred to the next, and so on. Third, the Senate (or the Speaker acting under Rule XI of the Senate's Rules) could create a select committee to consider all matters connected with the proposal. Each method has pros and cons. In any case, the Senate gets to decide this if it wants to; the Senate has only delegated some powers to the Speaker to increase efficiency.

Personally, I really don't know which option is best, and this could be a matter of much debate among the senators. (UPDATE: Given that this took up much of the debate in the committee meeting, the Senate should probably decide this matter.) Some senators may be worried about confusing the public with concurrent or sequential referral. Others may be worried about not getting a diversity of committee views if they create a select committee. Just whatever they do, the Speaker needs to remain mindful of how the Open Meeting Law constrains what they can do based on how their agenda is drafted.

In the meantime, if there is a senator willing to introduce measures (whether the senator agrees or not) to approve of and implement the JV 2017 plan, that would give committees some legislative vehicles to consider and to amend. I've mentioned it before (here), but simply approving of the plan is not enough. The Senate will have to legislate the changes should the Regents approve of the fees.

Sen. Patrick Kealy, in an interview with The Voicebox after the committee meeting, said something very wise: "We need to focus on doing things right instead of doing things fast." Doing things right includes both the substance and the procedure. Botch the procedure, and it won't matter what the substance is. When senators who sit on the committee, literally moments after the committee adjourned, are confused about what they did, that indicates the need to follow the rules and procedure, not to cast them aside.

This proposal might finally give the Senate the opportunity to learn a thing or two about how it was designed to operate. Exciting! Don't be afraid to learn the rules. Once you do, this will become much more palatable experience.

[Updated at 5:01 p.m. to reflect review of video of meeting.]

We're now on Twitter

2009-11-04T20:37:00.001-08:00

Since it seems to be the latest and greatest Internet fad, follow us on Twitter, @VLEG_NV

http://twitter.com/VLEG_NV

Power, authority and JV 2017

2009-11-01T21:59:00.001-08:00

The ASUN Constitution establishes an executive branch with limited powers. The executive power is vested in the ASUN President and his subordinates that the Senate may create by law. The President's power, while absolute (in the sense that no other branch holds the executive power), does have limits. Expressly, the Constitution states the President's power extends to enforcing the laws as the Senate writes them ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"). This is a limited view of executive power. It is what we had in mind when crafting the current ASUN Constitution. The President does have some constitutionally inherent powers that the Senate can't intrude upon, but most of what the President can do must be prescribed in the laws the Senate passes.

This structure has implications for ASUN President Eli Reilly's Joint Vision 2017 document. Under what authority did the ASUN President create this plan, attach ASUN's name to it (and thus imply institutional support where none exists), and lobby others (the Regents) as if ASUN was behind it? If you view presidential power as George W. Bush does, then you don't need a law authorizing executive activities. Unfortunately, that does not comport with the constitutional realities in ASUN.

Under the correct, limited view of presidential power, a law must authorize the plan's creation. Last I checked, no law authorized the ASUN President to create a plan, much less then attach ASUN's name to it without first consulting with the Senate. JV 2017 represents a lapse in lawful authority.

Now enter Senator Haley Anderton's bill to prohibit individuals from doing what President Reilly did. The bill would do two things: (1) require Senate approval before proposals are presented to the Regents on behalf of "any member of [ASUN] [1]; and (2) require a direct student vote on any proposal presented to the Regents that "could potentially increase student fees." This bill represents the first formal reaction from the Senate. But the mere existence of the bill, much less its passage, presents some problems.

If this bill were to become law, it would imply that, before the bill became law, the activities the bill prohibits were legal. Why write a law to prohibit something if it was never legal in the first place? This could have the effect of giving retroactive approval to Reilly's conduct here. That clearly doesn't seem to be what Sen. Anderton and others have in mind. Also, this bill probably can't apply to JV 2017 because the plan existed before this law was passed.

Current ASUN law provides adequate remedies to this situation, without necessitating the passage of a new law. There's the inherent constitutional limitation I discussed above. You could argue illegal spending in creating JV 2017 under sections 221 and 224 of the Association Budget and Finance Act. You could ask the President to point to which law authorized these activities, likely a difficult task. New law should be created only when existing law is inadequate. An example is when one can properly attach ASUN's name to something. But it isn't the case here; this case deals with views of executive power vis-a-vis the Senate.

I'm glad to see the Senate has sprung into action, but this bill has unintended consequences, and the senators should consider other reasonable options that won't compromise the Senate's position on this issue.

Footnotes.

[1] This language doesn't proscribe the conduct Sen. Anderton probably thinks it does. Do you really want to require Senate approval of any plan presented to the Regents on behalf of any ASUN member (i.e., any undergraduate student)?

Proper Process

2009-10-29T15:06:00.000-07:00

In a recent post, I asked the following in a rhetorical manner:

"Can the President of the Association present to the Board of Regents on behalf of ASUN, a proposal to add a $10 fee for a writing center and on-campus performing arts without any apparent authority granted by the senate (see the Sagebrush report)?"

President Reilly admitted he did as much last night during an ASUN committee meeting.

This is a slap in the face to pretty much every student and senator on campus. The senate is doing a good job enforcing it's prerogative despite the president's insistence that this be reviewed quickly, and his apparent presumption.

I hope the senate will do its due diligence on this one. Speaker Geremia should (too late for next week) direct more than one committee to look at the bill. Each committee should do its best to engage students. Academics should be looking at the proposal for the tutoring fee. Campus Community and/or University Affairs could be looking at the fine arts fee. Budget and Finance could be analyzing President Reilly's figures to try and understand why what today costs $1.6 million will next year cost $1.8 million. Public Affairs has an obvious role in analyzing any fee increase.

The committees should also get administrators from student services to opine, in public, on the creation of a new, expensive and fairly large department.

Why is Director Rodriguez not being up front with her opinion? Where do Doctors Marczynski and Ellis stand on this question?

There are so many questions that need to be asked for the students to be able to analyze this proposal in its entirety.

Do not allow a false timeline to goad you into making a hasty decision. This proposal does have the potential to help our campus maintain many services students seem to want (e.g., free/subsidized tutoring, the math and writing centers). It also has the potential to double expenditures on programming and open new opportunities for campus publication and dialogue. But in no way does the handful of people one man spoke to constitute grounds for implementing this proposal.

Take your time, take a month if you need to. If this really does have the potential to change the face of this campus as President Reilly claims, whether it is implemented in 2010 or 2011 is of secondary concern.

Tell me which law....

2009-10-29T07:50:00.000-07:00

Before the Senate invests too much energy on Joint Vision 2017, it might want to take notice of all of ASUN's structure and operational realities that--ahem--are not enacted into ASUN law. Inkblot? Nope. Legal Services? Barely. ASUN Advertising? Nah ah. The beast that is the "administrative operation" of ASUN? Not a word. Campus Escort? Sorry. ASUN's relationship with publications? No. Not important.

The fact of the matter is very little of what ASUN is and does is codified into statute law passed by the Senate. The consequences? Well, the Senate has pretty much no control over what a unit does once the Senate hands out money to the unit. The best example is Inkblot. Over the years it has been a chameleon, constantly changing its color to suit the needs of one ASUN presidential administration after another. When I began taking notice of ASUN in 2004, Inkblot was fully open for use by clubs. By 2007, it was practically an exclusive publicity arm of ASUN. And not a single word from the Senate dictated that policy shift. And the consequences are even more grave than just the Senate not having control.

Continuing our example, since no law explicitly establishes Inkblot, arguably spending money on it is not legal, as framed under ASUN's Constitution and budget laws. A student literally could file a complaint with the Judicial Council citing this fact, and the Council would probably rule that Inkblot has no basis in law, and therefore it is not legal to spend money on that program. See where I am going with this? Extrapolate that ruling out to every other ASUN program and service that was never established by the Senate, or at least never had the current establishments and practices codified into current law, and you've got one hell of a disaster. We started placing the current structures into law right after the new constitution took effect in 2007, but it never got finished (sorry, guys, but the senators of the 75th Session and I are not gods). There just wasn't enough time and other things took priority. Of course, there's nothing preventing the Senate from picking up where we left off.

The implications in light of Joint Vision 2017

ASUN President Eli Reilly's Joint Vision document (narrative and fees proposal) will necessitate many structural changes in ASUN. Ideally, these changes would be accompanied with implementing legislation so it is absolutely clear what the Senate intends to change and how. One example: programming. Under JV 2017, the programming for the major university weeks (Welcome Week, Homecoming, and Mackay Week) would no longer be within the purview of the elected student government. That's right, it's handed over completely to unelected, unaccountable employees of Student Activities. But wait? We have this fantastic homecoming department just for homecoming and a programming department for everything else that already exists in ASUN. It's in the ASUN law. The Senate has spoken, and the law is the law. Well, until the Senate fixes that conflict, should the plan come to pass, there'd be two groups on campus responsible for programming the exact same event. Problem? Just a little.

But the administrators like having little in law. Less accountability when no written document states what the expectations and limitations are. If you can't point to a written standard of conduct, it's hard to argue someone isn't doing his or her job. Also, each time the Senate writes a law defining how the business of ASUN is to be run, the administrators throw up their hands in protest, arguing that the Senate is infringing on their abilities to conduct business. I call bullshit. That's exactly what a legislature should be doing. This is the table of contents for the Nevada Revised Statutes. All of that law comes from the legislature. Almost all of the law defines how the government and persons and entities within Nevada should do things. The ASUN Senate should endeavor to do the exact same thing, on a much smaller scale, of course.

Joint Vision 2017 may have merit, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking the Senate's work is done when it disposes of this plan by non-binding resolution, which I might add is very vague and poorly written.

The debate is widespread

This debate has sparked widespread discontent among the student body, and even the graduates for the portion of the fee they would be subject to. Below are some links to some of the more interesting sources.

The Nevada Sagebrush, Senate and University Affairs Committee meeting live blog, October 28, 2009
Get Informed on JV 2017 facebook group
Graduate Student Association Blog, "New Student Fee Proposal & Activities for Grads"

Be Informed? We couldn't agree more.

2009-10-28T23:01:00.000-07:00

"Be Informed on Joint Vision 2017," is the word making its way around facebook. Mostly it's people affiliated with ASUN who are spreading the word. For as important as they think it is for the public of ASUN to be informed, it doesn't matter nearly as much as those who will actually have a vote: the senators on University Affairs first, then perhaps the full Senate, should the proposal not die in committee. But we couldn't agree more. The senators need to be informed, but not just about this plan.

Also, let's be fully honest here. Saying that the Joint Vision 2017 document is "a proposal for what the Association would like to see happen by the year 2017" is just a flatout falsehood. More accurately, it's a proposal that ASUN President Eli Reilly has signed on to that reflects what the University administration, particularly those under Shannon Ellis in Student Services, wants to see happen. Does this plan really serve the students' interests? $1.125 million for a "Student Activities department," which is essentially a bureaucratic duplication of ASUN in the first place? Yeah, sounds like tons of value to the average student just trying to get through college to meet that oh-so-awesome job market that waits beyond.

This plan is wide, complicated, and has many implications, most of which I would guess the senators haven't even begun to conceive. Being informed is great. But being afraid at this point is probably far more useful. The senators are no doubt smarter than the average person (they are in a university, aren't they?), but right now they need to be humbled by the fact that what they don't know, and not knowing it (to borrow from the poetry of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld), is dangerous for not only themselves, but for those they represent.

I like it better how Thoreau put it in Walden: "To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." Those who have vested interests in this plan being adopted will stop at nothing to make sure the senators who have the votes never come to know what it is they don't know. We hope to provide a healthy dose of enlightenment and perspective. We don't know everything, but we do know enough to know this plan is another power grab from what is rightfully ASUN's. Okay, enough being philosophical. It gives me a headache.

GSA and the ASUN Bookstore (Or, who'd you say is getting ASUN's money?)

2009-10-27T17:13:00.000-07:00

The Associated Students of the University of Nevada, through several complicated relationships, owns the ASUN Bookstore housed in the Joe Crowley Student Union. Memos of understanding and practice indicate that this is the case. ASUN purchased the bookstore in 1951.

The ASUN and the GSA did not always used to exist as separate entitites. In 1952, the graduate students split, establishing the Graduate Student Association (GSA). Unfortunately, the graduate students negelected to realize at the time that they never retained any say over the bookstore when they left. A bad move when you consider how much revenue the bookstore now generates.

Finally realizing their mistake, in 1997 GSA and ASUN entered into a profit sharing agreement regarding the bookstore. The agreement provided that a certain share of the revenue from the bookstore would be provided to GSA based on a formula. The agreement provided that it was up for renewal in five years, and it took the affirmative votes of both the ASUN and GSA legislative branches to effectuate renewal. The agreement was renewed for five years in 2003.

Another five years passed, and during the 75th Session of the ASUN Senate (2007-2008), the agreement was up again for renewal. On April 2, 2008, I introduced a bill to direct the President of ASUN to take any and all action necessary to terminate the agreement. As far as I know, the agreement was never renewed prior to the deadline imposed by the agreement itself. It would have had to come to my committee (Budget and Finance) for a vote, and it never did. Thus, I feel confident in assuming the agreement no longer is legally binding. Therefore, the agreement is void due to its its failure to be renewed.

Knowing that, now I read the Sagebrush, making the astonishing claim in its editorial this week that the GSA still receives money from the ASUN Bookstore. Huh-ba-wha? If that's the case, then I'd like to know how and why GSA has still been receiving money from ASUN's bookstore. This should be the perfect thing for the Budget and Finance Committee to look into while everyone else is worrying about Joint Vision 2017 (and until a couple of the other committees figure out that they have concurrent jurisdiction over Joint Vision, but that might be a little too complicated for right now).

JV 2017 Timeline

2009-10-27T13:25:00.000-07:00

I'm going to address a couple of issues President Reilly may be taking license with.

1) “Even when the new student union was built, we didn’t bring that to a student vote,” [Reilly] said.

While true, the proposal for the Union went through two (maybe three) senates where it was a serious issue . There were several surveys over two years engaging several thousand students (sadly I was here to participate in some of those surveys). There were numerous advisory committees on nearly every issue conceivable involving students from across campus. I don't think anything like that has been done this time around.

2) The fee is urgent, Reilly said, because it will bring back tutoring services needed by students on campus and “keep (ASUN) relevant to students.”

Regardless of when the fee is approved (December 2009 or April 2010), if it is approved, it will not be implemented until Fall 2010. Perhaps President Reilly is concerned that the administration and ASUN will need more than three months to do the footwork necessary to implement the changes promised by the fee. I wouldn't be too concerned about the administration, but ASUN might have some problems transitioning over summer. But worry not, ASUN could write up the laws, proposals and ideas necessary to implement the transition before the fee is approved by students, and be prepared if the Regents approve the plan.

Might it be nice to be able to be sure where the fee stands by years end? Yes. Is it necessary? No.

There are few questions I think are a little more important to have answers to. It would be nice to have an understanding of where the student body stands on subsidizing tutoring (predominantly for math, science and engineering lower level classes). It would be nice to know where the student body stands on effectively doubling the budget of ASUN given the nearly 100% increase in fees the student government enjoyed over the past three years. It would be nice to know where the student body stands on creating a new department with a million dollar budget.

See the fee proposal here.

See the narrative proposal here.

The Democratic Process

2009-10-22T15:06:00.000-07:00

Can the President of the Association present to the Board of Regents on behalf of ASUN, a proposal to add a $10 fee for a writing center and on-campus performing arts without any apparent authority granted by the senate (see the Sagebrush report)?

The ASUN constitution promises a representative democratic process to the undergraduate populace of the University of Nevada. This democratic process was designed with checks and balances between the branches. The ASUN constitution promises an educational experience for its officers unmatched by almost all other opportunities on our campus. The educational design of ASUN imagines this democratic process, but promises more.

The senate must be more timely and relevant in engaging this president. He has spent his entire college career working on improving this campus (do not read here that you must support him at all times). JV 2017 was in the works for a considerable period of time. The senate had ample opportunity to make an effort to be part of the process. And even when the proposal was finally made public, it has taken the senate nearly a month to get into a committee for review.

At the same time, President Reilly needs to realize his experience lends him a body of knowledge that very few students ever obtain. The ideas he has are the culmination of years of examination. The senators might need to be engaged a little more arduously than in the past to be able to adequately engage in the process. An acceptance of the educational nature of ASUN means a president with Reilly's experience must slow down a little bit to help educate and engage less experienced senators.

The ASUN political and educational process is a dynamical one, requiring both sides. Sometimes that means not doing things as fast as you want. And sometimes it means stepping a little outside of your comfort zone on ideas and issues. For too many years now, I've watched senators play in their own little sandbox and presidents work in theirs. That helps neither group and is antithetical and destructive to all the leaning processes ASUN envisions.

To Fee is to Tax?

2009-10-17T18:32:00.000-07:00

A very quick note on the new theory on taxation and the Nevada Open Meeting Law (NOML) floated by Senator Patrick Kealy and the Government Operations committee.

The law in itself is not where ASUN should be looking for provisions regarding application of the law, and I think you're getting tripped up over semantics.

Here's my two cents:

One, the NOML is not directly applicable to ASUN. The only provision of the NOML that concerns the implementation of the law as it regards student governments is:

NRS 241.038 Board of Regents to establish requirements for student governments. The Board of Regents of the University of Nevada shall establish for the student governments within the Nevada System of Higher Education requirements equivalent to those of this chapter and shall provide for their enforcement.

So, we go to Regents Policy (Title 4, Chapter 20(B)(3)). Items 2 and 3 are the clauses of interest:

2. "Student government" means each association of students within the Nevada System of Higher Education whose constitution has been approved by the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education. (B/R 10/91)

3. The meetings of any multi-member executive or legislative body, committee, subcommittee, commission or subsidiary thereof of a student government shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Nevada Open Meeting Law, Chapter 241 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, as amended. (B/R 10/91)

Hopefully this is self-explanatory. It is the Regents Policy that is the relevant policy to look at when determining if ASUN is subject to the provisions of the NOML.

Two,

ASUN is a (student) government.
Governments can both tax and charge fees for services rendered.
A tax is levied to support the general operations of the government.
A fee is charged in regards to a specific function or service (generally not understood to be the general operation of a government.

Therefore, the "fee" is in fact a tax levied on behalf of the student government by the Board of Regents. So, if the line of reasoning was even applicable to the situation ASUN is in, the logic is flawed.

Executive Branch and the Open Meeting Law

2009-10-12T12:29:00.000-07:00

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.

Objective Assessment of All Programs...

2009-10-02T14:25:00.000-07:00

I would like to applaud President Reilly for striving to create a vision for the future of our campus and then trying to figure out how to bring it about. His administration's JV2007 provides a considered foundation from which to proceed.

Quoting from the report, "Decisions and the implementation of the
model should be based on: The development of metrics for all of our programs, services, and academic departments; Objective assessment of all programs using the determined metrics".

This idea of objective review and assessment is something I believe is missing from the student oversight of ASUN programs. The amalgamation of programs that is ASUN is a complex entity. Each unit of ASUN has merits and is designed in a way to attempt to serve the student body. How many ASUN leaders know who is being served, and how well?

For the elected members of ASUN, the review process comes up every year during elections. But for almost every other aspect of ASUN, be it Campus Escort, InkBlot, the bookstore, etc, little is done to objectively measure the benefits of the programs.

A simple example is campus escort. The program is, without question, tremendously popular. But does anybody know, with objective certainty, who's using it? Is it 25% residence hall students? Maybe the Residence Hall Association (RHA) or Residential Life (RHLHFS) should be contributing to the program. How many Greeks use it? Maybe they should help secure funding for the program through their alumni networks. But these questions cannot be responsibly raised without information on the constituency and the efficacy of the program. I am aware that pick up and drop off locations are recorded, and perhaps some other data is as well. I would wonder if any Senator has ever asked for a report on the program?

It is only from understanding who is served by a program and why it is used that ASUN leaders can hope to improve and expand existing programs, create new and successful ones, and justify the existence of others.

My proposal in broad terms, is for ASUN to take President Reilly's advice and begin to construct an apparatus within the student government, in partnership with the Student Activities staff, to allow for the review of existing and new programs.

Footnote: During the 75th Session, a law was passed providing a framework to do just this for new programs. I do not believe it has ever been used.

Vis Lupi Est Grex -- A New-ish Start

2009-09-22T13:47:00.000-07:00

Along with the new look of the blog, there will be a shift in focus and tone. Instead of examining and critiquing the minutiae of what ASUN does, instead of examining the personal lives of the leaders of the Association, instead of delving into the often dreary pedantry of parliamentary procedure, we will be endeavoring to engage in high level analysis and discussion of campus issues and the role we see ASUN being able to play in such issues.

We will not write legislation, we will suggest possibilities. We will not attack inane ideas, we will propose new ones. And in doing so, perhaps we will be able to contribute to the conversations that occur within ASUN. Perhaps we will be able to help make a difference on the University of Nevada campus.

In an effort to encourage open debate and discussion within the confines of this forum, comment moderation will be turned off. If you choose to make an ass of yourself, anonymously or not, that is your decision. We will be striving to avoid making asses of ourselves.

We hope that you will have the conviction of character to attach your name to your comments. Everyone who contributes to this blog, from now on, will be required to use their real name.

It is our simple hope to contribute in some way to the discussions that help shape our campus.

I'm Just A Bill Redux

2009-09-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

We've all seen the Schoolhouse Rock animation "I'm Just A Bill," an elementary explanation of how a bill becomes a law. This post will provide a collegiate-level explanation of how a bill becomes a law within the context of the ASUN.

The basic steps are pretty much the same in any legislative body. A bill starts as an idea. The idea is put to paper--the bill. The bill gets introduced and referred to committee. The committee considers the bill and, if it agrees with the bill, reports it favorably back to the full house. If the full house agrees with the bill, the bill is passed. Then, in a bicameral (two house) legislature, the process starts again, with the bill as it passed the first house. In ASUN, this step is omitted, as there is no second house. When the bill has passed the legislature, it is sent on up to the chief executive, be it the president or the governor. If he agrees, it becomes law. If not, it is sent back to the house of origin together with his objections. If the legislature decides to override the veto, the bill becomes law; if not, the bill does not become law, and it continues to sit up on capitol hill. Simple, right? Well, let's add some detail. (Fair warning, this is a beast of a post.)

A Bill is an Idea

The Schoolhouse Rock song tells us that a bill starts as an idea. This post will use a prototypical bill that addresses a policy issue the Senate should take up. In April 2009, the Board of Regents changed its policy regarding the approval of student government constitutions. The new policy delegates the power of approval to the Chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education. Previously, amendments to a student government's constitution required Board of Regents approval. This policy change makes an act of the ASUN Senate obsolete as written. The draft bill below proposes to change the ASUN policy to conform to the System policy. Desiring to do that, a draft bill might be put together, such as the one below.

Sample Discussion Draft Bill

This particular template form is used when legislation is in its preliminary drafting stage. This is essentially just an idea put to paper. Doing it this way rather than just talking about a vague, nebulous idea allows for better input to the drafter. Anyone can see clearly what the draft bill would do. If the sponsor believes it to be ready for introduction, she would file a copy looking like the one below with the Secretary of the Senate.

Sample Draft Bill

Notice this version now includes a line for the signature of a senator (Rule XV (a)(1) of the Senate's rules requires this to introduce a bill), an official title, the name of the sponsor, and it does not have the [DISCUSSION DRAFT] heading. This is the version that gets filed with the Secretary of the Senate. Upon it being received, the Secretary would assign it a bill number. Once the bill is filed, it cannot be changed except by the Senate (excepting minor typographical errors).

Introduced Bill

Once the bill is read the first time in the Senate, the bill receives its first official printing under Rule XV (c) of the Senate's Rules. That version would look like the one below.

Sample Introduced Bill

Notice the printed bill now has a number printed in the front page and on the footer of each succeeding page. The footer codes serve a purpose. "S. Res. 77-20 IS" means something. Aside from putting the bill number on each page so things can be found more easily, the code "IS" means "introduced in Senate." We'll see how the codes work later.

As far as the form and style of the printed bill, each part serves a purpose. The very top of the bill includes the bill number, the session, a copy of the official title, the house it is in, the sponsor, and to which committee the bill was referred. This stuff primarily composes the bill history. It will be on every printed copy of the bill from here on out, and will note all major actions to the bill. Then the type of legislation. If this was a resolution, it would read "RESOLUTION" instead of "A BILL." Why not "A RESOLUTION"? Just a style thing, mostly. More technically, the "A BILL" part is short for "a bill for a law." Bills create law; resolutions don't.

But wait a tick, why is the official title printed again? Technically, all the stuff mentioned before--the number, the sponsor, etc.--isn't part of the bill. From an ultra-technical standpoint, neither is the official, or long, title. Only the enacting clause and all that follows is part of the bill. But, for purposes of identification, the long title is considered part of the bill, too.

On the last page of the bill, you'll notice a funny little symbol, a circle. It's called an allmark. It's just used to signify that nothing follows.

You'll also notice each line of the bill is numbered. Together with page numbers, this will make amending the bill much easier. The size and spacing of the text also has a purpose. It makes it easier to note amendments to the bill. This is of particular use to the Secretary, who must, during the legislation's consideration in the Senate, make notes about amendments. The larger and wider spaced text allows for handwritten changes.

One copy of the printed bill is designed the master. It will be the document whose custody will be physically transferred from the Senate to the committee. This copy is authenticated by having the Senate's seal embossed into the first page. This copy is considered to be "the bill." If it goes missing, so does the bill. This is done to protect the chain of custody. Just like evidence in a crime, it is that important. Since electronic documents can be tampered with without leaving a trace more easily than paper, the physical printed copy is accorded great importance.

Committee Action

The bill is then given to the committee to which it was referred. That committee will take the bill under consideration. A committee can do several things with a bill. It can do nothing at all. That's right, it could kill a bill by not even considering it. This is called putting the bill in a drawer, like one would put junk in a desk drawer and never see it again. The committee, if it decides to take action on a bill, reports the bill. Reporting the bill consists of the committee reporting its recommendations on the bill back to the full Senate. This is done through a written report. Aye yai yai! You mean "report" can be both a noun and a verb when dealing with legislation? Yes. The committee reports legislation by filing its written report. I think this is why people hate lawyers.

A committee can report a bill favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation. A bill reported favorably means the committee agrees that the bill should pass. An unfavorable report means quite the opposite. Why would a bill be reported unfavorably if the committee thinks it should not pass? Why wouldn't the committee just let the bill die in committee? One reason would be if the committee thinks the full Senate should still consider the bill. Another would be if the committee wants its reasons for opposing the bill published. A without recommendation report is just what it sounds like: the committee has no opinion either way as to whether the bill should pass.

What about amendments? Can't a committee amend a bill? Yes and no. No, a committee cannot directly amend the bill; it can only recommend that amendments be adopted by the full Senate. The bill doesn't belong to the committee but rather the full house. A committee can't do something without the permission of the full body. Think of a committee as like a child. A child (usually) can't do something without the parent's permission.

But sometimes a bill requires a lot of amendments before it will be palatable. Is there another option? Yes, the committee can report what's called a "clean bill." In this case, the committee reports a brand new bill. In ASUN, since each legislative committee has jurisdiction to report original legislation, it can do this and skip the introduction and first reading step. This can lead to an abuse of the privilege, though.

In most legislative bodies, committees cannot report original legislation. Bills have to be introduced first, referred to committee, and reported. In that kind of system, when a committee wants to report a clean bill, the chairman will introduce a new bill with the text of what the committee wants in the clean bill, the bill will be referred to committee, and the committee will automatically report it back. In ASUN, the decision was made to allow bills to originate in committees for several reasons. First, because of the Open Meeting Law, prohibiting committees from reporting original legislation would waste time. By the time a committee decides what it wants to do with a bill, they'd have to wait a several weeks just to have the "clean bill" back in their custody to report it. Second, lots of policies originate in committee. However, the system can be abused. It can tend to shift the burden of writing legislation from the senators to the committees, or its chairs. It can be used to avoid the first reading stage, a stage that is critical not only for initial review, but to allow other senators to know what is being proposed. Requiring a first reading allows the public to know exactly what the committees are considering because the legislation is already written. When committees report original legislation, they rarely work from written drafts. Instead, the bill is "conceptual." The committee will vote on what should be in the bill, but it will be up to usually the chairman to write the actual bill.

Committee Amendments

In the case of our prototypical bill, we'll suppose that the committee believes there should be some amendments to the bill. A senator sitting on the committee believes that the organization of the language on page 3 should be changed. Further, the senator believes that the requirement that legal counsel be consulted before a Senate vote should have teeth. Thus, he proposes the following amendment.

Sample Amendment

The amendment looks a lot like a bill, but with some noticeable differences. First, not every line is numbered. Only when blocks of material are to be inserted into the bill are the lines numbered. This is to assist making amendments to the amendment, or second-degree amendments. The page and line numbers are referenced to the printed introduced copy. It also has a different allmark.

Notice the shift in the mood, too. Amendments in the bill are drafted in the indicative mood. This is because amendatory bill are drafted on the assumption that the amendments are self-executing, without intervention or action by others. Example: "Section 12 of the ABC Act is amended by striking 'XX' and inserting 'YY'.".

Amendments to bills (or to other amendments) are drafted on the assumption that they are instructions to the committee or to the Senate (or to their clerks), and are stated in the imperative mood. Example: "Page 2, beginning on line 13, strike 'XX' and insert 'YY'.". This use condones wider use of general amendments, such as "... and redesignate the following sections accordingly".

Notice also that the amendments in the amendment are listed in the order in which they appear in the bill. That is because an amendment cannot be made to a section of a bill until that section has been read and is open for amendment.

Notice also that an amendment to the title of the bill is proposed. Why does the amendment to the title come last and not first? Parliamentarily speaking, amendments to the title of a piece of legislation are not in order until the legislation has passed. This allows for the title to reflect what is actually in the legislation. It wouldn’t make much sense to agree to a title only to be bound by what it says.

Bored yet? Hey, nobody said the legislative process was easy. You know the saying about making laws and sausages.

Let's say that our committee has adopted the proposed amendment and has decided to report the bill to the Senate favorably with amendments. The next step is to prepare the report and the reported bill.

Committee Report and Reported Bill

The reported copy of the bill is below.

Sample Reported Bill

Some things immediately stand out. The bill number now includes a report number. This number signifies that, in our example, that this was the 12th report filed this session, meaning that 11 pieces of legislation were reported with reports before it. But notice what didn't change: the title of the bill. But didn't the committee amend the title? Remember, committees can't amend bills, but can only make recommendations as to amendment to the full Senate.

On page 3 of the reported bill, you'll notice language ~~struck through~~ and inserted. This shows the literal changes that are made to the bill if the committee's amendments were to be adopted. This makes it easier to see what the committee is recommending. Compare that to the legal text of the amendment.

The document also has a new page at the end. It's the bill number, report number, title, and abbreviated history again. This is called an endorsement. Just like with checks, it goes on the back of the bill (that is, the back side of the last page). There is no allmark in this version. The endorsement stands in its place. Notice the code "RS" in the footer of the bill. This means "reported in Senate." There are other codes for different parliamentary situations a bill could be in. Below is a sampling of the more common codes.

IS -- Introduced in Senate
IS#S -- Introduced in Senate (No.) Star print (E.g., IS1S, meaning first star print)
RS -- Reported in Senate
RS2 -- Rereported in Senate
ATS -- Agreed to Senate
CDS -- Committee discharged Senate
IPS -- Indefinitely postponed in Senate
RCS -- Reference change Senate
RTS -- Referred to committee Senate

The reported legislation is accompanied by a written report. An example report for this prototypical legislation is below.

Sample Report

The report is the written explanation of the committee's consideration and recommendations. First, a look at the elements. The report is headed with the report number, the same as is printed on the bill. Then is the official title. Again, it is the title of the bill as it was introduced, because only the Senate can change the title upon passage of the bill. The next line is the date it was filed, or reported, to the Senate. The next line shows who filed the report (usually the chairman--in this case "Chairman" is being used as a placeholder for a surname) and the committee filing the report. With the text showing the kind of report, it shows that this is just a straight REPORT. If it included minority, dissenting, or supplemental views, it would say so below. The report's narrative then begins.

The first paragraph tells us the nitty gritty. The committee, which legislative measure, its title, whether it was reported by a recorded vote or not (roll call vote), how the committee is reporting (i.e. favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation), and whether it is with or without amendments.

The next section is the purpose and summary. This is usually a short paragraph discussing the bill in general.

Next comes an explanation of the background and need. This explains the reasons why the legislation is needed and gives sufficient background to put the legislation in context.

In this prototypical report, next comes the text of committee amendments. It prints the legal text of amendments adopted by the committee without commentary. Once the bill is read the second time in the Senate, these amendments will be voted on first.

Next comes a sectional analysis of the bill. Here the goal is to summarize in less technical terms the provisions of each section of the bill. Think of it as CliffsNotes for legislation.

Then, there is a constitutional authority statement which describes the authority under which the Senate is enacting this legislation. For most bills, it will be under Article II, section 3(a)(1), which grants the Senate its general legislative powers.

The last section shows changes to existing to law being proposed in the bill as reported. This is called a comparative print. It makes it easier to see what the legal changes in the bill do against the existing text of the law. The asterisks show that parts of the law have been omitted from the print; only the parts being changed are printed.

And that's your typical report when changes are being made to existing law.

Now, you might be thinking, why go to all this trouble to write a 7-page report to explain an 8-page piece of legislation? Doesn't the bill speak for itself? Besides, all the members of the committee know what the bill does, and so too will the 22 members of the Senate when the bill is debated at second reading.

It is true, creating a report is a lot of work. But it's not just for the senators. It's also for the public, the Judicial Council when it must interpret the law, for the executive branch to better understand the law, and so there is a complete record of the rationale for the legislation. In other words, it is to put into writing the reasons why the Senate decided to act.

There are benefits to the senators, though, as well. First, it allows senators to better prepare for debate on a piece of legislation. The report must be filed in advance of the Senate meeting by 4 working days. The agenda for a Senate meeting is published 3 working days before a meeting. That gives senators (and the public) Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday to review the items for the next agenda. Imagine walking into a Senate meeting having only the legalistic piece of legislation and knowing nothing of the "why" it was proposed.

Since the agenda and other materials are made available to the public at the same time they are made available to the Senate, the public has the opportunity to participate in the meeting if an issue of interest is being discussed.

These reports are a permanent record, so years later a senator could refer to them if another change in the law is necessary. It preserves institutional memory, a constant problem for student governments where turnover is extraordinary from year to year. As much of a resource as advisers can be in transferring institutional memory, they can be selective about the information they share. With a committee report written by the students who considered the legislation, there can be no doubt as to the veracity of the information.

Okay, enough about reports. Now it's time for the Senate's consideration.

Senate Consideration

When the bill is up for second reading, the Speaker will direct the Secretary to "report" the bill. In this case, the Secretary will read the bill number and its title. The first question will be on agreeing to the committee amendments en bloc, meaning all together. A motion does not need to be made to adopt the amendments. Since the bill is being reported favorably from a committee, and since committees have more than a single senator, the motion and second is assumed. The chairman of the committee might explain the amendments and urge their adoption. The committee's amendments are usually adopted without much fuss, because there will be further opportunity for amendment immediately afterward.

Once the committee amendments are disposed of, the bill then gets its second reading. Usually, a bill is read by sections. If a reading in full is demanded, this literally means the Secretary reads the bill, incorporating any amendments already adopted. At each section, the Chair asks if there are any amendments to that section just read. Under parliamentary procedure, a section cannot be amended until it is open for amendment, meaning that the section has been read. Often, the reading is dispensed with by unanimous consent, either in full or it is done to skip by sections to which there are no amendments offered.

Floor Amendments

Let's say in this example, the bill is read by sections and a senator has an amendment to section 3 of the bill. Section 3 gets read, or a senator asks unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read through section 3, and a senator offers an amendment. This is called a floor amendment, because it is offered on the floor rather than in committee.

Floor amendments are drafted just like a committee amendment, except the page and line number references will be to the reported version of the bill. An example floor amendment to the bill is below.

Sample Floor Amendment

In this example, the senator offering the amendment noticed some loopholes in the point of order procedure used to enforce the new rules. First, on page 5, subsection (b), it is unclear whether the waiver must be in advance of the meeting the resolution will be considered or whether it can be done at the same meeting. If it's the latter option, it conflicts with subsection (d) because a question of consideration only requires a majority vote to adopt. Thus, there's no point in waiving the rules under a two-thirds threshold when a question of consideration can be adopted by only a majority. The amendment is crafted to resolve that ambiguity.

Let's say another senator has a question about how this change would apply to any constitutional amendment pending in the Senate. This senator decides that the new law should apply to any amendment that is pending in the Senate. Thus, he offered this second floor amendment.
Sample Floor Amendment 2

Notice that the section number isn't listed in this amendment. This is done so that the Secretary can insert the correct section number should other sections be added or deleted from the bill. If a number was added, and it turned out to be the wrong number, the Senate would have to amend it, or grant the Secretary the authority to make the appropriate technical or conforming correction (this is usually done anyway). Otherwise, you could end up with duplicate sections or a gap in sequence.

Amendments when offered on the floor have to be seconded. Let's say the two amendments above passed.

Once the bill has been read through the end, the whole bill is open for amendment. This is when substitute amendments could be offered. Substitute amendments strike the text of the entire bill and replace it with something else. The amendment must be germane to the bill, however, or the Open Meeting Law could be violated.

If there is no intervening motion to postpone, table, recommit, or whatever, and there is no further debate on the bill, the question is on the bill's passage, as amended. Again, this requires no motion because the motion is assumed. If the bill passes, it is sent to enrollment. Immediately after passage, if there was an amendment to the title reported by committee, the Speaker would announce that the title was amended without objection and read how. If there was no amendment to the title reported by committee, but floor amendments necessitate a change in the title, the chair of the reporting committee would ask for unanimous consent to amendment the title. This is done after passage of the bill.

Another thing that can be done immediately after passage is to direct the Secretary to make necessary technical and conforming corrections to section numbers, punctuation, and spelling to accurately reflect the actions of the Senate. Sometimes, so many amendments are made to a bill that it may not be noticed until enrollment that section numbers were skipped, duplicated, or just all messed up. This authority allows the Secretary to just do it upon enrolling the bill.

So let's say that the bill passed as amended. It's now time for enrollment.

Enrollment

Enrollment is the process by which an enrolled bill is created. The enrolled bill is the printed bill prepared for the President. It incorporates the text of the bill and any amendments made to it. If reflects the actions of the Senate exactly. If the Senate made what is an obvious mistake, it must appear in the bill. The enrolled bill represents a written memorial of the Senate's actions taken by vote.

The enrolled version of the bill as it passed the Senate is below.

Sample Enrolled Bill

Immediately apparent is the change in appearance. This format is for enrolled bills and resolutions only. Resolutions typically are not enrolled in this format unless they are directed outside of the Senate. In this particular example, the original bill number is in the header of page 1, the name of the legislative body is next, then which session of the Senate, the location of the session and the date it began. Then comes the literal text of the bill that passed the Senate. At this point, it is no longer called a bill, but an act. Next is the official title of the legislation. Next is the enacting clause, and after that is the literal text of the bill as it passed the Senate, incorporating all of the amendments. On each subsequent page is the bill number again and the page number.

On the last page is the signature block for the Speaker of the Senate and the President. These blocks should not stand alone (i.e. there should be some bill text run-in with the signature blocks, even if a page break must be inserted). Sometimes the Speaker isn't always available to sign enrolled bills. If that is the case, a designated Speaker pro tempore can sign (see Senate Rule XIX (b)(4)). If this is known in advance, the printed line can be changed; if not, "pro tempore" can be handwritten in. On the back of the last page is what's called an endorsement. The endorsement serves to certify that the bill was correctly enrolled. The Secretary signs this.

The reason for the appearance change is twofold. One, it makes it readily apparent that this bill passed the Senate. Two, the smaller, tighter line-spaced text makes it harder to alter without leaving signs of tampering. Since enrolled bills are typically printed (with rare exception), any handwritten alterations will immediately be suspect.

Enrolled bills are printed on different paper than everything else. They are printed on watermarked paper with at least 25 percent cotton content. This is to ensure the authenticity of enrolled legislation, as well as its permanence. An enrolled bill is printed only once, again to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the bill. If two were ever to be printed, and there was a difference between the two, it could be difficult to determine which one is the actual bill. Printing one bill ensures that a chain of custody can be maintained. Also, if there is ever any dispute between subsequent printings of the bill (slip law, Statutes at Large, etc.), interested parties can go directly to the enrolled bill.

As was said earlier, an enrolled bill is what is presented to the President. This is usually done by the Secretary, and Senate Rules and ASUN law govern this process. It must be done in person, and the time/date of presentment is noted in a journal kept by the Secretary. The date of receipt is also stamped on the first page of the bill, in the left hand margin. This is important because the President only has five working days within which to consider legislation. If the clock runs out without either signing it, vetoing it, or pocket vetoing it (when the Senate has adjourned, thereby preventing the bill's return), it automatically becomes a law. If the President chooses to sign the bill, he simply signs it and stamps or writes in the date of approval.

Presidential Action, Veto

In our example, we are going to have the President veto this bill, just so we can see the additional procedural steps. When the President chooses to veto a bill, he simply returns it to the Senate without his signature. He also includes a veto message. An example of a veto message is below.

Sample Veto Message

The beginning of the veto message is governed by law, so there is a pattern to follow. The message is addressed to the Senate, the veto is set out with the bill number and its title, and then the President explains his reasons for vetoing the bill.

Reconsideration After Veto

When a bill is vetoed, the Senate can pass it over the President's objections with a two-thirds vote. In the Senate, when it is time to take up the veto message, the veto is read, the bill is read, and then the question is, "Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?" A motion can be made to refer to committee, in essence killing the veto override. A vetoed bill cannot be amended, so sending it to a committee is basically a pointless exercise. The Senate already decided to pass it once. A committee saying yes, we should pass it again, is meaningless. More typical is a straight up or down vote is given. A vetoed bill cannot be amended because it must be considered in the form in which the President did. If the Senate decides that the bill needs amendments, perhaps to settle the President's concerns, a whole new bill is needed.

In our example, the Senate decides to override the veto. They found the President's objections to be unreasonable. It takes two-thirds of the senators present, a quorum being present, to override the veto.

When the veto is overridden, the Secretary prepares a certificate stating that. This is done by printing into place a new certificate on the back of the last page of the bill, above the endorsement. This can be done by printing or by typewriter. An example of the bill with the new certificate is below.

Sample Enrolled Bill With Veto Override

The only difference is the veto override certificate. (Note: in our examples, the stamped dates of receipt are omitted). The next step for this enrolled bill, which is now a law, is to be transmitted to the Archivist of the Associated Students.

Assignment of Public Law Number

The Archivist is charged with preserving the original enrolled bill, assigning it a statute number, and promulgating the law. The statute number is stamped or typed in the header of the first page, in the center of the bill. The statute number, or public law number, looks like this:
Public Law 77 - ##, where the first number is the session of the Senate and the second number is the serial order in which it became law, through the President's signature, by default, or by an overridden veto. This number is assigned so it can be determined in what order bills became law. Remember, bill numbers signify the order in which they were introduced in the Senate, not the order in which they became law. Since many more bills will be introduced than will become law, it makes sense to assign a new number. Below is an example of an enrolled bill, from a previous session, with the statute number assigned.

ASUN Public Law 75-54

The date the Archivist received the bill is stamped in the right hand margin of the first page, similarly to the date of receipt by the President. After those steps are performed, the enrolled bill is locked away for preservation.

Publication of Law in Slip Form

The next step is to promulgate the law. Promulgation means to disseminate the text of the law. The way this is done in ASUN is by publication. The Archivist prepares what is known as a slip law. It's called a slip law because it is printed all by itself, like a slip or pamphlet; it isn't bound. It is in a different format than the enrolled bill, but carries the literal text of the bill and some additional information. At the end of a session of the Senate, the slip laws are bound together into a volume of session laws, all the laws that were passed in one session. In ASUN, this is called the Associated Students Statutes at Large. More about that later. Below is an example of a slip law.

Sample Slip Law

The slip law is in yet another format. It is the same format that will appear in the ASUN Statutes at Large. Slip laws are competent evidence in ASUN courts. The slip law starts with the public law number in the header with the date it became a law. The pages are numbered in series for a volume of the ASUN Statutes at Large. In this example 77 ASUN Stat. 23 also becomes a legal citation. It shows us that the law is printed at volume 77 of the ASUN Statutes at Large beginning at page 23. The literal text of the act is once again laid out, but in this print side notes are sometimes inserted. This is used as a reference tool to find provisions of particular importance, as well as making reference to other laws in the same volume. Sometimes a law amends a previous law enacted during the same session. If that is the case, a side note is inserted to show the page of the amended law. If you browse through the 75th Session's ASUN Statutes at Large, you'll see several examples of these side notes.

On the last page of the slip law print is a brief legislative history. This is used for reference.

When a session of the Senate has closed, it is time for the Archivist to prepare the Associated Students Statutes at Large. This is a volume that contains all of the laws passed at a session of the Senate, resolutions agreed to by the Senate, proclamations by the President, and the text of proposed and ratified constitutional amendments. Basically, this single volume becomes a record of the official acts of one session of the Senate.

ASUN Statutes At Large

Remember how the slip laws are already paginated. This was for good reason. Basically, if you collected all of the slip laws and bound them together, you'd have the public laws section of the ASUN Statutes at Large. The idea with the pagination is to create a permanent formal legal citation. If the page numbers changed, you'd have to wait until the volume was published in order to cite the law properly.

This volume also makes a great reference work because of the legislative history printed after each law. With this one volume, you can find the text of bills as they were introduced, report numbers, the volume of the printed Senate minutes where the debate on the law is printed, and some other information. And, according to ASUN law, when a bill appears in the Statutes at Large, it is assumed to be legal evidence of the law. That is why it is absolutely imperative that the Archivist print the bill exactly, down to the very last comma, as it was enacted, no matter how obvious an error might be.

Below is an example of a complete volume of the Associated Students Statutes at Large, including its indexes.

Associated Students Statutes at Large Volume 75--Unofficial

And that completes the legislative process for a bill. Rinse and repeat for each new bill.

Now, that's how the process was designed to work in ASUN. Actual practice may vary, largely because no one is teaching this process.

A Quorum Was Not Present

2009-09-10T16:19:00.000-07:00

Contrary to popular belief, this blog has not died (yet). There just really hasn't been much of note to discuss. (The less the ASUN is doing or screwing up, the less we have to write about.) We do have a quick note about a meeting today that sort of happened.

The Senate's Academics Committee was scheduled to meet this morning. Setting aside the legislation they were supposed to hear, it is noted that the meeting was canceled because a quorum--the minimum number of members to be present to conduct business--didn't bother to show. For committees, that number is a majority of the membership. That means at least half of the members couldn't be bothered with doing their duty.

Procedurally, a meeting isn't canceled because a quorum is not present; it just doesn't go anywhere. The proper thing to do would have been for the chair of the committee to call the meeting to order at the scheduled time, take attendance, note the absence of a quorum, take public comment, if any, and adjourn. Here's why the "meeting" still should happen. If the meeting is canceled, the meeting never took place for the purposes of recording attendance. Thus, while several members may have been absent, since the meeting was "canceled," the absence could never have occurred in the first place. You can't be absent from something that didn't happen.

To recap, the absence of a quorum only prevents deliberation and action from being taken at a meeting. It doesn't prevent the meeting from being called to order, attendance noted, and a determination as to whether a quorum is present from happening. The record (the minutes) must show the absence of a quorum, and that only happens when the meeting is held. You cancel a meeting, and you just give your derelict colleagues a free pass.

Is Our Senators Learning: The Reach of the Open Meeting Law

2009-08-15T18:45:00.000-07:00

It's been some time since our last post, which must mean the Senate has not been doing much lately. We did notice one item of interest on the next Phantom Committee agenda, however: "a resolution reiterating the requirement of the ASUN Executive Board to comply with [the] Nevada Open Meeting Law." This got our attention because there is no requirement for the Executive Board to comply with the Open Meeting Law. Hell, there isn't even an "Executive Board."

We need to begin by dealing with two unfounded assumptions on which this agenda item is based. First, there is no Executive Board. There used to be one, but that was under ASUN's previous constitution. There is something called the President's Advisory Cabinet, established under Title VII of the Executive Branch Act of 2007 (ASUN Public Law 75-7; 75 ASUN Stat. 13). Second, there is nothing in ASUN law to require this group to abide by the Open Meeting Law.

With those two assumptions out of the way, we can now look to the Open Meeting Law for guidance. The Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of NRS) requires public bodies to conduct their business openly, in view of the public. The OML applies to student governments because the Nevada Legislature has required the Board of Regents to adopt regulations equivalent to the OML for student governments and to provide for their enforcement (NRS 241.038). The Regents have done that, and the policy is codified in the Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 20, Part B, section 3 (link). The Board of Regents policy essentially says that student governments must comply with the OML.

The Open Meeting Law applies only to public bodies. The law defines a public body as "any administrative, advisory, executive or legislative body of the State or a local government which expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue or which advises or makes recommendations to any entity which expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, including, but not limited to, any board, commission, committee, subcommittee or other subsidiary thereof" (NRS 241.015(3)).

The Nevada Attorney General advises us that in order for a body to be a public body, it "administrative, advisory, executive or legislative body of the State or a local government," meaning that it "must (1) owe its existence to and have some relationship with a state or local government, (2) be organized to act in an administrative, advisory, executive or legislative capacity, and (3) must perform a government function" (Open Meeting Law Handbook, link). If any one of the elements are missing, the body is not a public body. Applying these elements to the President's Cabinet, condition 1 is only partly satisfied. Although the Cabinet does owe its existence to the Senate (only because it enacted a law establishing the Cabinet), it does not have any relationship with the Senate. Condition 2 is satisfied because it acts in an advisory capacity. Condition 3 is not satisfied because it is only advising the President, who himself is not a a public body.

The law also requires that the body be collegial in nature, meaning that the members share equal power through their votes. The members of the Cabinet have no collective power; the ASUN President is not bound by its advice. Therefore, under the OML, the President's Cabinet is not required to obey the OML.

However, the language the Regents used in applying the OML to student governments is a little grayer. It says that the OML applies to "[t]he meetings of any multi-member executive or legislative body, committee, subcommittee, commission or subsidiary thereof" (Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 20, Part B, section 3(3)). Even under this broader application, the OML does not seem to apply. The President's Advisory Cabinet is not an executive body. It has no collective decision-making power of its own, it has no collective ability to execute policy, etc. Its members each possess decision-making and executive powers in their own departments, but it is the President in this case who possesses all the power.

This language also suffers from circular reasoning. Assume it says the Cabinet must follow the OML according to the OML's provisions, but the OML, according to its provisions, says it does not. Even if you assume the Cabinet is covered within the term "multi-member executive body," the OML says that it doesn't apply to a body such as the Cabinet.

For those reasons, we believe the Cabinet is not required to obey the OML. Now, that's not to say that the Senate could not pass a law requiring the Cabinet to abide by the OML's provisions, but it would be subject to constitutional challenge in the Judicial Council on the grounds that it violates the separation of powers doctrine, that it prevents the President from receiving candid advice from his department chiefs, and that it abuses the deliberative process privilege enjoyed by executives.

Now, there may be more to this story than we are aware. Perhaps a university attorney has disagreed with our interpretation of the OML and Regents policy. Even if that were the case, it would take a disciplinary action to test that interpretation. Unfortunately, under federal law disciplinary actions cannot be disclosed by the university, so we'd likely never know about it, unless a subject of such an action were to speak out.

But given the fact that this is a nonbinding resolution the Phantom Committee is deliberating, and given the phrasing that it would "reiterate" a requirement that is presumed to already exist, we think this is coming from some senators who are misinformed on the reach of the OML, and whose motivation is probably that they don't like that President Eli Reilly and his cronies are allegedly meeting behind closed doors to share their mutual disdain for Gracie Geremia and discussing how to undermine her every move, starting with elevating Sen. Brandon Bishop's status.

Who Speaks for the Senate?

2009-07-29T22:45:00.000-07:00

Short answer: In general, the Senate does.

In our last post, we briefly mentioned how the ASUN's statement regarding alleged workers' rights violations by a manufacturer of Russell Athletic apparel, of which the ASUN Bookstore is a customer, raised some interesting issues because of who signed onto the message. Sen. Brandon Bishop (Liberal Arts), who is the Senate's parliamentarian and chairman of the Phantom Committee (Interim Operations Committee), signed on to the statement with ASUN President Eli Reilly.

The statement said that "members of the Associated Student (sic) Senate have conducted thorough research and analysis" of several reports alleging Russell Athletics' misconduct. The statement went on to say that "the Associated Students of the University have instructed the ASUN Bookstore to cease all orders of Russell Athletic merchandise. Furthermore, Marie Stewart[,] the Manager of the Associated Student (sic) Bookstore has been instructed by the Association to search for a new supplier of Wolf Pack Merchandise." The message also relays that "[a]t the instruction of the Association, the Bookstore will cease ordering from Russell, all reserves of merchandise from Russell Athletic will continue to be sold by the Bookstore as to not impact scholarship funding for the Association."

The message concludes that "[u]pon the conclusion of the Senate of the Associated Students investigation into the actions of Russell Corporation a final recommendation will be released," presumably to follow up on a recommendation request from the President of the University (a recommendation regarding what specifically is unknown).

The statement raises a few issues. First, the statement, in several places, mentions that the ASUN has directed its bookstore manager to stop ordering from Russell Athletic, to search for a new supplier of apparel, but to sell off all of the inventory in stock, and that once all Russell stock has been sold, the purchase or sale of Russell gear is banned. Under what authority, explicit or implicit, did President Reilly have to unilaterally direct to the bookstore these policies? Very little statutory law enacted by the Senate discusses the formal relationship between the bookstore and the government of the Association. What little law does exist defines reporting and budget requirements. So the question remains, does the President have authority over the bookstore?

If you're of the view that the bookstore is part of the executive branch of ASUN, and that the bookstore manager reports to the ASUN President, then it would be reasonable to assume that the ASUN President has authority to direct the manager what to do, who to use as suppliers, what to buy and sell, etc. However, the relationship isn't that simple.

In reality, the bookstore manager is just another University administrator. She reports to the Associate Vice President of Student Life services, Gerald Marczynski, the same person to whom the director of the Associated Students/Student Activities, Sandy Rodriguez, reports to. The Associated Students "owns" the bookstore, true, but more formally the relationship is closer to how the student body of the University "owns" the student union: the Board of Regents hold it in trust for the ASUN. With that understanding, the relationship between ASUN and its bookstore, and the President and the bookstore's manager, gets a little fuzzy.

Let's compare it to a similar relationship: ASUN to its director, Sandy Rodriguez. The director of ASUN is also the director of the University unit known as Student Activities. It's a fine distinction, one that even we don't have a firm grasp on--it's hard to tell where ASUN ends and Student Activities begins. We do know that ASUN foots the bill for all of it. Rodriguez reports to Marczynski in the same way that Stewart (the bookstore manager) does. However, there is an implicit understanding that the ASUN director's job is to carry out the day-to-day functions of the Association, under the direction of the Association's leadership (i.e. the elected and appointed student officers). It shouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that the relationship should work the same way with the bookstore and its manager.

More reality: historically, ASUN has left the management, operation, and policy choices regarding the bookstore to its management. Think of it like this: ASUN is the owner but leaves the management up to someone else. Thus, it should be rare for the owner to intervene in the management of the operation.

It's pretty clear that ASUN owns the bookstore. It's less clear to what extent ASUN has authority over its operation. It's not inherently unreasonable to state that the ASUN President has the authority to direct the bookstore to do certain things. However, given that the ASUN Senate has never defined the relationship, or put into law the current relationship, the ASUN President is acting in a gray area.

Now, as far as the Senate is concerned, this should be a big clue to wake up and legislate. The Senate is the policy making branch of the Association, and it should make some policy defining the relationships, especially respecting the ASUN President's authority over the bookstore.

This finally brings us to Sen. Bishop. The statement talks about how the Senate has "conducted thorough research and analysis" of the issues surrounding Russell. The message seems to imply that the Senate had some say in directing the bookstore to take the aforementioned actions regarding Russell Athletic merchandise. Notice that the statement doesn't say that "I (President Reilly)" or "we (Reilly and Bishop)" have directed the actions. It says "the Association" has.

The fact that Bishop signed off on the statement would seem to imply that the Senate was behind it, yet (as far as we can tell) the Senate has taken no action on this item. The Phantom (Interim) Committee has only discussed the matter. Keep in mind, the Interim Committee has no authority to do things on its own. It's just like any other Senate committee: it takes the Senate's action to give effect to a committee's recommendations. Since the Senate has not acted on this, it seems clear that the Senate is not behind this statement.

Thus, it would appear that Sen. Bishop was a little overzealous in attaching the Senate to it. If Bishop was merely signing onto the parts of the statement indicating that the Senate was investigating, that would be fine, but he signed onto the whole statement. In that case, it might have been better to release two statements: one defining the Senate's role and the other discussing the actions Reilly took.

Another aspect is that the Interim Committee doesn't have any inherent authority to initiate actions. Under the original authorizing resolution adopted during the 75th Senate Session (S. Res. 75-29, page 221 here), the Interim Committee has "the authority specifically to consider legislation from any Standing Committee or discharge any legislation from any Standing Committee with the consent of the Standing Committee chairperson." It appears that the Interim Committee only has authority to consider stuff the other standing committees were handling at the time the Interim Committee existed. Notice the consent of the committee chair involved is required for the Interim Committee to handle a matter. Even under a more expansive view, the Committee can only do things that other committees can do with the consent of the appropriate chair. This is to prevent the Interim Committee from unilaterally depriving a committee of its jurisdiction. Remember, the purpose of the Interim Committee, according to the original resolution, is "to conduct specific business of the Senate Committees during times of break."

Now, as we previously covered here, the Interim Committee right now has no real legal authority because it was never properly constituted. So all of this discussion is pretty much academic.

One last thing to consider, as an aside. The role of the ASUN Bookstore is to serve the university community. It isn't a profit making enterprise, at least not in the traditional sense. The revenue the bookstore generates above and beyond the cost of doing business is reinvested at the University, through scholarships and funding for campus improvements, as directed by ASUN. There used to be a profit sharing agreement with the Graduate Student Association, but it lapsed without being renewed. (Interesting question: any bets as to whether GSA is still getting its cut even though the profit sharing agreement lapsed more than a year ago?)

It's what it doesn't say that matters

2009-07-21T14:11:00.000-07:00

Recently, the Associated Students released a statement by ASUN President Eli Reilly denouncing Russell Athletic for its alleged workers' rights violations at its recently closed Jerzees de Honduras plant. ASUN, through its bookstore, is a licensee and customer of Russell Athletic merchandise. Apparently, the ASUN Senate has been conducting an investigation into these matters, although it must've been a big secret since it never appeared on an agenda (which is interesting because Reilly's statement says that "members of the Associated Student (sic) Senate have conducted thorough research and analysis" of this issue.

The matter of the workers' rights violations isn't what is interesting to us, although it is good that the ASUN will be denouncing Russell Athletic's behavior by taking their business elsewhere. What's interesting is the fact that this joint statement between ASUN's executive and legislative branches wasn't signed on to by the Senate's leader, Gracie Geremia. Instead it was Phantom Committee chairman Brandon Bishop who joined Reilly in the statement. What, Gracie not good enough?

What's even more interesting is that the statement implies that the Senate stands behind the message, yet there's been no action by the Senate on this subject.

Is Our Senators Learning: Committee Jurisdiction

2009-07-09T13:21:00.000-07:00

This will be a short installment of IOSL. Before I begin, a bit of a disclaimer. There appears to be some dispute what the present form of Rule X is. In November 2008, the Government Operations Committee considered an amendment to the rule to change the descriptions of the committee's jurisdiction. We previously believed that amendment to have been agreed to by the Senate. However, the (one would assume) official listing of legislation on the ASUN Web site does not show said piece of legislation. Without ample proof, we are unable to state with any level of confidence what Rule X should say. So for the purposes of this piece, we will use the unamended text of Rule X which, as it would be, is the same text that is supposedly the "official" rule.

Rule X of the Rules of the Senate defines the jurisdictions of the standing committees. A standing committee is one that is permanently established under the Senate's Rules. Clause (d) of that rule informs us that the Committee on Government Operations has the jurisdiction to consider, among other things, "amendments to the Rules of the Senate."

So imagine my surprise to read today's ~~Conduct and Appointments~~ Oversight Committee agenda. Item 6(b) reads:

b. ABSENCE POLICY
The committee may discuss implementing an absence policy prior to the conduct hearing for senators who have exceeded 3 absences, pertinent to Senate Rule I (e) Attendance Policy. The committee may discuss the absence policy related to office hours. The committee may discuss or draft legislation regarding the Senate absence policy.

This is a problem. The Oversight Committee does not have legislative jurisdiction. Even under its amended description (here), there is no mention of the committee having jurisdiction beyond investigations of personnel issues, disciplinary hearings, confirmation hearings, reviewing senators' absences, and conducting impeachment hearings. Thus, it would appear that this committee is without the jurisdiction to consider legislation. They can talk all they want about what the rules should be, any one of the senators on the committee is free to draft a resolution to amend the rules, but it is the Government Operations Committee that has the jurisdiction to consider it.

I'm sure that Speaker Geremia, who is chair of the committee, won't let this pesky little rule stand in her way. After all, she didn't do anything to keep the Phantom Committee from meeting. These aren't hard things to fix, but this demonstrable lack of respect for rules and the written word is disturbing, considering all the senators took an oath to uphold them.

Is Our Senators Learning: It's Hard to Legislate Without Reading

2009-07-08T17:55:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since our last post, and now seemed like as good a time as any for a revival of sorts. In this edition of Is Our Senators Learning, we explore why it might be more appropriate for us to call this series "Is Our Senators Reading" instead.

First, however, I'd like to commend Senator Shirley Diaz for doing what senators should be doing, and that is writing legislation. While she still has much to learn about bill drafting, she is proving herself to be both thoughtful and willing to learn, both traits invaluable for a senator to possess. However, we are not without our criticism.

Executive Summary

Senator Diaz is turning out to be quite the legislator. She already holds the record for most bills drafted by a senator in this session.
The Senate cannot change the terms of office for officers when such change affects contractual obligations.
You cannot amend amendatory bills directly; you have to amend the underlying language.
These words are not equivalent: precedence / precedent / president

Today the Phantom Committee is taking up three bills, all drafted by Sen. Diaz. (meeting info). The first bill relates to the Department of Homecoming Programming and the terms of office of its officers. The second bill relates to the Diversity Commission. The third bill (which really isn't a bill at all--it's a resolution) makes amendments relating to the Senate's parliamentarian.

Bill No. 1: Homecoming Programming Department
The first bill up for consideration changes the term of office of the Director of Homecoming from expiring on November 30 to expire instead on the dead day in the spring semester. The bill further provides that the terms of office of the subordinates in the department will expire on dead day in the spring as well.

First to the merits of the bill. It is uncertain why Sen. Diaz, at the urging of the the Director of Homecoming, Molly Fronapfel, proposes to change the term of office for the Director. As originally conceived, the Director would be in office for a full year, beginning soon after the end of the previous homecoming. This would allow the Association to have people in place to give homecoming the attention it deserves, much like the Alumni Association does now. In fact, it was then Director of Programming Eli Reilly who proposed the November 30 date.

One reason that comes to mind why this change is proposed is so a new president will have complete control over who is in office at the change of an administration. But this goes against the philosophy that experience and competence should outweigh patronage in ASUN, especially in the less political offices.

The bill also defines the terms of the subordinates in the department. No complaints as to that provision.

From a drafting standpoint, this bill needs some tweaking. First of all, the bill moves the term of office provisions from the law creating the Homecoming Director (ASUN Public Law 75-29) and moves it into a law that defines the terms of office of several other executive officers (ASUN Public Law 75-50). There are differing philosophies on how to group similar provisions of law, but it is generally more acceptable to put the term of office for an officer in the same law that created the office. (That's right, the 75th Session of the Senate that normally receives this blog's highest praises got lazy. Instead of amending the various laws that created the offices, they merely created another law and listed the offices and their terms. This would be a good thing for some senator to fix.)

So rather than have provisions relating to one officer scattered throughout the statutory law, it makes better sense to keep it all together. In that light, we have drafted a substitute to the bill under consideration. It is below.

A BILL
To amend the term of office of the Director of Homecoming, to provide for the terms of office of the Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming Programming, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated Students,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Department of Homecoming Amendments Act of 2009”.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TERM OF DIRECTOR OF HOMECOMING.
Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended to read as follows:
“(A) The Director of Homecoming shall serve for a term of one year beginning on Dead Day in the spring semester. On the expiration of the term, the Director shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subparagraph, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 3. TERM OF ASSISTANT DIRECTORS AND PROGRAMMERS.
(a) Section 4 of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended by adding to the end the following new subsection:
“(e) TERMS OF OFFICE.—Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming shall hold office for a term of one year. On the expiration of the term, a Programmer shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subsection, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not apply to any person holding an office covered by the provisions of this Act as of the date of enactment of this Act.

You'll also notice that I added a section 4 regarding the application of the changes made by the bill. The Senate cannot constitutionally change the term of office if it will affect a contractual obligation. Appointing someone to an office with a fixed date of termination, and then moving the date forward, would deprive that person of the wages she would otherwise be entitled to. Therefore, this sort of change should not apply until the successor takes office.

If, however, Sen. Diaz is partial to her original bill's organization, it's been redrafted to adhere to ASUN's bill drafting style below.

A BILL
To amend the term of office of the Director of Homecoming, to provide for the terms of office of the Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming Programming, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated Students,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Department of Homecoming Amendments Act of 2009”.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TERM OF DIRECTOR OF HOMECOMING.
Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended to read as follows:
“(A) The Director of Homecoming shall serve for a term of one year beginning on Dead Day in the spring semester. On the expiration of the term, the Director shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subparagraph, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 3. TERM OF ASSISTANT DIRECTORS AND PROGRAMMERS.
(a) Section 4 of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended by adding to the end the following new subsection:
“(e) TERMS OF OFFICE.—Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming shall hold office for a term of one year. On the expiration of the term, a Programmer shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subsection, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not apply to any person holding an office covered by the provisions of this Act as of the date of enactment of this Act.

We've discussed other points of bill drafting convention in other posts.

Bill No. 2: Diversity Commission
The second bill up for consideration changes the name of all things related to the Diversity Commission to the Unity Commission. This is a minor bill and doesn't seem to do much other than change some names.

On drafting style, we'd prefer the language to read as follows:

SECTION 1. DIVERSITY COMMISSION REDESIGNATION.
(a) Redesignation.--The Diversity Commission Act of 2009 (ASUN Public Law 77-4) is amended by striking "Diversity Commission" in each place it appears and inserting "Unity Commission".
(b) Technical Amendments.--Section 2(c)(7) of the Executive Compensation Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75-48; 75 ASUN Stat. 144), as amended, is further amended by striking "Diversity" and inserting "Unity".

Notice the change to the second part of the bill. You cannot amend amendatory bills like you can standalone bills. The reason why is once the bill has been enacted, its amendatory provisions are considered to be "executed" and are no longer permanent law. It's like telling someone to write down "The sky is red," later giving that person an instruction to change "red" to "blue," and then later changing your mind on the amendatory instruction by changing the instruction (if that makes any sense). You can't do things that way. You have to amend the underlying language, as amended.

Up to this point, it appears that Sen. Diaz has been doing her homework. Aside from mainly stylistic and legalistic points, she's doing as well as can be expected for senators who receive no (real) training on the mechanics of legislating.

Resolution regarding the Senate's Parliamentarian
This is the resolution that gave rise to the lament at the beginning of this post that we should call the IOSL series "Is Our Senators Reading."

I'm going to ignore the matters of style for this piece of leigslation in favor of focusing on the merits. This resolution would make significant changes to the parliamentarian's role in the Senate.

First, the resolution creates an Office of the Parliamentarian. It would authorize the parliamentarian to appoint a deputy. The resolution also expands the scope of the parliamentarian in an expansive way. It authorizes the parliamentarian to represent the Senate or senators in suits before the Judicial Council. The resolution also authorizes the parliamentarian to render opinions on the constitutionality of legislation. This could be dangerous. As a general proposition, when a legislative body acts, it does not question the constitutionality of its acts. However, we do see value in having someone, acting in the capacity of a legislative counsel, providing such opinions. But the Speaker should never rule on such matters from the Chair.

There are two clauses (c)(7) in the resolution, but one of them provides that the Parliamentarian "shall assist the Secretary on the Publication of the Statues at Large of the Association." Why "Publication" is capitalized is beyond me, but this is the specific section that gives us doubt that the senators are reading the laws. The Secretary of the Senate does not publish the Statutes at Large; the Archivist does (ASUN Public Law 75-39, section 15).

Finally, a point that matters: precedence vs. precedents. There is a difference. (See also here.) And for those readers old enough to remember, this reminded me of the time the Judicial Council, back in 2004 or 2005, didn't understand the difference between "precident" and "president."

The resolution is good in that it provides a deputy for the parliamentarian and that it defines that someone is authorized to represent the Senate in cases before the Judicial Council. However, this resolution needs more work before it is ready to be reported out of committee.

All in all, kudos to Sen. Diaz for putting forth the effort to do what a senator should do. Now, to all the other senators: Get crackin'!

The Phantom Committee

2009-06-23T22:59:00.000-07:00

When Senator Brandon Bishop calls a meeting of several senators to order tomorrow, he will be giving life to a sort of shadow committee, one that the senators all believe exists and has power to exist, but in reality does not. Hence the title of this post. This phantom committee will be "apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but [will have] no physical reality." Well, no legal reality.

Remember back when the Senate thought it adopted rules at its first meeting of the session? We do, and it is somewhat of an important point. Well, the senators, try as they might, attempted to do it right this time (we applaud the effort) but managed to pull off a magic trick. Before the senators decided to go on extended holiday for the entire summer, despite the end-of-semester posturing that they would work tirelessly while everyone else was up at Tahoe working on their tans, we blogged that because the Senate didn't adopt a legally and parliamentarily proper rules resolution, the Interim Operations Committee did not exist.

Enter Sen. Patrick "Rules" Kealy to the rescue--sort of. At the June 3 Senate meeting, Sen. Kealy offered a resolution to adjourn the Senate for the summer (I guess it's too much to ask that the senators work for the students while the students are away). Included in that resolution was a clause that read, "The Interim Committee of the Senate is hereby active during the recess of the Senate. The duties, membership, and chairperson may be decided at the discretion of the Speaker, pursuant to Senate Rule XI."

Looks simple enough, right? The Interim Committee will be active. Just one slight problem: This committee doesn't legally exist. It would have had the Senate adopted a proper rules resolution at the beginning of the year. Why? The Interim Committee is not included in the codified Rules of the Senate; instead, it was created under a standalone resolution (S. Res. 75-29) (see here, page 221 of the scribd document). (That resolution was subsequently amended by S. Res. 75-64 to allow the committee to meet during spring break.)

Since the Senate did not readopt this resolution for this session, as should have been done at its first meeting, the Interim Committee does not exist. Yet, here we have the trick of this committee, which does not exist, meeting tomorrow. Thus, when the group of senators meet tomorrow, despite the Senate's best intentions, they will be without the legal authority to meet. Of course this is very easy to fix. A resolution like the one below would suffice.

Resolved, That Senate Resolution 75-29, as amended, shall apply in the 77th Session of the Senate in the same manner as such resolution applied in the 75th Session of the Senate.

The resolution is short, clear, and unambiguous. It not only makes clear to the senators what they believed was clear already, but allows people looking back to have clarity as well. Indeed, if you compare Sen. Kealy's clause to the actual resolution that created this committee in the first place, it becomes clear that the membership selection is somewhat different than what is precsribed in Rule XI, especially with respect to selecting a chairperson.

Sen. Bishop, since you are the parliamentarian of the Senate, we expect you will take this analysis under consideration and take the reasonable course of action to cancel tomorrow's meeting so that this legal and parliamentary oversight can be corrected by the full Senate. (Oh, and while you're at it, if you could fix the problem that exists with the Senate's rules, too, that'd be great. We've got some other quarrels, but let's start with something simple, eh?)

In reality, we fully expect that this post won't even get the lip service it deserves, let alone actually be taken seriously. No worries, just another item to add to the list of ways the ASUN Senate has tried but failed.