Inheriting a mess

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.

ASUN spending of $1.6M illegal, Council finds

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.

BREAKING: Judicial Council rules against Senate, Speaker, President

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

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).

A year later, cases coming to trial

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.

Seriously, What's So Hard About This?

The Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of the Nevada Revised Statutes) is not a hard law to follow. The law itself is only six printed pages long. The Nevada Attorney General has published a manual to assist public bodies in complying with the law, setting out best practices to follow. This is not a very complicated law.

So why is it that the ASUN Senate, seemingly at every turn, manages to engage in practices that are of questionable legality with respect to this law? Keep reading...

Facilities Must Be Reasonably Large
The Open Meeting Law informs us that "all meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies" (NRS 241.020(1)). What exactly does it mean that meetings be "open and public" and that "all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting"?

Well, the Attorney General has discussed this in her office's manual. At section 8.03, the Attorney General advises, "Public meetings should be held in facilities that are reasonably large enough to accommodate attendance by members of the public." In an Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Opinion, the Attorney General wrote

A public body's failure to conduct an open meeting in a large enough facility, in effect, creates an improperly closed meeting. See Open Meeting Laws 2d, A. Schwing, § 5.76, at 231 (2000). Therefore, it is the legal duty of a public body to attempt to provide meeting space sufficient to accommodate the expected number of attendees including, under certain circumstances the anticipated heightened emotions of a larger number of attendees.

(OMLO 2005-14).

The ASUN Senate is scheduled to hold a meeting on June 3, 2009, in room 404 in the Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center. A review of the facility shows that the room has a capacity of 18 persons (link). This poses a couple of problems:

1. The Senate has 22 members. Assuming all members are physically present, there won't even be enough room for the senators, much less for any members of the public who may wish to attend.
2. Even if several of the senators are not physically present (assume that just a quorum of 15 members is physically present), that leaves only three seats for the public. Add in the Senate's secretary, advisers, the President, other ASUN department heads ( the budget for the next fiscal year is being considered at this meeting), the room is woefully inadequate in size.

A room with a capacity not even large enough for all of the members and staff of a public body cannot possibly be "reasonably large enough to accommodate attendance by members of the public" because it isn't even large enough to accommodate attendance by members of the public body itself.

This meeting takes the place of the last meeting that was canceled because we pointed out that the notice and agenda for the meeting was not posted in time to take into account the Memorial Day holiday during the posting period. The meeting was canceled as the appropriate corrective response to that deficiency.

This meeting, too, should be canceled because the facilities are not reasonably large enough to accommodate members of the public. The Senate Chamber is adequate, but the reason the Knowledge Center was selected is probably because the Student Union closes at 7 p.m. (It should be noted that the Knowledge Center only stays open for an additional hour. The Student Union, however, is open until midnight on Tuesdays.)

Rooms Must Remain Unlocked During Meeting
Another meeting scheduled could pose a different problem related to facilities. An Oversight Committee meeting is scheduled for 8:30 p.m. on June 3. The meeting will be held in room 206 of the Ansari Business Building. Holding after-hours meetings usually is not a problem during the school year because the Student Union is open late. During the summer, it's a different story.

Has the Committee made arrangements to ensure that there will be public access to ABB after-hours for the duration of the meeting? Meetings have been held in the Business Building during the summer before, but often the exterior doors were locked and the access to the building nearest the meeting room had to be propped open with a chair. The State Attorney General advises that "If a citizen is denied access to a meeting because of [locked] doors, a violation of Nevada's open meeting law would occur."

Accordingly, if the exterior doors to the Business Building do not remain unlocked, and if there are not directions to an unlocked access door to the building on the locked doors, the public would be denied access to the meeting location. A violation has not occurred yet, but the potential for a violation is ripe.

A Related Note...
On a related note, this blog has been criticized of late for unreasonably attacking the Senate as a whole for the alleged violations of a few individuals, namely the Speaker of the Senate, Gracie Geremia. Our rejoinder: of course the whole Senate should be criticized. The Speaker is merely an officer of the Senate; she is responsible to the body as a whole. Her mistakes are the body's mistakes.

This is not the first alleged violation of the Open Meeting Law that has occurred during this session. This is the second meeting in a row where a deficiency has been pointed out before the meeting has occurred (link). One meeting was held this session in violation of the law (link). Almost half a dozen cases have been filed against the Senate for violating the Open Meeting Law.

This is not a new theme, as the following Sagebrush articles demonstrate:

• http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/10/01/senate-approves-stiteler-as-flipside-director/
  
• http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2009/02/10/senate-to-vote-on-censure-2/
• http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/09/09/asun-violates-meeting-law/
• http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/02/27/senate-votes-to-censure-todd/
• http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2007/11/01/asun-minute-late-agenda-post-under-review/
• http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/10/14/asun-officer-charged-for-two-constitutional-violations/
• http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/10/13/asun-leaders-need-to-show-leadership/
• http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/12/09/student-senate-criticized/

Senators have been censured for violating the Open Meeting Law. Vice Presidents have been forced to resign amid impeachment over Open Meeting Law violations. Meetings have been canceled because of Open Meeting Law violations. This law is not hard to follow, provided the officers charged with following it make the effort to do so.

Last session, Speaker Priscilla Acosta, was made an example of because of the violation of the Open Meeting Law she committed. One violation led to that. Ms. Geremia is already up to at least four violations. Will this Senate hold her accountable? Even if they don't, will Geremia make a concerted effort to become an expert on the Open Meeting Law and learn from her frequent mistakes? Only time will tell.

In the meantime, the Senate meeting should be canceled yet again, and the student's business hijacked yet again, because one individual fails to do her job and to do it well.

Is Our Senators Learning: First learning opportunity--Agendas, Deadlines, and Appointments

Being elected to ASUN office is something like being handed a scalpel and told to perform emergency surgery. Stuff must be done quickly and done reasonably well or the patient will be injured or worse. The Speaker has it 10 times worse, easily. Little more than one day after being elected as Speaker, she must draft an agenda for the next meeting, make sure it complies with the Nevada Open Meeting Law, Senate rules, and ASUN law, and be sure it is posted before Friday at 9 a.m., all with hardly any support or guidance. Mistakes are bound to be made, and that's okay. But mistakes are only okay when we learn from them, grow, and don't repeat them.

That is the state of affairs Gracie Geremia was thrown into shortly before 7 p.m. Wednesday when she was elected to be the Senate's leader. It's hard work and you don't really realize how hard it is until you have to do it. As a sign of her dedication to her new job, she was in the office past 11 p.m. last night, as the ASUN website entry for the next Senate meeting demonstrates.

At first glance, the Senate agenda for April 22 looks pretty good. But when you dig a little bit deeper, some opportunities for growth are apparent. Now, please stick with us through the entirety of these posts. These things are complicated and require deliberate exposition. I know it's frustrating, but if you stick with us, you might learn something and become better Senators because of it.

Senate Rule XX and ASUN Public Law 75-37 govern the process of handing presidential appointments to office. (We cite to the 75th Session's rules because the 77th Session's rules are not published yet, but the rule is the same. There is also some doubt about whether the Senate actually adopted rules at its meeting on Wednesday--a problem of form and specificity--but we'll withhold commenting further until we've gathered the documentary evidence to be sure.)

ASUN Pub. L. 75-37 requires that an appointing authority, that's President Reilly for all of the nominations submitted Wednesday, must submit nominations in writing in a specific manner. It must follow a specific form, be transmitted to the Secretary, and sent in a sealed envelope. Our guess is the form was not followed. But that's a fault of the President, not of the Senate.

Senate Rule XX states

(a) (1) The appointing authority shall file written notice with the Secretary of the intention to present an appointee to the Senate no later than 9 a.m. on the Wednesday prior to the Wednesday for which the meeting is scheduled.
(2) The Speaker shall place the appointee, with name and position of appointment, on the agenda for referral to the appropriate committee at the aforementioned Wednesday meeting.

Let's break down the rule and tie it together with the ASUN law. We'll use a specific example. The Committee on Oversight, which has jurisdiction over appointments to office, is scheduled to hold a meeting on April 22 to consider several presidential appointments (agenda--.doc). One of the items on the agenda is the consideration of Patrick Delaplain to be Director of Clubs and Organizations. Section 202(a) of the Executive Branch Act of 2008 (ASUN Pub. L. 75-7) creates that office.

Problem: nominations should not yet appear on the Oversight Committee's agenda. Remember that Senate rule? It says that "the appointing authority [President Reilly] shall file written notice with the Secretary of the intention to present an appointee to the Senate [in the form prescribed by ASUN Pub. L. 75-37] no later than 9 a.m. on the Wednesday prior to the Wednesday for which the meeting is scheduled."

The rule goes on to say "the Speaker shall place the appointee, with name and position of appointment, on the agenda for referral to the appropriate committee at the aforementioned Wednesday meeting." The meeting referred to above can only be the Senate because only the Senate can refer things to committee.

So, the rule states that nominations transmitted by the President must appear on the Senate agenda, listing the person and office of the appointment, so that it can be referred to the Oversight Committee. The flaw with the Senate and Oversight agendas is that it appears the the proper order was skipped.

The process says that the nomination is received by the Secretary and it gets placed on the next possible Senate agenda for reading and referral to committee. So, in the proper order:

1. President submits to Senate Secretary nomination: "I nominate Patrick Delaplain to be Director of Clubs and Organizations, vice Jason Entsminger, term expiring."
2. The Secretary receives the nomination.
3. The Speaker places the nomination on the next Senate agenda if it was submitted before 9 a.m.; otherwise another week must elapse.
4. The item is on the agenda. During the meeting, the nomination is read, and it is referred to the Oversight Committee.
5. Once it has been formally referred, then the item can appear on the Oversight agenda.

Following that example, the time line as it should work for this Senate is as follows:

• Nomination submitted on April 15, after the Senate was organized--that was after 7 p.m. on that day.
• Secretary receives nomination same day.
• Speaker schedules nomination to be read for the April 29 Senate meeting because it was not submitted before 9 a.m. on April 15.
• Nomination gets read and referred to Oversight on April 29.
• After the formal nomination is referred to the committee, only then may it be scheduled for consideration in committee and placed on the committee agenda.

That is how it works.

Now, a couple questions the process should raise: Why cannot the President submit nominations by one week prior to the first Senate meeting so they can be read and referred the night he takes office? Why can't the deadline be ignored?

The Deadline and Its Implications
Rule XX(a) of the Senate Rules sets a deadline for nominations to be received in order to be read at the next Senate meeting. So, why can't the nominations be submitted before the first Senate meeting of a Session? There are several reasons why.

First, the 77th Session did not exist until it convened and was organized on April 15. In order to be organized, the Senate needed to elect a Speaker and inform the President that a quorum was assembled, they had elected officers, and were ready to receive any communication he may be pleased to make (See Item 6(a) on the April 15 Senate agenda--.doc). Constitutionally, the Senate cannot proceed to business unless it has organized. Also, the President needs to be given formal notice that the Senate has convened so he knows he can send them business. I know it seems strange because everybody knew what was going to happen and what needed to happen, but this is a legal process, and it must play out in a very particular order in a very particular way.

Second, the President did not take office until 6 p.m. on April 15 and did not qualify to enter on his office until he was sworn in (ASUN Const., Art. III, sec. 1(f)). Thus, he cannot submit nominations until the executive power to make nominations has been conferred on to him by virtue of entering office by taking the oath. Thus, the soonest he can transmit nominations is April 15, 2009, right after he's been sworn in. The fact that it was an incumbent president being reelected is immaterial because the first point set out in the paragraph above prevents him from sending the nominations to the right Senate. (Remember, the 76th Session ended on April 8 and the 77th Session had not yet been formed.)

Why the Deadline Matters
The deadline is certainly inconvenient when viewed from the perspective that the Senate should move with incredible speed in considering the President's nominations to office. But that's not what the rule is designed to do. It is designed to slow the process down. "Why?" you may ask. Several reasons:

• to prevent quick, rash decisions;
• to allow the Oversight Committee to properly vet nominees;
  
• to allow Senators enough time to gather outside information and perspective to weigh the merits of the nominations;
• to allow members of the Association at large to weigh in and persuade their representatives to vote to conform or not to confirm; and
  
• to slow things down, etc.

When the rule requires a full week to lapse before the nomination can even be read for the first time in the Senate, it puts people on notice to gear up for the nomination process. When another four days must pass for the item to appear on the Oversight Committee agenda, it allows the committee members to begin drafting questions for the nominee. All of this time allows everybody time to think about the nominee instead of just jumping before preparing to jump.

Besides, there really is no rush to confirm nominations. In most of the high executive offices, ASUN Law provides that the terms of office do not end until "Dead Day" in May. Further, even if a successor has not been confirmed and sworn into office by then, the person currently holding the office, in may cases, stays in office until a successor has been appointed and qualifies (ASUN Pub. L. 75-50).

Pressure to act quickly is unwarranted
Put simply, the President wants things to be considered quickly because quick decisions will benefit him (this applies to any president, not only Reilly). Instead, if the Senate has time to really think about whether a person is qualified for office, that could lead to undesirable results for the President.

The Senators will feel compelled to act. The President will pressure them to act quickly. The fact of the matter is the purpose of the Senate is to put a huge damper on moving quickly. The Senate is a deliberative body. Deliberation takes time. The Senate is designed to move slowly on purpose. The President can act quickly, and that makes sense since he is in the branch that executes policy. The legislative branch, however, creates policy, and policy needs to be fully considered before actions are taken.

Yes, the rules can be inconvenient, but only depending on your perspective. Senators, you are elected to be a check on the President. You get to consider and determine the wisdom of the President's acts on behalf of your constituents. Nobody else gets to do it in the same way you do.

Learning the rules also requires thinking about what things would be like if the rule did not exist, or was not followed. Imagine if the Senate was allowed to make a decision on the appointments as soon as they were submitted. Some of the Senators might feel compelled to act because they were being asked for a decision that night. But do you think that would have led to a good result? Hardly hours into their offices, could they really have made a reasonable decision on nominations without taking time to think about it? Important decisions require time to fully consider.

The learning opportunity
The error on the agendas has already been made. The beauty is the error can be contained and corrected in the future. This will take the Speaker acknowledging the error herself and holding off on improper consideration or it will take a Senator to point out the error and object to considering an item in a manner contrary to the rules. The rules are not self-enforcing. It takes a senator to raise an objection, call out an activity as being contrary to the rules, and demand that it be enforced.

A nitpicky, but important, point
The language used by the Senate must be specific, sometimes to the point of absurdity. One such example is on the Agendas posted. The reasons specificity to the point of anal-retentiveness is required is so matters are very clear. Again, this is a legal process ASUN exists in, and legal processes require precise language. The agendas drafted by Speaker Geremia all have one common error: it's not the "IGT Knowledge Center" but rather the "Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center." Big deal? Probably not, but it matters.

Learning How to Swim

As the Sagebrush pointed out in its last staff editorial, "The new session is a glimmer of hope for improving the reputation of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada Senate – all they have to do is avoid repeating the mistakes of the past." The chief mistake: not learning, and becoming proficient with, the rules.

Each of the three candidates for Speaker of the 77th Senate lamented the fact that they felt like they had nobody to teach them the rules. Senator Patrick Kealy said "We weren't trained very well as 76th session senators." But now-Speaker Gracie Geremia perhaps said it best: it was like being thrown overboard without any support. "Nobody taught us how to swim, nobody gave us floaties," Geremia said. We hope to provide some floaties.

Before I continue, let me be abundantly clear about my motives behind this post, and future ones like it: it is to help the 77th Senate, full of promise, to avoid the mistakes of the past. The best way of doing that is by pointing out specific examples of the failures of the past so growth can occur. It is unavoidable to focus on specific failures of the past. It isn't done to criticize the people involved. The fact of the matter is the Senators are not experts on their rules. It would be unfair to except them to be. Even the incumbents, who have a year of experience under their belts, still have much to learn.

In short, the Senators need to become comfortable with the water before they can swim and before they can swim well.

Principles are sacred
President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood the big picture on rules. In a speech to young Democrats, he said, "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." The principle underlying the ASUN Constitution and the Senate Rules is the rule of law--the idea that people are best governed by rules implemented by a deliberative process rather than by the whims of people, even when well-intentioned in nature.

Are there specific rules that are perhaps unfair in certain circumstances? Absolutely. There are exceptions to nearly everything in life. But if we cannot agree that the rule of law is a noble, just principle which deserves to be promoted, we cannot agree on much that follows. You either believe in the principle of the rule of law or you don't. There really isn't any middle ground.

Principles and rules as a framework
So why do we have rules? Well, let's look at a simple example first: checkers. We all have played checkers at one point or another. But imagine being exposed to the game for the very first time. It's a very simple game, but it has rules. Simplified, the rules are:

• The game board is an 8×8 grid, with alternating black and red squares.
• Two sets of pieces of different color, one dark and one light.
• Each player starts with 12 pieces on opposite ends of the board, with one piece placed in the dark grid space in the three rows closest to the player. The player with the dark-colored pieces moves first.
• Players can move in two ways: move and jump. In a move, pieces slide one space forward diagonally (or backwards if the piece is a king). A jump, quoting the linked Wikipedia article:

• • A jump is a move from a square diagonally adjacent to one of the opponent's pieces to an empty square immediately and directly on the opposite side of the opponent's square, thus "jumping directly over" the square containing the opponent's piece. An uncrowned piece can only jump diagonally forwards, but a king can also jump diagonally backwards. A piece that is jumped is captured and removed from the board. Multiple-jump moves are possible if, when the jumping piece lands, there is another immediate piece that can be jumped, even if the jump is in a different direction. When multiple-option jumping moves are available, whether with the one piece in different directions or multiple pieces that can make various jumping moves, the player may choose which piece to jump with and which jumping option or sequence of jumps to make. The jumping sequence chosen does not necessarily have to be the one that would have resulted in the most captures. If a player does not take their jump because either they (1.) did not see it or (2.) refuse, the piece that could have made the jump is "blown" or "huffed," (which eliminates it from the game) and the opponent continues their turn as normal. Any piece, whether it is a king or not, can jump a king.
• Pieces are "kinged" when a player's piece moves into the kings row on the opposing player's side of the board. A king piece can move forwards and backwards on the board.
• The game ends when an all of an opponent's pieces or captured or no legal moves remain, ending in a stalemate.

For what is as simple a game as checkers, it actually has some pretty complex rules. If two beginners had sit down at the board having never seen the game before, what might unfold could hardly be called a game of checkers: it would be chaos, but they wouldn't recognize it as such. They might think they were playing the game and not be aware that they lacked any real grasp of the game (think of when two kids "play" with chess pieces). Likewise, when one player knows how the game works but the other does not, it can end in chaos. The player who knows the rules will be frustrated by the novice's lack of understanding, and the novice will be frustrated by the veteran knowing how it works.

Just think about what it's like playing with a child who hasn't quite grasped how a game works. When the child is losing, the game will likely end abruptly with the child declaring, "I don't like this game." Why the child doesn't like the game is readily apparently to the people who know the rules and how to play: he doesn't like the game because he doesn't understand it, and because he doesn't understand it, he's no good at it. But, when both players know the rules and know how to apply them--to know how to play the game--it will be a pleasant experience for both players.

ASUN is sort of like checkers
The Senate Rules and the ASUN Constitution are no different, just much, much larger in scope, scale, and complexity. To draw the comparison, the 76th Session was like a bunch of novices playing a game of checkers: they thought they were playing the game well; in reality, they were flailing about because they didn't have an experienced player around to teach them the game. And when outsiders, who had a demonstrated understanding of the rules, criticized them for not knowing the game, they interpreted it as contempt for them as individuals and rejected it. (Although it may seem to trivialize ASUN and the people involved, I use the term "game" to explain ASUN as a process that has rules that must be used to achieve an objective. The best comparison on a very simple level is to call it a game.)

I hesitate to make the comparison because of the animosity that the observation was met with from the 76th Session Senators, but one only need to look closely at the record of the 75th Session compared with what the 76th Session did to see the difference between players who understood the game and those who did not. The form, the content, the nuances, all of it is demonstrably and objectively better than even the "best" items of the 76th Session.

When posts are published here pointing out errors and failures in what the Senate is doing with respect to its process, it is intended only to be a teaching moment so the Senators can grow to be more experienced with the process. This will take time, it will require a concerted effort on the part of the Senators, and it will only work if the criticisms are embraced by them.

I don't think there are any bad people in the Senate. They all only want to try their hardest and do what's best for the students. With that out of the way, the next post will explore some of the flaws with the first agenda prepared by the Senate's new Speaker.

Let's hope the incumbents, including Speaker Geremia, have the presence of mind, the introspection, and wherewithal to back up their complaints about not being taught the process with embracing those who did, people from whom the Senators could learn much.

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

Credible sources indicate that incumbent Senators-elect Gracie Geremia (Liberal Arts), Sean Hostmeyer (CABNR), and Patrick Kealy (Liberal Arts) are running for Speaker. It is unknown whether any freshmen senators are running.

Geremia was chair of the Budget and Finance and Conduct and Appointments committees. Kealy was chair of the Campus Community committee.

My question: Would it be wise for the Senate to appoint as its leader someone who was part of last year's problems?

Any predictions? Who will be Speaker when it's all said and done?