Teabaggers want ASUN to go away; world yawns

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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":

1. The Committee indefinitely postponed (killed) further consideration of the JV 2017 plan.
2. 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

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

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

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....

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.

"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?)

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

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

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?

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

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...

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

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

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

A Quorum Was Not Present

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

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?

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

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

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

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'!