Word Cloud

To see the cool animation click here.

Staying Involved?

It occurs to me that yesterday was the third meeting of the new session, and I wonder how many of the candidates who ran for Senate and lost attended the meetings, or at least voiced their opinions to their elected leaders. This is specifically directed at the S.T.A.R.T candidates. I'll use them as an example. 10 (9 without Maggy) decided that ASUN was so corrupt and over bloated that they needed to be elected to office to fix the problem. As we have said in earlier posts, none were elected (not counting Mr. Maggy who won, then dropped). Have these 10 people done anything yet to fix their perceived problems in ASUN?

Just because you don't have a title doesn't mean you can't make a difference. There is a perception in ASUN elections that the person who lost shouldn't speak out anymore. The idea is that if you didn't get enough votes, you suck and therefore should shut up. I disagree.

I know it's only the third meeting of the 77th session, but I hope candidates who didn't win, especially those a part of the S.T.A.R.T group, go to the meetings in the future. There is public comment period every meeting, and they should voice their concerns. If there is a bill they don't like, or even if they just want to go and bitch about budget cuts, name plates, etc., they should go.

Democracy requires participation. It's a long standing saying that, "the world is run by those who show up."

Throughout the year many Senators will inevitably become lazy or complacent and will get used to being called Senator without earning the title. I implore all who give a damn to go to the meetings, and keep these people on their toes. If you don't think you'll be listened to, or mocked, just look at the resolution the 76th Session did about a random student who showed up to almost every meeting.

ASUN: Now violating plaintiffs' petitioners' rights

During the last session of the Senate, the distinguished and learned senators, at the urging of one very pushy ASUN Judicial Council justice, amended gutted the Judicial Rules of Procedure as were enacted during the 75th Senate Session (link to original rules).

Among the many dumb things that were changed (not that there were any reasonable, good changes) was the names of the parties to a case from plaintiff and defendant to petitioner and respondent. Thanks to the power of public records requests, we discovered a little boo boo in the enactment.

S. B. 76-14 Enrolled With Signatures

Publish at Scribd

See it, it's right there. Oh, too hard to see, well I'll quote it.

"Evidence that violates a petitioner's rights may not be submitted unless the respondent waives such rights."

(Rule 4(l)(4)).

Under the original, not-nearly-as-messed-up document, the clause read

"Evidence that violates a defendant's rights may not be submitted unless the defendant waives such rights."

Aside from, um, getting it wrong, a respondent can now waive the rights of a petitioner.

That's just one more gem from the 76th Session of the Senate, ladies and gentlemen. It's the gift that keeps on giving--that no one wanted in the first place.

More books

An update to our previous post...

A senator who served during the 74th Session reminded us that legislation was passed during the 74th Session of the Senate that directed the ASUN President to develop a book swap system for the website. We did some digging, and sure enough, the senator was right. Thanks to the senator for sending us a copy of the legislation, which is reproduced below for your reading pleasure.

Bookswap Directive, 74th Senate Session

Publish at Scribd

As it turns out, the Senate (under the previous ASUN constitution) required then ASUN President Jeff Champagne to develop this system. I'm sure there were many good reasons for not implementing this system, but, as they say, the law is the law.

So, 3 presidents later and almost 3 years later, we're still waiting for a textbook swap function. Seriously folks, does everybody in ASUN treat the law and the people's branch of government with such disdain?

Polls End Today!

The two polls that we are running on the blog end at midnight TONIGHT. If you haven't had a chance to put in your two cents, please do.

The results currently are:

Books, books, books

Books are an expensive, albeit necessary, evil of college. I can't remember a semester I didn't shell out over $500 for textbooks that I hardly ever cracked open until the week before finals. The Sagebrush editorialized yesterday about the high cost of books and the importance of professors to turn in orders early to keep costs as low as possible.

What the Sagebrush didn't talk about is ASUN's complete neglect of a law the Senate passed a year ago to help mitigate the outrageous cost of textbooks.

Associated Students Statutes at Large Volume 75--Unofficial

Publish at Scribd

The Textbook Swap Program Act of 2008, which the Senate enacted over the President's veto, requires ASUN to create a textbook swap system on its website to allow individual parties to find one another so they may make private arrangements for the swapping of books.

I just searched the ASUN website and I can't find a single thing about textbook swapping.

It's a program that could save students some serious dough, made more important in these down economic times, yet all the students get is more contempt for the law as legitimately passed by the students' representatives.

-30-

Can the ASUN Attorney General? Part Two.

Updated to include Executive Summary

---

As we stated in our last post in this subject, we said we'd give our readers the first chance to comment on this item. In an e-mail to us, Senator Purney was grateful that we withheld our comments.

I just wanted to thank you for posting the proposed bill on your website and not scrutinizing it. I like that you're using your blog as a means to gather constituents opinions. I know I have my grievances toward the AG position but now I can read others' views. Thanks!

Any time, Senator. Unfortunately, this blog is about scrutinizing the actions (or inaction) of ASUN. So, without further adieu, we present our analysis of the bill to eliminate the ASUN Attorney General position. Follow us across the jump for the rest of the post.


Brief Recap
As a recap, Senator Jessica Purney (Education) is introducing a bill Wednesday to eliminate the the ASUN Attorney General position, currently held by Lindsey Sanford. President Reilly has renominated Sanford for a third term as AG. A similar bill was introduced in the last hours of the 76th Session, but was quickly killed.

Executive Summary

• Lindsey Sanford SUCKS AT HER JOB.
• The bill suffers from critical drafting errors.
• The bill, if passed, would create more problems than it would solve.
• The problem is with the occupant of the office, not with the office itself.

History of the Position
The ASUN Attorney General has been something of a controversial position ever since it was created. Practically forever ago (2007), then ASUN President Sarah Ragsdale decided to create the Attorney General position without any legislative action whatsoever. Senators at the time decried the action of the President as bypassing the Senate's constitutional role. The new constitution's taking effect intervened and the Senate later enacted the position into law.

President Ragsdale nominated Lindsey Sanford to be the first AG. The nomination was made days after the Senate rejected Sanford's petition to be seated to a vacant Senate seat (Sagebrush). She didn't receive a single vote to be a Senator. Seeing that the Senate was clearly satisfied with her qualifications, Ragsdale nominated Sanford to be AG. The Senate ended up confirming her, despite the objections of a single senator. It was later revealed that the decision to nominate Sanford was made after the Senate soundly rejected her for the vacant Senate seat because Ragsdale "felt bad for her."

Since that time, Sanford has been reappointed to a second term. She is now nominated by Reilly for a third term as AG.

Role of the AG
There are many good reasons for eliminating the position. Sanford has been the subject of much criticism about giving poorly reasoned opinions (will be the subject of a future post), taking government pay while vacationing in Washington, D.C., and not being around when needed.

However, too much focus shouldn't be placed on Sanford when looking to eliminate the position; the bill is about the office, not Sanford.

Under the law, the ASUN Attorney General has essentially three duties:

• to issue advisory opinions concerning the law, legislation, or any other Act of the Association;
• to attend all meetings of the Select Committee on Rules (obsolete provision); and
  
• to publish the Constitution of the Associated Students when amended.

The last duty regarding the Constitution has essentially be superseded by sections 14 and 15 of the Bill Governance Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75-39). Basically, the only duty the AG has is to issue advisory opinions. The AG also represented the executive branch in lawsuits before the Judicial Council, but the authority for that role for the AG does not exist in law.

The AG also has some duties related to elections, as expressed throughout the Election Code. Generally speaking, for elections the duties are:

• to verify petitions for placement on the ballot; and
  
• to prosecute Election Code violations in the Judicial Council.

The AG has not once prosecuted an election case. Not one case. Not a single one.

Merits of Eliminating the Position
Senator Purney, apparently for herself and former senator Jennifer Richards, proposes to eliminate the position altogether. We can see several reasons for eliminating the position.

First, the AG position is unnecessary. There is not enough demand within ASUN to necessitate the executive branch having an official who specializes in ASUN law. Further, not enough cases are filed in the Judicial Council to warrant having a designated representative to argue the case for the executive branch.

Second, since the Senate must represent itself in the Judicial Council, so too should the executive.

Third, the Election Commission is capable of prosecuting elections cases in a more nonpartisan manner. The AG is not going to be willing to prosecute cases. For instance, is it likely that Sanford would file charges against Reilly when Reilly intends to reappoint her if reelected? This is what happened in this past election.

Fourth, other areas in ASUN can pick up the slack created by eliminating the position. The Archivist already has primary responsibility to do one of the AG's duties. Other agencies can pick up the rest of the slack.

Those would be reasonable grounds to base a decision to eliminate the AG. However, that probably isn't the real reason behind all of this. This is (probably) what is:

Lindsey Sanford sucks at her job.

That would be a good reason to not confirm Sanford as AG for a third term, but not for eliminating the office.

Merits of Keeping the Position
The biggest reason for keeping the position is also the biggest reason for preventing the incumbent from having it for a third term:

Lindsey Sanford really sucks at her job.

Is the problem with the position? Or is it with the person who is the only one to have held the position since it was created? A comparison: The 76th Session senators decried the Election Code as being too complicated and that it was the problem with Nicole Nelson administering a horrible election in 2008. Then Sean Driscoll came along in 2009 and ran a pretty good election cycle--all with the SAME code! Before eliminating the position, the senators need to look closely at whether it is the position or the person. We argue it's the person.

Merits of the Bill
If Senator Purney still believes that AG position should be eliminated, perhaps her beliefs will change when we examine, in detail, the provisions of her bill.

Some Language Gets Left Behind
The bill does not eliminate all references in statutory law relating to the Attorney General. In fact, section 4 bill strikes the wrong compensation provision from the law. The law cited in section 4 of the bill was an appropriations bill. As such, those provisions only had effect for a single fiscal year. The provision that needs to be stricken is in section 2(c)(3) of ASUN Public Law 75-48, the Executive Compensation Act of 2008, which contains the permanent law relating to the AG's compensation. The bill also fails to repeal section 10 of ASUN Public Law 75-50, which sets the term of office for the AG.

Unnecessary Provision
Section 2 of the bill is unncessary. Section 2 of the bill would assign the constitutional amendment duties of the AG to the Archivist. But, as we explained above, the Archivist already has that duty.

Bad Ideas
Sections 3 and 5 of the bill cause the most concern. Those sections would reassign the remaining duties of the AG, including the election duties, to the Director of the Legal Services agency in ASUN. There are several problems with this approach. First, the Legal Services agency is not established in ASUN law. It's something the 75th Session senators never got around to doing.

Second, the Director of Legal Services is beyond the reach of the Senate's disciplinary powers. He is not an officer of the government so much as he is an employee of the administrative aparatus headed by the Director of ASUN. He does not take an oath to support the Constitution. Further, the Director of the program is not accountable to the executive. He is not accountable to the ASUN government; he is accountable to his employer--Sandy. He is beyond the ASUN government.

Third, the Legal Services program is designed to be separate from the "partisan" function of the ASUN government. Making the Director of the program subject to partisan, political influences would compromise his ability to provide impartial services to clients.

Fourth, an inherent conflict would be created by reassigning the election duties to the Director of Legal Services. One of the election duties is to essentially act as a prosecutor, going after candidates who violate the Election Code. But, under ASUN Public Law 75-41, there is an office of Student Advocate within the Legal Services program. The Student Advocate is empowered to represent students being prosecuted by the ASUN government. In essence, the same office would be at once prosecuting and defending the same case. That is a massive conflict no matter how you slice it.

We heard a rumor that it was the Legal Services director who approached Purney about getting the AG's duties reassigned to him. If that's the case, this person probably does not deserve to be Legal Services Director, as he would willingly compromise his office's ability to provide impartial, nonpolitical services to its clients.

Eliminating the AG position seems to be a solution in want of a problem. The real issue is the current AG is not cut out for the job. But rather than address what seems to be a "personal" issue (it's really professional issue), the senators seem keen on avoiding the real problem by simply eliminating the office.

The AG position is not a bad position. It certainly has room to grow, could benfit from having its duties more clearly defined, and could benefit from better guidance on the part of the "advisers." Eliminating the postion is an extreme and unnecessary step. Just like we learned with the Election Code, many times it's the person and not the office that is the problem. In short...

It's not the position but Lindsey Sanford who sucks.

---

Matters of Form
For the geeks who care about how to write bills, continue reading.

Although the effect is the same, there is a difference between "striking" part of a law and "repealing" part of a law. Repealers are usually reserved for larger segments of a law (section, title, etc.); striking language is usually reserved for smaller segments of a bill (a subsection, paragraph, etc.) When you strike a provision, the provisions that follow need to be redesignated. Example: an amendment that says "section 6 of the ABC Act is amended by striking subsection (c), the law would look like this:

Section 6. Blah blah blah
(a) Text.
(b) Text.
(d) Text.

When the amendatory language says "section 6(c) of the ABC Act is repealed, it would look like this:

Section 6. Blah blah blah
(a) Text.
(b) Text.
(c) Repealed.
(d) Text.

The first result looks like a drafting error. The second result tells the reader exactly what happened.

A problem with the langauge in the bill is it doesn't actually strike anything. When you say "Title VI shall be stricken.", all that really means is it should be at some future point. But bills amend law, so the bill should be phrased in the active, present tense.

Thus, in section 1 of the bill, Title VI and section 706 of Title VII should be repealed. Also, material in the section heading is not binding. Thus, the first section of the bill should read

(a) Title VI and section 706 of the Executive Branch Act of 2007 (ASUN Public Law 75–7; 75 ASUN Stat. 17) is repealed.

Notice the complete formal citation--(ASUN Public Law 75–7; 75 ASUN Stat. 17)--is included in the law. Amendatory langauge must be very literal so it is abundantly clear what is being talked about.

A more complete version of the first section would read

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  (a) Title VI and section 706 of the Executive Branch Act of 2007 (ASUN Public Law 75–7; 75 ASUN Stat. 17) are repealed.
  (b) Section 4(c)(1) of the Presidential Succession Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–38; 75 ASUN Stat. 107) is amended by striking “Attorney General,”.
  (c) Section 2(c)(3) of the Executive Compensation Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–48; 75 ASUN Stat. 124) is amended by striking “, the Attorney General”.
  (d) Section 10 and paragraph (5) of section 11 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129) are repealed.

Notice none of the operative language is in the section heading and the language is abundantly clear.

The remaining sections of the bill suffer from the same phrasing problem.

Swearing Caption?

Any thoughts on a better caption than the Sagebrush came up with?

"From left, Sens. Ciara Villalobos and Jessica Purney were sworn into the 77th session of the student body senate Wednesday. This session’s senators will be responsible for dealing with final budget cuts."

Student body this, student body that

Short note to the Sagebrush:

It may be some funky journalistic style thing, but Eli Reilly is not the student body president. He's the undergraduate student body president; he doesn't represent graduate students. Same thing for calling it the "student body Senate." There are two student governments: ASUN and GSA. When I read "student body," I think of the whole student population of the university, grads and undergrads.

PS. I can write short posts. However, most of what I write about doesn't lend itself to short posts.

Take our poll!

If you haven't taken the poll on our blog yet, please do. It ends on April 30th.

The questions are:

How is the 77th Session Doing So Far?

and

Do the Undergrads get their money's worth from ASUN Professional Staff?

Can the ASUN Attorney General?

Updated at 5:40 p.m. to include compensation info.

---

Senator Jessica Purney (Education) is introducing a bill next Wednesday to can (read eliminate) the ASUN Attorney General position, currently held by Lindsey Sanford. President Reilly has renominated Sanford for a third term as AG. This bill was introduced in the last hours of the 76th Session, but was quickly killed.

Before we discuss the merits of this particular bill (and the bill itself), we wanted to give our readers a first shot. What are your ideas? Is the AG position worth keeping? Is it a problem with the position or the person holding the position?

We have supplied laws relating to the AG below.

Compensation
The Attorney General makes $5,000 per year, according to the Executive Compensation Act of 2008.

Resources
Executive Branch Act of 2007 (Title VI)
Election Code (sec. 4, generally, and secs. 10, 11, 14, 15)
Judicial Rules of Procedure (various provisions)

This is a Student Government? Part 2.5

My, what a difference two years can make.

Below is a chart showing ASUN's spending by category from Fiscal Year 2008 (2007-2008). The data is from the Student Government Association Financial Reports for Fiscal Year 2008, available here. These data are publicly available but it does take a little digging and some time distilling into usable and interesting information.


About half of ASUN's spending in FY08 went to paying people. The next chart shows the how much of that salary chuck of the pie went to students vs. faculty.

This chart excludes fringe from the wage total because it is accounted for all together and not separately for students and faculty. In FY08, 44 percent of ASUN's wage spending went to faculty and staff (i.e. not students). As a reminder, in Fiscal Year 2010 (next year), the spending will basically flip-flop.

Faculty spending will increase by 12 percentage points at the expense of student wage spending.

How Does ASUN Compare to UNLV
One would expect the two university's undergraduate student governments to be roughly equivalent in terms of wage spending. Using FY08 data, below is CSUN's (UNLV's undergraduate student government) spending by category.

Immediately apparent is how CSUN spends much less on wages. Let's see where the difference lies: in student wage spending or in faculty spending.


Ouchie! CSUN spent $147,766 less on professional staff than ASUN did.

In FY08, UNLV had nearly 22,000 undergraduates (link); UNR had 12,660 (link). How is it that UNR, with nearly 10,000 fewer undergraduates, needs to spend 1.7 times what UNLV does on adminstratative staff?

An anonymous commenter on our last post stated "the university will not allow ASUN to exist without what they deem as proper advisement and some form of university oversight." So, answer me this: why does UNR's undergrad student government need practically triple the staff UNLV's undergrad student government does (considering UNR has 10,000 fewer students)?

I see a few possibilities:

• CSUN is grossly understaffed with professionals
• ASUN has become grossly bloated with professional staff
• CSUN is much more efficient with its staff than ASUN is

Two of those possibilities don't look so good for ASUN.

This is a Student Government? Part Two

In our first part on the FY 2010 ASUN Budget proposed by President Eli Reilly, we just published some numbers taken from the budget. We now present the pretty charts. The source of our figures is the President's proposed FY 2010 budget (link).

First a note on the figures: the figures are derived by adding the base pay (wage) to the associated fringe benefit cost (fringe) to get a total wage figure. The two figures are inseparable so we count them together for the purposes of our analysis. Finally, wage spending accounts for nearly 57 percent of ASUN's total spending.

First up is a simple one: student versus administrative pay.



When looking only at wage figures, administrative faculty, classified staff, and graduate assistants make 58 percent of all the wages in ASUN. In the next fiscal year, nine people will make nearly $6 of every $10 in wages paid.

This next chart provides detail in the student wage category (click on chart for larger version).



The single largest chunk of student wages goes to not executive pay or Senate pay but to student administrative pay (secretaries, accounting clerks, etc.). If you do the math, ASUN Officer pay compared with all other student compensation is only 31 percent (for 55 officers).

The Sagebrush is not included among the wages for students because it is entirely self-supporting and does not receive a (direct) subsidy in the way that the three other publications do.

The last chart shows proportions of officer pay.



In both Charts 2 and 3 above, Senior Executive includes the President, Vice President, Directors of Departments (Clubs and Organizations, Programming, Homecoming), Public Relations Assistant, Attorney General, Chief of Staff, Archivist, and fringe for those positions.

The Senate figure includes the Speaker of the Senate. As far as pay disparity is concerned, 22 officials (or 40 percent of the officers) make 21 percent of the wages for officers.

Draw whatever conclusions you will from these data, but the one point you should take away from this is this: at what point does a student government stop becoming a student government, as far as wages are concerned? Professional vs. student at 58-42 percent seems way messed up to me. 25-75 might be more reasonable.

Is Our Senators Learning: Phantom Amendment

As a follow-up to our IOSL post on simple resolutions, we find that the Senate tonight is going to be considering yet another "simple" resolution to make an amendment to a set of rules that does not legally exist.

Executive Summary

• The language used in resolutions needs to be exceedingly clear.
• If a resolution is to amend something, the resolution needs to use the word "amend", and not just in the title.
• There are only two types of legislation in the Senate, Bills and Resolutions.
• Resolutions that leave the inner sanctum of the Senate (i.e. are directed to the outside world) need to be polished to perfection. Outsiders will judge you when your resolutions don't look proper in form.
  

The resolution reads as follows:

A BINDING RESOLUTION
To amend Senate Rule XXII, relating to a senator’s absence during the ASUN Senate Transition and Rules Training.

Resolved, That Rule XXII b(3) “Absence will result in an immediate conduct hearing for disciplinary sanctions” from Attendance requirement of the Senate.

We'll ignore the false designation as a binding resolution for a moment. The title of this resolution states that the amendment is to amend a Senate rule. The resolution, however, does not actually do anything except state something. See, a very important word is missing--a verb in fact. How about "amend", like this:

Resolved, That Rule XXII(b)(3) of the Rules of the Senate is amended to read: "Absence will result in an immediate conduct hearing for disciplinary sanctions.".

As is, the resolution doesn't do anything, a common problem early in this session, it seems. If the resolution is to amend something, have the resolution actually say that. The title of the resolution isn't a part of the resolution; it is used merely to help identify one from the next.

"Binding" Resolutions
Setting aside the issue of whether or not there are Senate rules, which is very much in doubt, even assuming that Rule XIV exists, the binding part of that rule provides only that

Types of Legislation
(a) The Senate shall recognize two types of legislation, which shall be known as Bills and Resolutions.

So this "binding" resolution stuff is a designation that the Rules do not call for, even though the Rules go on to say that there are "binding" and "expressed" resolutions. Under the Rules and practice, there are only two types of legislation: "Bills and Resolutions." Calling them "binding" and "expressed" just confuses things.

---

There is a second resolution on the Senate agenda tonight, a resolution "To express the condolences of the Associated Students concerning the death of Robert Weems, the founding dean of the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno." This is a good thing to do, to be sure, but it has problems, as well. The printed resolution, which is the official document under the Senate's rules, indicates that a former Senator has introduced it. Problem: only actual Senators can introduce legislation.

Second, the resolving clause "Resolved," isn't of the proper form.

Third, the resolutions' preamble (all the "Whereas" clauses) is supposed to come before the resolving clause, not after.

Fourth, the resolution doesn't actually resolve anything except that the Secretary transmit copies of it to several individuals and entities.

Compare the proposed resolution on Weems with this one that was adopted during the 74th Senate Session on Reynolds School of Journalism Dean Cole Campbell.

If you're going to pass a resolution mourning the loss of someone, the least you could do is make sure it follows good form.

Suggestion
Our suggestion is to send both resolutions to committee so two committees can learn about the nuances of resolutions.

Is Our Senators Learning: Simple Resolutions

When the Senators were asking questions of the three candidates for Speaker last week, they asked some really good questions. We were impressed with the quality of the questioning having listened to that meeting's recording. They were focused on the task at hand, stayed on topic, paid attention to detail. They did a singularly magnificent job.

In part four of our series (part 1 and part 2), "Is Our Senators Learning," we will start to examine some of the nuts and bolts of legislation.

Executive Summary
Our Reader's Digest, condensed version:

• The resolutions adopted during the Senate's first meeting on April 15 all suffer from the same problem: they are not clear and specific
• The resolutions also don't do what they were supposed to.
• English verbs have many tenses; they are not equivalent.
  
• This wouldn't be so bad had the first meeting not been scripted.
  

Legislation comes in two flavors in the Senate (despite what the Senators may think given their "maybe" Rules [turns out that the Senate may not have actually adopted rules at its first meeting]). There are bills and resolutions. Only bills create law.

Resolutions are far more varied. The dictionary tells us that a resolution is "A formal statement of a decision or expression of opinion put before or adopted by an assembly." The ASUN Senate is an assembly. Resolutions can adopt Senate rules, state the position of the Senate on some issue, evidence many Senate decisions, elect officers, memorialize the Senate granting consent to an presidential appointment, discipline members, impeach officers, petition other governing bodies to do something--if you can think it, it probably can be a resolution.

At its first Senate meeting, the Senate adopts several resolutions. What distinguishes one resolution from another is what is in that resolution. Each resolution begins the same way. It can have a title, many (but not all) have preambles (Whereas...), and all begin the meat of the resolution with the resolving clause ("Resolved").

First Three Resolutions of a Session
Some of the simplest resolutions the Senate will adopt are during its first meeting. In fact, a law governs what the Senate must do at its first meeting (ASUN Public Law 75-49). They adopt a resolution electing a Secretary, a resolution directing a committee to inform the President that the Senate is organized and ready to proceed to business, and a resolution directing the Secretary of the Senate to notify the President of the election of a Speaker and a Secretary. The Senate literally copies and pastes, with appropriate changes, what the last session did.

Below is the text of three specimen resolutions that were prepared for the 77th Session to use. All they had to do was literally fill in the blanks, so to speak (we've already done that with what the Senate apparently decided).

RESOLUTION
Electing a Secretary of the Senate.

Resolved, That Alejandra Reyes be, and is hereby, chosen Secretary of the Senate.


RESOLUTION
Providing for a committee to notify the President the Senate is organized and ready to proceed to business.

Resolved, That a committee of two Members of the Senate be appointed by the Speaker to notify the President of the Associated Students that a quorum of the Senate has assembled and the Senate is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make.


RESOLUTION
Authorizing the Secretary to inform the President of the Election of the Speaker and the Secretary of the Senate.

Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to inform the President of the Associated Students that the Senate has elected Gracie Geremia, a Senator from the College of Liberal Arts, Speaker; and Alejandra Reyes, a student from the Reynolds School of Journalism, Secretary of the Senate of the Seventy-Seventh Senate.

What the Senate Actually Adopted

A Resolution
Electing the Speaker of the Senate

Resolved, that Gracie Geremia was elected and will serve as the 77th Session Speaker of the Senate.

Short Title
This Resolution may be cited as the "Election of the Speaker of the Senate"


A Resolution Electing the Secretary of the Senate
Resolved, that Alejandra Reyes was elected and will serve as the 77th Session Secretary of the Senate.

Short Title
This Resolution may be cited as the "Appointment of the Secretary of the Senate"


A Resolution
Announcing readiness of the Senate

Resolved, that the 77th Session of Senate is now organized and ready for business

Explanation
The first resolution is unnecessary. The Senate elects a Speaker by roll call vote under the precedents and law. They don't consider one by resolution. Nominations are taken and a vote is had. The candidate who is first to a majority wins.

The second resolution, the one electing a Senate Secretary, is not in proper form. It is titled "Electing the Secretary of the Senate" but doesn't actually elect a Secretary. It says that a Secretary "was elected". Again, "was" is not the same as "is" or "be".

The third resolution ignored the precedents and practice of the Senate as well. It also ignored the law. It was supposed to direct the Speaker to appoint a committee (like the second specimen above) to inform the President that the Senate is organized. Speaker Geremia still appointed the committee, but the resolution under which she imagined that power didn't say that at all.

We recognize this are all really picky points, but the point we are trying to impress upon the Senators is that the process and form of matters is just as important as what is being done.

What Makes This All Worse...
The whole first meeting was scripted. We obtained a copy of the script that was prepared for the first meeting. All they had to do was read the lines and fill in the blanks. Below are links to the specimen resolutions provided to accompany the script.

(S. Res. 77-1 specimen)
(S. Res. 77-2 specimen)
(S. Res. 77-3 specimen)
(S. Res. 77-4 specimen)

Basically, if they had followed what the last session did and the session before that did, everything would've been peachy and we wouldn't have had the opportunity to write these posts.

Is Our Senators Learning: Rules? What Rules?

After nearly a week, through a close friend of the blog, we have obtained copies of the resolutions the Senate adopted at its first meeting of the session. They are, um, interesting. Yeah, that's the word. In this part of our "Is Our Senators Learning" series, we examine whether the Senate adopted rules of its proceedings at its first meeting of the session.

First of all, it looks like the Senators have the right idea behind all of this. But where their enthusiasm and good intentions abounds, their attention to form and detail lacks.

Executive Summary
For those who want our points in quick-and-dirty form, here they are. For those who want a more detailed explanation, keep reading. We will do these quick summaries on our more complicated IOSL posts. We would strongly encourage all Senators to read the full posts, but certainly the Speaker and the committee chairs, who will need to be experts in legislation to do their jobs well.

• The resolution does not adopt rules; it says that rules have been adopted
• The resolution is too vague
• The rules of one senate do not continue with force into the next Senate unless they are adopted by that senate
• Precision in language is very, very important
  

Below is a copy of S. Res. 77-4, a resolution purporting to adopt rules for the Senate.

S. Res. 77-4: Adoption of Senate Rules

Publish at Scribd

There's just a slight problem. That resolution doesn't actually adopt rules. Below is a specimen version of what a proper resolution adopting rules would have looked like.

S. Res. 77-4: Adoption of Rules--specimen

Publish at Scribd

Can you tell the differences between the two yet? This is why the use of precise and clear language is incredibly important in the Senate. Let's first examine what the Senate passed this session (77th).

A Resolution
Adoption of the Senate Rules

Resolved, that the Senate has adopted the Rules of the Senate pursuant to Article II sec. 2(c) of the Constitution of the Associated Students.

Short Title
  This Resolution may be cited as the "Appointment of the Secretary of the Senate"

We'll ignore the stylistic concerns for now (which are considerable) and look only at substance.

"Has adopted" Does Not Equal "are adopted"
This resolution does not adopt Rules of the Senate; it merely says "that the Senate has adopted the Rules of the Senate" (emphasis added). In other words, all this resolution does is say to the world that the Senate did something. The problem is they never actually did that something. Reading the resolution, which rules are adopted?

The form of the resolution in the specimen is exactly the same as the resolution the 76th Session adopted at its first meeting (except for the designation of which session). The specimen states more specifically,"That the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Sixth Session, including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate, are adopted as the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Seventh Senate."

Ignoring the business about "applicable provisions of law", the resolution states "That the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Sixth Session ... are adopted as the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Seventh Senate."

Now you tell me, which resolution is clearer and will provide better information to people looking back at what the Senate did? I am sure the 21 Senators sitting around the table one week ago today all thought that they were adopting rules, but the instrument they passed that actually represents the formal, legal action does not do what they thought they did.

As a legal matter, it appears the Senate did not adopt rules. As a practical matter, since the Senate is the only body who gets to judge its rules, this is likely just an academic exercise. But why shouldn't it be? This is a university and this is a student government. This is a learning opportunity.

The Rules are not continuing in nature
Why is it that the Senate can't simply say that they have adopted rules and just use the rules from the previous session without specifically saying so? The Rules of one Senate session do not continue in force beyond a session. They are not considered to be continuing in nature. Laws have continuing force beyond Senate sessions. They are permanent. However, what one senate does with respect to itself cannot bind future senates. Thus, the rules cannot continue from one session to another.

The legal and parliamentary way around that is to have the new senate adopt the previous senate's rules as its own. Thus the specimen says, basically:

• We are adopting rules
• We are using the last session's rules
• Those rules are adopted as our session's rules

What the 77th Session did is okay in that it presents a learning opportunity. To take advantage of that learning opportunity, the Speaker should place the item back on the agenda so the Senate can have the mistake explained, so they can learn from that mistake, and correct the error.

Is this nitpicky? Hell yes. Does it matter? Absolutely. The Senate is a legislative body and the words it uses matter a great deal. Do we fault them for the error? No---so long as they correct it. It should be fun when some devious senator discovers that the rules are not actually in force, as a legal matter, and tries to take advantage of that fact. Fun indeed.

This is a Student Government?

We wanted to get this out there and worry about making it look pretty later. The charts really make the point better than plain text does. Expect updates.

ASUN Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 (proposed):

Student wages, excluding publications and Campus Escort: $272,783.50
...including Campus Escort: $351,533.50
...including publications (except Sagebrush): $392,723.50

Administrative, classified, and graduate assistant wages: $550,736

Total of all wages paid by ASUN: $937,533.50

Wage figures include the actual wage and the required associated fringe benefits expense.

Sagebrush is excluded because it is off the ASUN budget and does not receive a subsidy from ASUN.

This is a student government, right?

That's quite "the package"

In today's Sagebrush there is an article about "the first ever ASUN stimulus package." It's a program presented by President Reilly to help students cope with the cuts to the University.

When the University got notice that it faced a huge budget cut in the coming year, the first thing they did was lay off about 40 of the staff, who for differing reasons were "unnecessary" or "a luxury" in this economy. But what wasn't widely discussed was that on top of the 40 people who lost their jobs almost a year ago (most of these people will be out of a job starting July 1) is that an even greater number of students were also shown the door. Departments were told they couldn't hire any new students and many students were not renewed.

Add that with an increase in tuition (possibly even bigger after the Legislature has ironed out the budget) and lack of student loan accessibility due to the rest of the economy, you have a perfect storm for lower enrollment.

I applaud President Reilly for his forward-thinking on this devastating blow to students. But I have one question: is this new program, Undergraduate Student Employment Stimulus Package (USESP), going to be introduced as a separate bill? Will the program's specifics be voted on by the Senate, and will there be an ASUN law dictating how the money is to be given out? Simply including the money in the budget is unacceptable. You cannot create a program and then provide no foundation upon which it will be run. I have no problem with it being included in the budget. I think the program is a great idea and could directly help students. But if the program is never authorized by the Senate in law first, it cannot be funded.

Newly elected Senators, I encourage one of you (maybe one of the newbies, but how about one of the other 2 people who ran for speaker) to draft at least a basic bill to create this program. I would also encourage the newly elected chair of the Budget and Finance committee, Sean Hostmeyer, to lead his committee by not just rubber stamping this budget.

For the newbies, here is a sample of things that should be in law for this program:

• Who administers it, who the coordinator is between ASUN and the Financial Aid office. Even if this is just Sandy or Yvonne, it needs to be written down?
• Who decides which department gets the money for the student, how they apply, the selection process (if it is done by committee, the committee needs to be created, just like the scholarship committees are created in PL75-52), and what qualifies a department as "in need?"
• Do the departments have to turn over their budget for ASUN to determine if they meet the requirements?
• Is the money the department's for the entire year?
• I know this is being compared to the ASUN General Scholarships that the Financial Aid office administers, but again that program is in Law (yes, it is).
• Do students have to meet the requirement that all other ASUN employees have to: a 2.75 GPA? If they are living on ASUN money, why should they be any different than an Inkblot employee.
• When does the program begin and end? Without an explicit sunset clause in law this could be a permanent allocation of $100,000 out of ASUN's budget. The way money works in government and especially in higher ed, is that once you've created something, it is almost impossible to get rid of (unless you're Gube Gibbons).
• And finally, there should be an open and public debate about the role of ASUN in this whole budget crisis. The previous two sessions really couldn't decide what ASUN's role was. Is it to take over where the University gets cut? Is it to just provide pizza and soda and parties? Is it to just issue resolutions condemning the budget cuts? That's a fundamental debate/discussion that needs to take place. While the START kids didn't get elected, there still needs to be somebody at the table asking, "Is this ASUN's role?"

Again,

Without a bill that creates USESP, IT DOES NOT EXIST, and cannot be funded.

See, the President Can Ignore the Rules, Too!

President Reilly has submitted a proposed budget for ASUN for the next fiscal year, 2010. Not wanting anyone to get the wrong impression that it's only the Senate that ignores the laws, Reilly seems to be neglecting giving the laws due attention as well.

The Senate, a whopping one year ago, enacted a law governing budget and finance matters, the Association Budget and Finance Act of 2008 (ASUN Pub. L. 75-52). A couple of things are of particular note.

First, section 104 creates a reserve account and requires that 5 percent of the fee revenues anticipated for the fiscal year be set aside. This is ASUN law. It cannot be ignored. It turns out President Reilly disagrees. In his proposed budget, he has determined that it only needs to be 2.5 percent, after consulting with the University budget office. This unilateral change saves $30,100 but also violates the law.

Reilly is probably right that 5 percent of the fee revenues--or about $65,000 next fiscal year--is excessive, considering that more than $100,000 is unspent from the prior fiscal year and ASUN has never had to dip into its contingency reserve for as long as anyone can remember. Unfortunately, it is this budgetary sleight of hand that probably allowed Reilly to "save" Insight Magazine from the chopping block and keep his new initiatives on the table.

Second, subtitle A of Title II, of the same Act, particularly section 205, governs what must be in the budget. This budget is far and away from complying with the law. But these laws aren't actually binding or anything, right? Not like an oath was taken to uphold them, right?*

*Note: The President's oath of office reads as follows: "I, [Eli Reilly], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve and protect the Constitution of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada." The President has a constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution and to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Don't believe us, look it up: ASUN Constitution. The laws the Senate enacts are an inherent part of the constitutional process.

If Senator Sean Hostmeyer, who is the newly-elected chairman of the Senate Budget and Finance Committee, has any balls and respect for the law and process, he'll send the Budget back and refuse to hold hearings on it until it complies with the law.

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.

ASUN Senate: Session 76-2

Now that Gracie Geremia has been elected as Speaker, it seems almost certain that instead of the 77th ASUN Senate, it will be run as the 76th Session: Part Two.

I predict it will not take long before the buyer's remorse sets in.

Well, never fear, good Senators! You may always remove her as Speaker in order to elect someone who is honest about their opinions, someone who is able to genuinely hear ideas from different parties, and someone who doesn't think it's okay to use racial slurs in conversation.

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?