Nevada Sagebrush, how did you drop the ball on this story?
Don't you think it would've been helpful to report the reason the meeting was postponed?
Weak sauce, Sagebrush. We expect more from you.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Seriously, What's So Hard About This?
The Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of the Nevada Revised Statutes) is not a hard law to follow. The law itself is only six printed pages long. The Nevada Attorney General has published a manual to assist public bodies in complying with the law, setting out best practices to follow. This is not a very complicated law.
So why is it that the ASUN Senate, seemingly at every turn, manages to engage in practices that are of questionable legality with respect to this law? Keep reading...
Facilities Must Be Reasonably Large
The Open Meeting Law informs us that "all meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies" (NRS 241.020(1)). What exactly does it mean that meetings be "open and public" and that "all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting"?
Well, the Attorney General has discussed this in her office's manual. At section 8.03, the Attorney General advises, "Public meetings should be held in facilities that are reasonably large enough to accommodate attendance by members of the public." In an Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Opinion, the Attorney General wrote
The ASUN Senate is scheduled to hold a meeting on June 3, 2009, in room 404 in the Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center. A review of the facility shows that the room has a capacity of 18 persons (link). This poses a couple of problems:
This meeting takes the place of the last meeting that was canceled because we pointed out that the notice and agenda for the meeting was not posted in time to take into account the Memorial Day holiday during the posting period. The meeting was canceled as the appropriate corrective response to that deficiency.
This meeting, too, should be canceled because the facilities are not reasonably large enough to accommodate members of the public. The Senate Chamber is adequate, but the reason the Knowledge Center was selected is probably because the Student Union closes at 7 p.m. (It should be noted that the Knowledge Center only stays open for an additional hour. The Student Union, however, is open until midnight on Tuesdays.)
Rooms Must Remain Unlocked During Meeting
Another meeting scheduled could pose a different problem related to facilities. An Oversight Committee meeting is scheduled for 8:30 p.m. on June 3. The meeting will be held in room 206 of the Ansari Business Building. Holding after-hours meetings usually is not a problem during the school year because the Student Union is open late. During the summer, it's a different story.
Has the Committee made arrangements to ensure that there will be public access to ABB after-hours for the duration of the meeting? Meetings have been held in the Business Building during the summer before, but often the exterior doors were locked and the access to the building nearest the meeting room had to be propped open with a chair. The State Attorney General advises that "If a citizen is denied access to a meeting because of [locked] doors, a violation of Nevada's open meeting law would occur."
Accordingly, if the exterior doors to the Business Building do not remain unlocked, and if there are not directions to an unlocked access door to the building on the locked doors, the public would be denied access to the meeting location. A violation has not occurred yet, but the potential for a violation is ripe.
A Related Note...
On a related note, this blog has been criticized of late for unreasonably attacking the Senate as a whole for the alleged violations of a few individuals, namely the Speaker of the Senate, Gracie Geremia. Our rejoinder: of course the whole Senate should be criticized. The Speaker is merely an officer of the Senate; she is responsible to the body as a whole. Her mistakes are the body's mistakes.
This is not the first alleged violation of the Open Meeting Law that has occurred during this session. This is the second meeting in a row where a deficiency has been pointed out before the meeting has occurred (link). One meeting was held this session in violation of the law (link). Almost half a dozen cases have been filed against the Senate for violating the Open Meeting Law.
This is not a new theme, as the following Sagebrush articles demonstrate:
Last session, Speaker Priscilla Acosta, was made an example of because of the violation of the Open Meeting Law she committed. One violation led to that. Ms. Geremia is already up to at least four violations. Will this Senate hold her accountable? Even if they don't, will Geremia make a concerted effort to become an expert on the Open Meeting Law and learn from her frequent mistakes? Only time will tell.
In the meantime, the Senate meeting should be canceled yet again, and the student's business hijacked yet again, because one individual fails to do her job and to do it well.
So why is it that the ASUN Senate, seemingly at every turn, manages to engage in practices that are of questionable legality with respect to this law? Keep reading...
Facilities Must Be Reasonably Large
The Open Meeting Law informs us that "all meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies" (NRS 241.020(1)). What exactly does it mean that meetings be "open and public" and that "all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting"?
Well, the Attorney General has discussed this in her office's manual. At section 8.03, the Attorney General advises, "Public meetings should be held in facilities that are reasonably large enough to accommodate attendance by members of the public." In an Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Opinion, the Attorney General wrote
A public body's failure to conduct an open meeting in a large enough facility, in effect, creates an improperly closed meeting. See Open Meeting Laws 2d, A. Schwing, § 5.76, at 231 (2000). Therefore, it is the legal duty of a public body to attempt to provide meeting space sufficient to accommodate the expected number of attendees including, under certain circumstances the anticipated heightened emotions of a larger number of attendees.(OMLO 2005-14).
The ASUN Senate is scheduled to hold a meeting on June 3, 2009, in room 404 in the Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center. A review of the facility shows that the room has a capacity of 18 persons (link). This poses a couple of problems:
- The Senate has 22 members. Assuming all members are physically present, there won't even be enough room for the senators, much less for any members of the public who may wish to attend.
- Even if several of the senators are not physically present (assume that just a quorum of 15 members is physically present), that leaves only three seats for the public. Add in the Senate's secretary, advisers, the President, other ASUN department heads ( the budget for the next fiscal year is being considered at this meeting), the room is woefully inadequate in size.
This meeting takes the place of the last meeting that was canceled because we pointed out that the notice and agenda for the meeting was not posted in time to take into account the Memorial Day holiday during the posting period. The meeting was canceled as the appropriate corrective response to that deficiency.
This meeting, too, should be canceled because the facilities are not reasonably large enough to accommodate members of the public. The Senate Chamber is adequate, but the reason the Knowledge Center was selected is probably because the Student Union closes at 7 p.m. (It should be noted that the Knowledge Center only stays open for an additional hour. The Student Union, however, is open until midnight on Tuesdays.)
Rooms Must Remain Unlocked During Meeting
Another meeting scheduled could pose a different problem related to facilities. An Oversight Committee meeting is scheduled for 8:30 p.m. on June 3. The meeting will be held in room 206 of the Ansari Business Building. Holding after-hours meetings usually is not a problem during the school year because the Student Union is open late. During the summer, it's a different story.
Has the Committee made arrangements to ensure that there will be public access to ABB after-hours for the duration of the meeting? Meetings have been held in the Business Building during the summer before, but often the exterior doors were locked and the access to the building nearest the meeting room had to be propped open with a chair. The State Attorney General advises that "If a citizen is denied access to a meeting because of [locked] doors, a violation of Nevada's open meeting law would occur."
Accordingly, if the exterior doors to the Business Building do not remain unlocked, and if there are not directions to an unlocked access door to the building on the locked doors, the public would be denied access to the meeting location. A violation has not occurred yet, but the potential for a violation is ripe.
A Related Note...
On a related note, this blog has been criticized of late for unreasonably attacking the Senate as a whole for the alleged violations of a few individuals, namely the Speaker of the Senate, Gracie Geremia. Our rejoinder: of course the whole Senate should be criticized. The Speaker is merely an officer of the Senate; she is responsible to the body as a whole. Her mistakes are the body's mistakes.
This is not the first alleged violation of the Open Meeting Law that has occurred during this session. This is the second meeting in a row where a deficiency has been pointed out before the meeting has occurred (link). One meeting was held this session in violation of the law (link). Almost half a dozen cases have been filed against the Senate for violating the Open Meeting Law.
This is not a new theme, as the following Sagebrush articles demonstrate:
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/10/01/senate-approves-stiteler-as-flipside-director/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2009/02/10/senate-to-vote-on-censure-2/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/09/09/asun-violates-meeting-law/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/02/27/senate-votes-to-censure-todd/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2007/11/01/asun-minute-late-agenda-post-under-review/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/10/14/asun-officer-charged-for-two-constitutional-violations/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/10/13/asun-leaders-need-to-show-leadership/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/12/09/student-senate-criticized/
Last session, Speaker Priscilla Acosta, was made an example of because of the violation of the Open Meeting Law she committed. One violation led to that. Ms. Geremia is already up to at least four violations. Will this Senate hold her accountable? Even if they don't, will Geremia make a concerted effort to become an expert on the Open Meeting Law and learn from her frequent mistakes? Only time will tell.
In the meantime, the Senate meeting should be canceled yet again, and the student's business hijacked yet again, because one individual fails to do her job and to do it well.
Read more...
Friday, May 29, 2009
Updated: Falling on Deaf Ears
Update: May 31, 2009 at 7 p.m.
The whole issue is now moot. The Assembly overrode the Governor's veto. S.B. 283 is now law.
Update: May 31, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Looks like the whole issue of this ASUN Senate resolution might become entirely moot. Last night, the Nevada Senate overrode the Governor's veto to S.B. 283. The bill is in the Assembly today for an attempt at an override. On passage in the Assembly, the measure fell two votes short of the two-thirds required to override the Governor's veto. That means the Assembly will need to find two more yes votes in order to override the veto.
VLEG has obtained exclusively a copy of a memo said to have been prepared for the ASUN Senate.*
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Senate of the Associated Students, UNR
From: Nevada Legislature
Re: S.B. 283
In case you haven't heard, the Nevada Legislature will adjourn no later than June 1, 2009. That comes before June 3, 2009. The resolution (E. Res. 77-__) you will be considering to encourage us to override the Governor's veto on S.B. 283, the domestic partner legislation, won't get to us in time. (By the way, what the hell is an E. Resolution anyway?)
As you may not be aware, the Nevada Constitution requires us to adjourn no later than 120 days after convening(art. 4, sec. 2(2)). That day is Monday, June 1, 2009, during this legislative session. Because of that, should your "E. Resolution" pass, no one will be here to receive it, read it, care anything about it, etc.
It is commendable that you are taking an interest in our business, but taking up a resoltuion urging us to do something and not bothering to look at a calendar--the expression "falling on deaf ears" comes to mind, but it's much, much worse. It's like showing up to a party several weeks late. Where were you guys back when this bill was being heard? This resolution should've been ready for presentation during the hearings on this bill, which were over a month ago, not after we've already adjourned for the biennium.
We'd say "nice try," but this has "FAIL" written all over it. In the future, we recommend that you learn about the legislative process before you do something as embarrassing as misrepresent your Association. (And your I. Res.'s and E. Res.'s--the hell?)
*Not really, but it sure would be hilarious.
The whole issue is now moot. The Assembly overrode the Governor's veto. S.B. 283 is now law.
Update: May 31, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Looks like the whole issue of this ASUN Senate resolution might become entirely moot. Last night, the Nevada Senate overrode the Governor's veto to S.B. 283. The bill is in the Assembly today for an attempt at an override. On passage in the Assembly, the measure fell two votes short of the two-thirds required to override the Governor's veto. That means the Assembly will need to find two more yes votes in order to override the veto.
VLEG has obtained exclusively a copy of a memo said to have been prepared for the ASUN Senate.*
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Senate of the Associated Students, UNR
From: Nevada Legislature
Re: S.B. 283
In case you haven't heard, the Nevada Legislature will adjourn no later than June 1, 2009. That comes before June 3, 2009. The resolution (E. Res. 77-__) you will be considering to encourage us to override the Governor's veto on S.B. 283, the domestic partner legislation, won't get to us in time. (By the way, what the hell is an E. Resolution anyway?)
As you may not be aware, the Nevada Constitution requires us to adjourn no later than 120 days after convening(art. 4, sec. 2(2)). That day is Monday, June 1, 2009, during this legislative session. Because of that, should your "E. Resolution" pass, no one will be here to receive it, read it, care anything about it, etc.
It is commendable that you are taking an interest in our business, but taking up a resoltuion urging us to do something and not bothering to look at a calendar--the expression "falling on deaf ears" comes to mind, but it's much, much worse. It's like showing up to a party several weeks late. Where were you guys back when this bill was being heard? This resolution should've been ready for presentation during the hearings on this bill, which were over a month ago, not after we've already adjourned for the biennium.
We'd say "nice try," but this has "FAIL" written all over it. In the future, we recommend that you learn about the legislative process before you do something as embarrassing as misrepresent your Association. (And your I. Res.'s and E. Res.'s--the hell?)
*Not really, but it sure would be hilarious.
Read more...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
How does a Senate defend itself?
Several of the complaints recently filed in the ASUN Judicial Council (read all of them here), in addition to naming the office of the Speaker of the Senate (the Senate's elected leader), name the Senate as a respondent (defendant in the real world). This presents a unique circumstance. How does a multi-member body defend itself?
The power of the Senate is not vested in any one member. The power of the Senate is in a majority of the votes of the members. Nobody under the Senate's Rules is authorized to represent the Senate when it is sued. The only body that can authorize representation is the Senate. In the meantime, the Senate has lawsuits to defend. If it does not authorize someone to defend its collective interests, the petitioner in all of these cases could move for summary judgment against the Senate (and win on such a motion) because the Senate does not answer the complaints and offer a defense.
Therefore, Speaker Geremia should place on the Senate agenda for next week an item authorizing appointment of counsel to represent the Senate's interests before the Judicial Council. It could authorize the Speaker to do so, but since the Speaker is named in the complaints, the Senate's interests could be adverse from Ms. Geremia's interests--differing and contrary to one another.
The power of the Senate is not vested in any one member. The power of the Senate is in a majority of the votes of the members. Nobody under the Senate's Rules is authorized to represent the Senate when it is sued. The only body that can authorize representation is the Senate. In the meantime, the Senate has lawsuits to defend. If it does not authorize someone to defend its collective interests, the petitioner in all of these cases could move for summary judgment against the Senate (and win on such a motion) because the Senate does not answer the complaints and offer a defense.
Therefore, Speaker Geremia should place on the Senate agenda for next week an item authorizing appointment of counsel to represent the Senate's interests before the Judicial Council. It could authorize the Speaker to do so, but since the Speaker is named in the complaints, the Senate's interests could be adverse from Ms. Geremia's interests--differing and contrary to one another.
Read more...
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: Holidays, Counting, and the Open Meeting Law
Update: May 27, 2009 at 10:26 a.m.
The University Affairs meeting has now been canceled. Once again, we wish to express our appreciation for the officers involved for taking the appropriate corrective action in these cases.
Update: May 27, 2009 at 9 a.m.
So is the University Affairs meeting scheduled for today or tomorrow. The agenda says Thursday, but the date and website both say today. Yet another reason why that meeting should be canceled.
Update: May 26, 2009 at 9 p.m.
It appears, from the website, that two of the meetings have been canceled and rescheduled (Senate and Oversight). We appreciate the officials owning up to their errors and correcting them.
The Open Meeting Law requires that agendas be posted by 9 a.m. on the third working day prior to a meeting (NRS 241.020(3)(a)). Excluded in the count are weekends, holidays, and the day of the meeting (OML Manual, section 6.05).
Accordingly, the meetings should be canceled. If the meetings proceed anyway, a violation of the Open Meeting Law will occur. Given the fact that several cases against the Senate are pending in the Judicial Council for violations of the Open Meeting Law, the senators would be wise to heed this warning.
I'm going to guess the "Senate training" or "chair training" didn't go over this no-so-minor nuance. And how about the Senate "adviser"? Did she go over this point? Does she even know that this law exists and the senators must follow it? Did the senators know and figure no one would catch them? Did they know and just not care? The violations of the law that this blog reports about (way better than the Sagebrush, by the way) are becoming so systemic it's suggestive of a massive problem.
The University Affairs meeting has now been canceled. Once again, we wish to express our appreciation for the officers involved for taking the appropriate corrective action in these cases.
Update: May 27, 2009 at 9 a.m.
So is the University Affairs meeting scheduled for today or tomorrow. The agenda says Thursday, but the date and website both say today. Yet another reason why that meeting should be canceled.
Update: May 26, 2009 at 9 p.m.
It appears, from the website, that two of the meetings have been canceled and rescheduled (Senate and Oversight). We appreciate the officials owning up to their errors and correcting them.
The Open Meeting Law requires that agendas be posted by 9 a.m. on the third working day prior to a meeting (NRS 241.020(3)(a)). Excluded in the count are weekends, holidays, and the day of the meeting (OML Manual, section 6.05).
Example:However, when a holiday falls during the posting period, as Memorial Day did yesterday, you need to add a day.
A meeting for Wednesday must have its notice and agenda posted before Friday at 9 a.m.
Example:Well, guess what, my friends. Looks like some of the senators need a refresher. The University Affairs and Oversight Committees and Senate meetings scheduled for tomorrow, according to the postings on the ASUN Web site, were not posted in time to take into account yesterday's holiday. The University Affairs and Senate agendas were posted on Friday, May 22, and the Oversight agenda was posted around 9 p.m. on Thursday, May 21 (Oversight was posted on the correct day, but after the 9 a.m. deadline).
A meeting noticed for Wednesday, May 27, 2009, must have its notice and agenda posted no later than Thursday, May 21, 2009, at 9 a.m.
Accordingly, the meetings should be canceled. If the meetings proceed anyway, a violation of the Open Meeting Law will occur. Given the fact that several cases against the Senate are pending in the Judicial Council for violations of the Open Meeting Law, the senators would be wise to heed this warning.
I'm going to guess the "Senate training" or "chair training" didn't go over this no-so-minor nuance. And how about the Senate "adviser"? Did she go over this point? Does she even know that this law exists and the senators must follow it? Did the senators know and figure no one would catch them? Did they know and just not care? The violations of the law that this blog reports about (way better than the Sagebrush, by the way) are becoming so systemic it's suggestive of a massive problem.
Read more...
Friday, May 22, 2009
Random Number?
Quick note, maybe someone who knows can help us out.
The Senate minutes as of late have a marginal note, "AN-77-1004" for example. Looks like a serial number of sorts. Any idea what the AN stands for?
The serial number looks like a great idea to help find stuff faster.
The Senate minutes as of late have a marginal note, "AN-77-1004" for example. Looks like a serial number of sorts. Any idea what the AN stands for?
The serial number looks like a great idea to help find stuff faster.
Read more...
<< POLITICIAN >> is an idiot.
Barack Obama is an idiot: http://tinyurl.com/pg26zl
George Bush is an idiot: http://tinyurl.com/q9xs3m
Harry Reid is an idiot: http://tinyurl.com/o5n3an
Dean Heller is an idiot: http://tinyurl.com/r9srbz
Students who choose to enter public service should anticipate and welcome some degree of criticism for their actions. They should also expect to be held accountable for their decisions.
What I'm noticing is that certain Senators want to have the sunny parts of public service without having any of the serious responsibilities. Any politician who thinks that way is an idiot.
Read more...
Update: Summer Meetings, What?
I guess I spoke too soon. According the the agenda posted on the ASUN website Senator Kealy has submitted a resolution to recess the Senate until August.
Read more...
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Kealy, Get Your Head Out of Your Ass
Kealy, maybe you're a good guy, but you seem to have managed to shove your head so far up your ass being pissed off at the anonymous posters that you can't actually read anymore.
There are several posters to this blog. Two of them, Corinna and Shane, use our real names (i.e., not anonymous). If you knew anything about either one of us, you would realize that both of us can probably speak more intelligently about doing things on the internet that come back to bight you on the ass than anyone else you know.
The previous post isn't about the guy's fucking birthday or the fact that he's drinking under the age of 21. I drank every weekend from my first weekend at UNR when I was 18 until I turned 21 and then I kept drinking. You know the one thing I never did when I was under 21: I never posted a comment, a note, an event, etc. where I explicitly said I'm going to get drunk this weekend. And even now, I try to avoid it.
But even today, that is probably not enough. I don't care if the event is closed. Unless you're sure every single person on your friends list is actually a very good friend who won't burn you, don't post shit like that. Employers Google current and potential employees. They look to see if someone parties a little too hard. If someone makes a sexist comment (e.g., women flowing like salmon). If someone makes a comment about not liking work. You have to be smart about your "digital footprint".
College is, despite your beliefs to the contrary, not some magical fairyland, with a magical barrier with delightful little gnome guardians to keep out the big bad world, where you get to prance around doing whatever the fuck you want until the magical day when you graduate and get teleported to the "real" world. You and Neben, and all of your colleagues, are over 18. You are legally adults. You break the law, you get caught, you get a criminal record. If the University finds out or is involved, you're probably going to go through some disciplinary proceedings and could end up with a disciplinary note on your transcript.
I don't care if this guy drinks every night between now and when he turns 21. What I do hope, as he is supposedly a leader, is that he has the common sense not to advertise it. I hope all 22 people around that table realize it. Ask Reilly, he almost ended his ASUN career playing what he thought was a practical joke. Ask me about the real world consequences of breaking the law while in college.
You've got people who experienced the consequences of not being diligent enough giving you advice and you're getting yourself so worked up over some perceived slight you can't even comprehend the message. I would suggest you try and pull your head out of your ass and actually read, but I don't imagine that will work. You've probably already shut down and are trying to figure out a way to respond and completely ignore any value that might be derived from the post.
There are several posters to this blog. Two of them, Corinna and Shane, use our real names (i.e., not anonymous). If you knew anything about either one of us, you would realize that both of us can probably speak more intelligently about doing things on the internet that come back to bight you on the ass than anyone else you know.
The previous post isn't about the guy's fucking birthday or the fact that he's drinking under the age of 21. I drank every weekend from my first weekend at UNR when I was 18 until I turned 21 and then I kept drinking. You know the one thing I never did when I was under 21: I never posted a comment, a note, an event, etc. where I explicitly said I'm going to get drunk this weekend. And even now, I try to avoid it.
But even today, that is probably not enough. I don't care if the event is closed. Unless you're sure every single person on your friends list is actually a very good friend who won't burn you, don't post shit like that. Employers Google current and potential employees. They look to see if someone parties a little too hard. If someone makes a sexist comment (e.g., women flowing like salmon). If someone makes a comment about not liking work. You have to be smart about your "digital footprint".
College is, despite your beliefs to the contrary, not some magical fairyland, with a magical barrier with delightful little gnome guardians to keep out the big bad world, where you get to prance around doing whatever the fuck you want until the magical day when you graduate and get teleported to the "real" world. You and Neben, and all of your colleagues, are over 18. You are legally adults. You break the law, you get caught, you get a criminal record. If the University finds out or is involved, you're probably going to go through some disciplinary proceedings and could end up with a disciplinary note on your transcript.
I don't care if this guy drinks every night between now and when he turns 21. What I do hope, as he is supposedly a leader, is that he has the common sense not to advertise it. I hope all 22 people around that table realize it. Ask Reilly, he almost ended his ASUN career playing what he thought was a practical joke. Ask me about the real world consequences of breaking the law while in college.
You've got people who experienced the consequences of not being diligent enough giving you advice and you're getting yourself so worked up over some perceived slight you can't even comprehend the message. I would suggest you try and pull your head out of your ass and actually read, but I don't imagine that will work. You've probably already shut down and are trying to figure out a way to respond and completely ignore any value that might be derived from the post.
Read more...
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: When Two Bills Do the Same Thing
In this edition of Is Our Senators Learning, we take a look at the legislation on today's Senate agenda. The theme of our post will be apparent once you reach our brief review of the last bill.
Senate Bill 77-1
This bill changes the structure of the Department of Programming (aka Flipside Productions) by eliminating the ability of Programmers to appoint Assistant Programmers. The bill disrupts the hierarchy in the Department. The committee report indicates that they want to create a step below the director but above programmers.
This bill (77-1) only allows the director to appoint both programmers and assistant programmers. It sounds like the Senate really wants to have something like assistant directors below the director. This makes entirely no sense when taken together with the companion bill, S.B. 77-2, which creates the compensation for these new assistant programmers.
Senate Bill 77-2
This bill amends the Executive Compensation Schedule to add a new tier for the Assistant Programmers created by S.B. 77-1. The bill does not appear to mesh with the stated intent of the Government Operations Committee that the Director of Programming be allowed to have "higher paid assistants." In fact, these new assistants, under this bill, will be paid less than programmers.
The bill adds a Tier VI to the compensation schedule. Rather than keep the order of descending dollar figures intact, the bill adds the new tier at the end, thusly:
Senate Bill 77-3
This bill changes existing law that requires ASUN to maintain a reserve fund of 5 percent of the fee revenues in each fiscal year. After consulting with University budget officers, it was determined that 2.5 percent is sufficient. This bill would make the President's current budget proposal for this reserve fund to be in compliance with the law. Only they will have done the steps in reverse (President takes action, Senate enacts legislation authorizing action). It usually works the other way around.
Senate Bill 77-4
This bill modifies the amount of money ASUN will contribute to a general scholarship program it created back in 2007. The bill reduces the contribution by $50,000 in this fiscal year to $100,000. It is unclear whether this bill violates contract rights. This bill might in fact be unconstitutional under the ASUN Constitution.
Senate Bill 77-5
This is perhaps one of the better written bills we've seen since the 75th Session. This bill creates a Diversity Commission chaired by the Vice President. Some specific language and technical language in the bill is not quite correct, but the bill has a clear and understandable message. The bill would be well to coordiate with current ASUN Law on the subject, such as the Diversity Week Creation Act of 2008, as amended by S.B. 76-1. (S.B. 76-1 repealed the creation of the Director of Diversity but didn't entirely clean up all references in law to that director.) We would recommend holding off on passing this bill intil some of the technical stuff is fixed.
Senator Diaz obviously has the right idea about bills.
Senate Bill 77-6
Oh, damn, looks like we may have spoken too soon about Senator Diaz. This bill creates compensation for the diversity commissioners created by S.B. 77-5. This probably isn't her fault, but this bill does not take into account S.B. 77-2, which makes almost the exact same amendments to the Executive Compensation Schedule. Under S.B. 77-6, Tier VI would be $500 for the diversity commissioners. But, under S.B. 77-2, Tier VI would be $1,500 for Assistant Programmers. Thus, we finally get to the theme of our post.
When two bills make similar amendments to the same provision of law, only one can survive. Thus, one of the bills should be amended to fix the conflict.
Other Things
The enacting clause in all of the bills still appears to be erroneous ("students" should be capitalized, as it is part of the official title of the Senate of the Associated Students). If the enacting clause is not exactly correct, the bill could be held to be invalid (See ASUN Public Law 75-39, section 2).
When referring to sections subordinate elements of other laws, parentheses are used. So when you want to refer to subsection (b) of section 2 of ASUN Public Law 75-48, you write it as "section 2(b) of ASUN Public Law 75-48. Also, "Sec.306.g.3" is not the same thing as "section 306(g)(3)." We all know what you are talking about, but the law doesn't. Think of this like a computer program: if it is not exactly right, it will not compute.
The formal cites to the laws being amended by all of the bills is off, too. The laws can be cited by their popular titles (e.g. "Executive Compensation Act of 2008") but also need to include the formal cite (ASUN Public Law 75-48; 75 ASUN Stat. 124).
On a happy note, we are glad to see that bills are finally getting numbered. Now if we can do the same for committee reports.
Some of our senators are beginning to learn. Now let's see if we can keep this heading in the right direction.
Senate Bill 77-1
This bill changes the structure of the Department of Programming (aka Flipside Productions) by eliminating the ability of Programmers to appoint Assistant Programmers. The bill disrupts the hierarchy in the Department. The committee report indicates that they want to create a step below the director but above programmers.
The bill creates two positions directly under the Director of Programming to take on a variety of duties, of which were somewhat small duties to be assigned specifically to one programmer. This bil would allow for the Director of Programming to eliminate an unnecessary programmer position, and the elimination of such would allow for the funding of these higher paid assistants.Unfortunately, the bill does not do what it purports to. The programmers are already under the director. Under section 303(a) of ASUN Public Law 75-7, the Director gets to "nominate" (the term "nominate" versus "appoint" is used inconsistently in this law) programmers to assist the director. In turn, the programmers get to appoint assistant programmers, under subsection (b) of section 303.
This bill (77-1) only allows the director to appoint both programmers and assistant programmers. It sounds like the Senate really wants to have something like assistant directors below the director. This makes entirely no sense when taken together with the companion bill, S.B. 77-2, which creates the compensation for these new assistant programmers.
Senate Bill 77-2
This bill amends the Executive Compensation Schedule to add a new tier for the Assistant Programmers created by S.B. 77-1. The bill does not appear to mesh with the stated intent of the Government Operations Committee that the Director of Programming be allowed to have "higher paid assistants." In fact, these new assistants, under this bill, will be paid less than programmers.
The bill adds a Tier VI to the compensation schedule. Rather than keep the order of descending dollar figures intact, the bill adds the new tier at the end, thusly:
(4)Level IV: $3,000.00, to be disbursed in equal increments at the end of each semester.It would make more sense to make the new $1,500 tier Tier V and change the current Tier V to become Tier VI. A bill that does that would look something like this:
(5) Level V: $1,000.00, to be disbursed in equal increments at the end of each semester.
(6) Level VI: $1,500.00, to be disbursed in equal increments at the end of each semester.
Section 2(b) of the Executive Compensation Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75-48; 75 ASUN Stat. 124) is amended by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:You'd do essentially the same thing for adding new offices to each tier.".
"(5) Level V: $1,500.00, to be disbursed in equal increments at the end of each semester.
"(6) Level VI: $1,000.00, to be disbursed in equal increments at the end of each semester.
Senate Bill 77-3
This bill changes existing law that requires ASUN to maintain a reserve fund of 5 percent of the fee revenues in each fiscal year. After consulting with University budget officers, it was determined that 2.5 percent is sufficient. This bill would make the President's current budget proposal for this reserve fund to be in compliance with the law. Only they will have done the steps in reverse (President takes action, Senate enacts legislation authorizing action). It usually works the other way around.
Senate Bill 77-4
This bill modifies the amount of money ASUN will contribute to a general scholarship program it created back in 2007. The bill reduces the contribution by $50,000 in this fiscal year to $100,000. It is unclear whether this bill violates contract rights. This bill might in fact be unconstitutional under the ASUN Constitution.
Senate Bill 77-5
This is perhaps one of the better written bills we've seen since the 75th Session. This bill creates a Diversity Commission chaired by the Vice President. Some specific language and technical language in the bill is not quite correct, but the bill has a clear and understandable message. The bill would be well to coordiate with current ASUN Law on the subject, such as the Diversity Week Creation Act of 2008, as amended by S.B. 76-1. (S.B. 76-1 repealed the creation of the Director of Diversity but didn't entirely clean up all references in law to that director.) We would recommend holding off on passing this bill intil some of the technical stuff is fixed.
Senator Diaz obviously has the right idea about bills.
Senate Bill 77-6
Oh, damn, looks like we may have spoken too soon about Senator Diaz. This bill creates compensation for the diversity commissioners created by S.B. 77-5. This probably isn't her fault, but this bill does not take into account S.B. 77-2, which makes almost the exact same amendments to the Executive Compensation Schedule. Under S.B. 77-6, Tier VI would be $500 for the diversity commissioners. But, under S.B. 77-2, Tier VI would be $1,500 for Assistant Programmers. Thus, we finally get to the theme of our post.
When two bills make similar amendments to the same provision of law, only one can survive. Thus, one of the bills should be amended to fix the conflict.
Other Things
The enacting clause in all of the bills still appears to be erroneous ("students" should be capitalized, as it is part of the official title of the Senate of the Associated Students). If the enacting clause is not exactly correct, the bill could be held to be invalid (See ASUN Public Law 75-39, section 2).
When referring to sections subordinate elements of other laws, parentheses are used. So when you want to refer to subsection (b) of section 2 of ASUN Public Law 75-48, you write it as "section 2(b) of ASUN Public Law 75-48. Also, "Sec.306.g.3" is not the same thing as "section 306(g)(3)." We all know what you are talking about, but the law doesn't. Think of this like a computer program: if it is not exactly right, it will not compute.
The formal cites to the laws being amended by all of the bills is off, too. The laws can be cited by their popular titles (e.g. "Executive Compensation Act of 2008") but also need to include the formal cite (ASUN Public Law 75-48; 75 ASUN Stat. 124).
On a happy note, we are glad to see that bills are finally getting numbered. Now if we can do the same for committee reports.
Some of our senators are beginning to learn. Now let's see if we can keep this heading in the right direction.
Read more...
Is Our Senators Underage Drinking?
If you're one of the elite student leaders on campus, and you choose to engage in underage drinking, do you:
a) On reconsideration, do not drink. Being caught will earn you a visit with Sally J. Morgan, and it's too risky;
b) Do so discreetly, only amongst trusted friends; and safely, by discouraging binge drinking and having appointed designated drivers; or
c) Publicly advertise a huge party with underage, binge drinking far from where any emergency services can reach if something goes seriously wrong.
Did any of us drink while underaged?
Read more...
Friday, May 15, 2009
Was The Law Broken? Does it Matter?
Obviously, this is a question only a court is allowed to answer in a formal way, but sometimes another process can play out.
Because of the adversarial nature of the conflict between Corinna Cohn and the ASUN and its officers, I think something has been lost. There are a couple simple questions I hope the Senate and Speaker Geremia ask themselves before proceeding to trial against Ms. Cohn.
In two cases (AN-001 and AN-002) the remedy is quite simple for ASUN. In the case of the meeting agendized as occurring in 2008 (it didn't occur in 2008, it has held in 2009), the remedy is perhaps stupidly simple. Agendize a meeting with all the actions that occurred during that meeting and redo the actions. It might take like 10 minutes if there is no public comment on items. It wouldn't even require seeking settlement with Ms. Cohn. If it was done properly, the Judicial Council would have no interest in the allegations because the complaint becomes moot. In cases involving inadequate notice (i.e., insufficient detail), the solution is similar, although slightly more difficult to execute. But a solution might work something like this.
But, alas, all this is premised on the assumption that the 77th Session admit the 76th Session did something wrong. And it requires the Speaker to be willing to work with Ms. Cohn and Ms. Cohn to work with the Speaker. And perhaps the animosity that has built is too much to overcome at this point. But dammit this is not hard to fix.
Updated at 10:35 a.m. by Lupus
I added links to the referenced cases.
Because of the adversarial nature of the conflict between Corinna Cohn and the ASUN and its officers, I think something has been lost. There are a couple simple questions I hope the Senate and Speaker Geremia ask themselves before proceeding to trial against Ms. Cohn.
- Do I think I violated the Nevada Open Meeting Law?
- If so, should I try to correct my own mistake?
In two cases (AN-001 and AN-002) the remedy is quite simple for ASUN. In the case of the meeting agendized as occurring in 2008 (it didn't occur in 2008, it has held in 2009), the remedy is perhaps stupidly simple. Agendize a meeting with all the actions that occurred during that meeting and redo the actions. It might take like 10 minutes if there is no public comment on items. It wouldn't even require seeking settlement with Ms. Cohn. If it was done properly, the Judicial Council would have no interest in the allegations because the complaint becomes moot. In cases involving inadequate notice (i.e., insufficient detail), the solution is similar, although slightly more difficult to execute. But a solution might work something like this.
- Ask Ms. Cohn what agendas her evidence found to be deficient.
- Find the actions items under those agendas.
- Find thedocuments (e.g., bills, resolutions, minutes)
- Properly agendize the items for a new meeting
- Pass it all
But, alas, all this is premised on the assumption that the 77th Session admit the 76th Session did something wrong. And it requires the Speaker to be willing to work with Ms. Cohn and Ms. Cohn to work with the Speaker. And perhaps the animosity that has built is too much to overcome at this point. But dammit this is not hard to fix.
Updated at 10:35 a.m. by Lupus
I added links to the referenced cases.
Read more...
Thursday, May 14, 2009
A Thoughtful Question
I had a conversation today with one of the ASUN advisors. She made a point that got me thinking (smacks of irony, right?). An underlying premise of a lot of the ideas of this blog is bad advising.
However, when the advisors do speak up, they are often accused of having an agenda. To start with, of course they have an agenda, but that doesn't mean it is an insidious, Sith-like agenda. More importantly, however, is this question:
If being quiet makes you a bad advisor and speaking up makes you manipulative, what is a "good" advisor to do? If I don't happen to agree with the actions (or actions through inaction) of an advisor, does that make that advisor bad?
I know how I would respond if asked the question as a hypothetical. I'm not sure I know where I stand as far as ASUN is concerned. The confluence of circumstances facing the Seventy-Sixth Session at the beginning of the last school year did a pretty good job of setting them up to fail. They had new rules that, despite the objections to the contrary this is sure to raise from some of my colleagues, were not simple. The complexity comes partly from the number of rules that were created in such a short time and partly from the style of prose I think. They had a new advisor that didn't get up to speed quickly enough to address some of the problems. And they had inexperienced, and sometimes ineffectual, leadership.
What concerns me most, right now, is that some of the errors that happened last year seem to be happening again. God help them if this session lets minutes pile up like last session did. I don't think that will happen. But I am concerned that the phrase "substantively reflect” isn’t quite understood. There is a very good, very simple reason the minutes need to reflect the substance of conversations, especially when it comes to legislation. Ms. Cohn has several examples of inadequate minutes causing problems:
However, back to the question. What does Yvonne need to do? Should she coddle the Senators? Should she hound them until they do it correctly? Should she let them fail and face what consequences may come? I don't know.
However, when the advisors do speak up, they are often accused of having an agenda. To start with, of course they have an agenda, but that doesn't mean it is an insidious, Sith-like agenda. More importantly, however, is this question:
If being quiet makes you a bad advisor and speaking up makes you manipulative, what is a "good" advisor to do? If I don't happen to agree with the actions (or actions through inaction) of an advisor, does that make that advisor bad?
I know how I would respond if asked the question as a hypothetical. I'm not sure I know where I stand as far as ASUN is concerned. The confluence of circumstances facing the Seventy-Sixth Session at the beginning of the last school year did a pretty good job of setting them up to fail. They had new rules that, despite the objections to the contrary this is sure to raise from some of my colleagues, were not simple. The complexity comes partly from the number of rules that were created in such a short time and partly from the style of prose I think. They had a new advisor that didn't get up to speed quickly enough to address some of the problems. And they had inexperienced, and sometimes ineffectual, leadership.
What concerns me most, right now, is that some of the errors that happened last year seem to be happening again. God help them if this session lets minutes pile up like last session did. I don't think that will happen. But I am concerned that the phrase "substantively reflect” isn’t quite understood. There is a very good, very simple reason the minutes need to reflect the substance of conversations, especially when it comes to legislation. Ms. Cohn has several examples of inadequate minutes causing problems:
- There is an enrolled bill that never passed the Senate;
- There is no evidence that the meeting where the budget for this fiscal year was passed even occurred, other than testimony from Senators. But since that meeting occurred about a year ago, I think there is no way to be sure what actually occurred during that meeting is reflected in the budget;
- One bill was enrolled twice.
However, back to the question. What does Yvonne need to do? Should she coddle the Senators? Should she hound them until they do it correctly? Should she let them fail and face what consequences may come? I don't know.
Read more...
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Big time?
You know you've hit the big time when you inspire parodies.
We welcome the newest member of the vigilant ASUN blogging community into our ranks: http://vismitchyestgrex.blogspot.com/
Good luck with your blog, guys. We're flattered.
Read more...
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
"What the hell are you doing here?"
Wisdom from TV shows. In an episode of The West Wing called "Take This Sabbath Day," Martin Sheen's character, President Bartlett, is seeking counsel from his priest over whether or not to grant a stay of execution to a man who will be killed in minutes. The Father says
Speaker Gracie Geremia has unwittingly found herself in a world of hurt, being named as a respondent to several lawsuits in the ASUN Judicial Council. She has been offered help in the past. She has been offered counsel and guidance. She has declined, having faith that things will work themselves out for the best. She has declined, believing that she will escape unscathed. She has declined, believing her course of action to be correct.
Gracie, you're being sent a radio report, a rowboat, and a helicopter. We don't want to ask you this later on: Gracie, what the hell are you doing here?
You remind me of the man that lived by the river. He heard a radio report that the river was going to rush up and flood the town, and that the all the residents should evacuate their homes. But the man said, "I'm religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me." The waters rose up. A guy in a rowboat came along and he shouted, "Hey, hey you, you in there. The town is flooding. Let me take you to safety." But the man shouted back, "I'm religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me." A helicopter was hovering overhead and a guy with a megaphone shouted, "Hey you, you down there. The town is flooding. Let me drop this ladder and I'll take you to safety." But the man shouted back that he was religious, that he prayed, that God loved him and that God will take him to safety.
Well... the man drowned. And standing at the gates of St. Peter he demanded an audience with God. "Lord," he said, "I'm a religious man, I pray, I thought you loved me. Why did this happen?" God said, "I sent you a radio report, a helicopter and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?
Speaker Gracie Geremia has unwittingly found herself in a world of hurt, being named as a respondent to several lawsuits in the ASUN Judicial Council. She has been offered help in the past. She has been offered counsel and guidance. She has declined, having faith that things will work themselves out for the best. She has declined, believing that she will escape unscathed. She has declined, believing her course of action to be correct.
Gracie, you're being sent a radio report, a rowboat, and a helicopter. We don't want to ask you this later on: Gracie, what the hell are you doing here?
Read more...
Monday, May 11, 2009
Summer meetings? What?
According to the meeting minutes of the May 6th meeting of the Senate, the Senators will be holding biweekly meetings during the summer. This is ambitious to say the least. Every Senate for the last couple of years has made the same statement and didn't deliver. Last session they tried to meet only to block President Reilly from making recess appointments and could barely make quorum. On the ASUN website, it says the Senate will be meeting on 5/20 but no agenda has been posted yet.
Meeting over the summer is only good if the Senate plans on accomplishing something. Otherwise they are just preventing the Interim committee from being able to legally meet and get some work done. (We previously noted that the Interim Committee does not exist, but the Senate could reestablish the committee at any time.) However, we all know how Interim committees can turn out after the debacle of Jeremiah Todd in the 75th Session and his inability to post agendas, and the two senators turned deserters, Herman and Purney, that nearly crippled the Interim Committee of the 76th Session. The track record for interim committees is not that impressive. I will not even go into case filed by George Higgins against then president Jeff Champagne for allocating funds improperly during the summer months in the interim period (under the previous constitution through the Executive Board).
Not having an interim committee of core senators may prove to be a disastrous move for this Senate. Everyone begins with good intentions and high expectations for themselves, but based on experience, the summer weather and activities usually win out to sitting indoors debating legislation. Remember, the quorum of the Senate is 2/3 of the members, and for committees a majority. It could wind up being harder to meet and get stuff done than they realize.
Not having an interim committee of core senators may prove to be a disastrous move for this Senate. Everyone begins with good intentions and high expectations for themselves, but based on experience, the summer weather and activities usually win out to sitting indoors debating legislation. Remember, the quorum of the Senate is 2/3 of the members, and for committees a majority. It could wind up being harder to meet and get stuff done than they realize.
I hope that the Senate will make good on its promise to meet and complete important work this summer. Both the Judicial and Executive branches are working this summer. Why not make it a crowd with all three branches attending?
Read more...
Explication of a Theory on Failure to Follow the Law
In an earlier post, I gave two possibilities for why individuals ignore the laws:
1. It is inconvenient or cumbersome to follow it,
2. It is too complicated to follow.
Some would argue it is not because people find the law inconvenient. I believe there are several very plain examples of where this is the case:
• Eli Reilly and the budget,
• Jeff Champagne, Sarah Ragsdale, and Eli Reilly with a bookswap,
• Priscilla Acosta and Gracie Geremia with posting locations,
• Making sure minutes (more generally records of the association) are up to date (e.g., minutes, reports, legislative history).
However, if you disagree with me that the above alleged violations occurred because it was too difficult or too burdensome to follow the law, then I would ask that you prove violations don’t occur for the second reason.
But, let me take the argument from the side of those who say that the people violating the law are people who just want to do good (ignoring the resume whores), and they haven't gotten their heads around all the laws and rules (you’ll notice that this argument puts violators in my second category).
OK. That's fine. Vis Lupi, among others, exists partly to point out the failures we are aware of. Often, the individuals targeted admit the mistake. Sometimes they don't.
But if we aren't saying, you can't do this. Or look at this law please. Or are you aware of this? Who will? If you believe one of our contributors, ASUN committed an act of age discrimination while an advisor was in the room (and even if it wasn’t illegal it was definitely poor practice). Corinna Cohn has filed 11+ lawsuits alleging violations of the law. Obviously there is a failure in the system. I've spoken to close to a dozen senators over the past two years who believe their advising was inadequate (including two incumbents this year). Part of the mission of this blog, as it has evolved, is to attempt to fill a serious performance deficiency on the part of the advisors.
On a side issue. I’ve personally spoken to both Speaker Geremia and Senator Hostmeyer about some of the issues this blog has brought up. I laid out a very clear strategy, to both of them, for addressing many of the minor points that both Vis Lupi and Corinna have raised. I set up a meeting between Corinna and Gracie in hopes of trying to establish a rapport, with the goal a mutually agreeable resolution to many of Corinna’s complaints. Nothing was done about the complaints. So, to make another thing clear: the authors of this blog have talked to people and have suggested solutions and have been ignored.
1. It is inconvenient or cumbersome to follow it,
2. It is too complicated to follow.
Some would argue it is not because people find the law inconvenient. I believe there are several very plain examples of where this is the case:
• Eli Reilly and the budget,
• Jeff Champagne, Sarah Ragsdale, and Eli Reilly with a bookswap,
• Priscilla Acosta and Gracie Geremia with posting locations,
• Making sure minutes (more generally records of the association) are up to date (e.g., minutes, reports, legislative history).
However, if you disagree with me that the above alleged violations occurred because it was too difficult or too burdensome to follow the law, then I would ask that you prove violations don’t occur for the second reason.
But, let me take the argument from the side of those who say that the people violating the law are people who just want to do good (ignoring the resume whores), and they haven't gotten their heads around all the laws and rules (you’ll notice that this argument puts violators in my second category).
OK. That's fine. Vis Lupi, among others, exists partly to point out the failures we are aware of. Often, the individuals targeted admit the mistake. Sometimes they don't.
Sometimes they stonewall. Sometimes they ignore the point. Sometimes they indicate we should go fuck ourselves.
But if we aren't saying, you can't do this. Or look at this law please. Or are you aware of this? Who will? If you believe one of our contributors, ASUN committed an act of age discrimination while an advisor was in the room (and even if it wasn’t illegal it was definitely poor practice). Corinna Cohn has filed 11+ lawsuits alleging violations of the law. Obviously there is a failure in the system. I've spoken to close to a dozen senators over the past two years who believe their advising was inadequate (including two incumbents this year). Part of the mission of this blog, as it has evolved, is to attempt to fill a serious performance deficiency on the part of the advisors.
To make my argument very clear: you don’t get to argue these people are trying to learn and then say we are petty for trying to help them learn.
On a side issue. I’ve personally spoken to both Speaker Geremia and Senator Hostmeyer about some of the issues this blog has brought up. I laid out a very clear strategy, to both of them, for addressing many of the minor points that both Vis Lupi and Corinna have raised. I set up a meeting between Corinna and Gracie in hopes of trying to establish a rapport, with the goal a mutually agreeable resolution to many of Corinna’s complaints. Nothing was done about the complaints. So, to make another thing clear: the authors of this blog have talked to people and have suggested solutions and have been ignored.
Read more...
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Rodriguez, others accused of embezzling student fees
Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of student fees were allegedly embezzled by the Director of Student Activities and the budget coordinator.
read about it here
From the article:
"Rodriguez, prosecutors say, had a more luxurious appetite and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on high-end brands such as Gucci and Prada."
This is the sort of thing that happens when there is insufficient oversight to the budget process. It happened at Tufts, and it could happen at UNR if those responsible for appropriating and spending the money aren't held to account when they do it illegally.
Read more...
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Of Age Discrimination and ASUN
Previously we blogged about the illegal acts committed by the ASUN Senate when it used age as a factor in determining whether Erin Gelmstedt should be appointed to the vacant Liberal Arts seat. One commenter noted that provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 might exempt the Senate from the prohibitions set out in that act.
Well, as it turns out, laws can be pretty complicated, and, given the whole of our research, we stand by our original claim that, from the information available to us, the Senate likely engaged in illegal age discrimination. For the reasons we'll set out below, we'll show that the commenter is wrong, but not for the reason of his comment.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which is codified at chapter 14 of Title 29, United States Code (sections 621 et seq.) (references to section numbers are to the codification in the USC The chief prohibition of the act is carried in section 623 of the Act, which reads
Well bummer. Because the Act does not apply, I need not point out the flaws with our commenter's remark that section 630, the definitions that apply to the Act, makes the Senate exempt.
But the age discrimination question still isn't settled. See, federal law is pretty big, and there's another law relating to age discrimination that might apply. It's called the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
That Act, which is codified at 42 USC 6101 et seq., states, in section 6102, "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. "
The definitions of that Act, set out in section 6107, go on to say that
But, there's one question left unanswered: Is ASUN part of the University? The answer is yes. The only reason ASUN gets to exist is because the Board of Regents allows ASUN to exist, and therefore is part of the University. And if ASUN is a part of the University, the Act's prohibitions apply to it.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 does not include the same definitional exclusion that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 does regarding employees elected to public office of a state or political subdivision thereof. Therefore, that language does not apply under the Act that does apply to Ms. Gelmstedt's situation.
The bottom line is the Senate cannot discriminate based on age, and that is why we stand by our original comment.
PS. To "death on a triscuit": "Maybe not all the research was done before hand this time..." Right back at you, buddy.
Well, as it turns out, laws can be pretty complicated, and, given the whole of our research, we stand by our original claim that, from the information available to us, the Senate likely engaged in illegal age discrimination. For the reasons we'll set out below, we'll show that the commenter is wrong, but not for the reason of his comment.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which is codified at chapter 14 of Title 29, United States Code (sections 621 et seq.) (references to section numbers are to the codification in the USC The chief prohibition of the act is carried in section 623 of the Act, which reads
(a) Employer practicesPretty simple, right? Employers cannot use age as a reason for failing or refusing to hire someone. Well, there's more to it than that. Section 631 sets age limits for which the Act applies.
It shall be unlawful for an employer--
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age
(a) Individuals at least 40 years of ageWell damn. By the Act's provisions, it does not apply to what ASUN did, because for as old as Ms. Gelmstedt is (that's a joke, btw), she's still a long ways from ancient (i.e. 40).
The prohibitions in this chapter shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.
Well bummer. Because the Act does not apply, I need not point out the flaws with our commenter's remark that section 630, the definitions that apply to the Act, makes the Senate exempt.
(f) The term "employee" means an individual employed by any employer except that the term "employee" shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer's personal staff, or an appointee on the policymaking level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office.I initially commented back that this definition probably does not apply to the Senate and would require further analysis in a separate post. This post isn't that post.
But the age discrimination question still isn't settled. See, federal law is pretty big, and there's another law relating to age discrimination that might apply. It's called the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
That Act, which is codified at 42 USC 6101 et seq., states, in section 6102, "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. "
The definitions of that Act, set out in section 6107, go on to say that
(4) the term "program or activity" means all of the operations of--That means that if any part of the University of Nevada, Reno, receives federal financial assistance, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 applies to all of its programs and activities. I can tell you right now that Nevada receives federal financial assistance. Because of that, it is illegal for the Senate to discriminate based on age.
...
(B)(i) a college, university, or other postsecondary
institution, or a public system of higher education...
...
any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.
But, there's one question left unanswered: Is ASUN part of the University? The answer is yes. The only reason ASUN gets to exist is because the Board of Regents allows ASUN to exist, and therefore is part of the University. And if ASUN is a part of the University, the Act's prohibitions apply to it.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 does not include the same definitional exclusion that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 does regarding employees elected to public office of a state or political subdivision thereof. Therefore, that language does not apply under the Act that does apply to Ms. Gelmstedt's situation.
The bottom line is the Senate cannot discriminate based on age, and that is why we stand by our original comment.
PS. To "death on a triscuit": "Maybe not all the research was done before hand this time..." Right back at you, buddy.
Read more...
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Why Barry Belmont's Single-mindedness Indicates a Useless Philosophy
Barry Belmont of the UNR Students for Liberty recently took time to comment on a recent post on Vis Lupi about illegal redaction of personal information be done to applications for the open College of Liberal Arts Senate seat. It is his opinion that "dumb" laws need not be followed. Here is one reason why he is wrong.
If a society agrees to, and forms around, the idea that it should be governed by laws, to allow any individual to arbitrarily choose what laws are "bad" or "dumb" means the rule of law is consequentially dead. Perhaps this particular violation cited by Vis Lupi and commented on by Belmont is ultimately meaningless but what Vis Lupi is attempting to report on is a trend in ASUN.
The individuals in ASUN have shown an inclination to ignore laws they find inconvenient or cumbersome. They also like to claim ignorance because the system is too complicated for them to understand. This is not fair to those that create expectations and behave in a manner befitting the rule of law. This behavioral asymmetry will lead to a culture that eventually places no value in following the rules of the law, and that culture will descend into anarchy.
While I'm sure the UNR Students for Liberty would love that, it is a scenario that if allowed to proceed apace will destroy any efficacy ASUN has. ASUN is partly a deliberative body. Deliberative bodies need rules so all members can participate on a level playing field. While I’m not particularly concerned if ASUN implodes or not, I would rather they succeed if they are going to be taking $5/credit hour from every undergraduate student. It’s not the law itself, it’s the idea that any person gets to choose what laws are worth following, that is a serious problem in ASUN.
If a society agrees to, and forms around, the idea that it should be governed by laws, to allow any individual to arbitrarily choose what laws are "bad" or "dumb" means the rule of law is consequentially dead. Perhaps this particular violation cited by Vis Lupi and commented on by Belmont is ultimately meaningless but what Vis Lupi is attempting to report on is a trend in ASUN.
The individuals in ASUN have shown an inclination to ignore laws they find inconvenient or cumbersome. They also like to claim ignorance because the system is too complicated for them to understand. This is not fair to those that create expectations and behave in a manner befitting the rule of law. This behavioral asymmetry will lead to a culture that eventually places no value in following the rules of the law, and that culture will descend into anarchy.
While I'm sure the UNR Students for Liberty would love that, it is a scenario that if allowed to proceed apace will destroy any efficacy ASUN has. ASUN is partly a deliberative body. Deliberative bodies need rules so all members can participate on a level playing field. While I’m not particularly concerned if ASUN implodes or not, I would rather they succeed if they are going to be taking $5/credit hour from every undergraduate student. It’s not the law itself, it’s the idea that any person gets to choose what laws are worth following, that is a serious problem in ASUN.
Read more...
Congrats Sen. Neely!
In all the craziness of groupthink and advisors helping the Senate to violate State and Federal law, we forgot to congratulate the newest Senator from the College of Liberal Arts!
Congratulations Senator Jacob Neely!
We have high hopes for you!
Read more...
UPDATED: Where's Waldo???
UPDATED: 10:25AM 5/7/2009
According to sources at the meeting, Yvonne Peña and Sandy Rodriguez were at the meeting (splitting the shift) and watched as Senators asked questions regarding the age of the applicants. I'm not sure what's worse, not going to the meetings, or going and sitting idly by as people who you are responsible for break the law. It's not like they aren't aware of this provision in FEDERAL law, they've given notice to past Senates, Publications boards, and other student bodies, that it is ILLEGAL to ask someone their age during a job interview. I would think Sandy would have learned her lesson about breaking FEDERAL LAW when she disclosed student SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS in 2007.
_______________________________________________
Another Senate meeting, another no-show by Yvonne Peña. As a couple of commenters and contributors have pointed out recently, maybe the Senate wouldn't have so many problems if their advisors did their job. For example, yesterday the Senate violated a number of fair employment, and equal access laws, on top of a number of University policies, and even ASUN laws, when they tried to rationalize not appointing an applicant based on age.
Newbies, that's discrimination. It's the same as if you said "she's a girl so we can't appoint her," or "his wheelchair might get in the way at the table," or any other type of discrimination. As one of our contributors points out in her analysis of groupthink, there are hundreds of students on campus who are over the age or 25. There are even people as old as 70 or 80 (omg) who go to classes. These people deserve representation, and you have no right to discriminate against candidates because "they're too old." Grow up.
But back to the subject at hand: if they had a proper and qualified advisor present, the arguably illegal acts might not have happened. In the past when the Senate started to consider illegal things, the advisor usually stood up and bitches at them. Yvonne, your job isn't to watch; your job is to ADVISE. In case no one has mentioned it, you're the Senate's advisor. Let me give you a definition of what an advisor is:
Advisor - noun1. one who gives advice.
That means you're supposed to speak up. You shouldn't be leading the discussion, but you shouldn't just sit there looking stupid (there are 22 senators for that). We know you're not a lawyer (that's pretty obvious) nor qualified in governmental systems, but you should still know University policy and proper hiring practices. Selecting a new Senator is an EMPLOYMENT matter. That means it falls under labor law. That means they can't engage in prohibited discrimination.
My hope (maybe unfounded) is that over the summer Ms. Peña reads some books (I'm sure Lupus could recommend a few) and get to know the body that you're advising. We know you were thrown in the deep end last year. Tough shit. Get over it. You have three months over the summer break to get yourself aquatinted with the rules, laws, constitution, etc. When the Senate comes back from its summer recess, you need to bring your A game. As I'm sure Sandy has told you numerous times, this is a learning experience, FOR THEM, not you (well, for you, too, but mainly for them). You're supposed to be their teacher. You're supposed to GUIDE them, ADVISE them, HELP them, MOLD them (dare I say do what student development professionals are supposed to do and DEVELOP them). From what I can tell, all you did last session was sit on your ass and get paid. And look how that turned out.
Read more...
Future present tense?
I want you to imagine that those Senators from the 76th Senate who evidenced little respect for law or democracy managed to get elected to local government. I think it would look a lot like this.
Read more...
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Only YOU can prevent groupthink
After viewing the ASUN notebook covering the candidate selection for the open COLA seat, I'm very concerned that groupthink is starting to form, even though the group has only been together for a month. I urge, in the strongest terms possible, all the members of the Senate (particularly Gracie Geremia) to read the wikipedia article on groupthink and consider each of the elements of what contributes to groupthink and how to avoid succumbing to it.
Assuming the Sagebrush reporting was accurate, I saw evidence groupthink may be starting to form. Here is some evidence:
2:01 | Delaplain said accusations from anonymous sources, such as the blog Vis Lupi Est Grex, cannot be allowed to drive ASUN policy. |
2:01 | "We can't let people who lack the courage to stand up for what they're saying tear down everything we're trying to do," Delaplain said. |
|
From the Wikipedia page:
Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:
- Directive leadership.
- Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
- Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.
So here we have someone of directive leadership (Geremia) reinforcing the member's ideology (outsiders attacking us), and setting policy prohibiting "outside sources of information and analysis". I'll point out that she has warned the Senate away from Vis Lupi Est Grex on a couple of other occasions as well--this is how groupthink starts. The following is a list of questions and comments possibly indicative of the group attempting to identify outsiders and exclude them from participation (some of these may also be violations of law as well):
2:25Sen. Geramye Teeter asked Day if he had any affiliations with political groups on campus like START. Day answere that he did not.
What in the world does one's political affiliations have to do with the ability to serve as a Senator? This question should NOT have been asked, but it would have been okay for the candidate to volunteer it in his application.
3:38 | Purney said that Day did not have any specific goals. |
3:38 | Kealy said that may be a positve point more than a negative one. |
Kealy thinks it's a positive that the candidate not have specific goals. From a groupthink analysis, it is because that candidate does not present a threat to the group dynamic. Think about it.
3:48 | Purney said Thornley "tends to pick fights on the Internet," and that could be his downfall. |
Gracie Geremia picks more fights on the internet than any other public official I have met in four years of school at UNR, and she is Speaker of the Senate. Senator Purney also has a bit of a reputation for scrapping online. I think the subtext is actually that Thornley tends to argue positions threatening to the group's ideology and cohesion.
3:53 | Hernandez said that Thornley's negative comments on the Sagebrush message boards might reflect poorly on the senate as a whole. "From a P.R. standpoint, it would not be a good decision for us," she said. |
Does this need a comment?
4:21Sen. Shirley Diaz said the senate should keep in mind that the students did not vote Sadykova into the senate.
As if 90% of the voters actually understood who they were voting for in COLA. This criticism is hard to take seriously.
4:23Sen. Lea Moser said Gelmsted's age should be kept into account.
"She's old enough to be a grad student," she said.
This is the original comment that got me thinking there was a groupthink problem. First of all, this is illegal as hell, and if I were Ms. Gelmsted, I'd find it worth my time to stop in and talk to ASUN Legal Services about filing a complaint or suit. Second, the campus is composed of all sorts of students and it's rare for non-traditional students to be represented. I can only think of a couple Senators in the past four years older than 25. Ms. Moser seems to believe that older students should not be on the Senate. I pray that Ms. Moser stays way the hell away from any diversity initiatives. I have to give half a point to Senator Kealy for saying her age could be a strength, but I have to dock half a point for not reminding the Senate that considering the candidate's age is ILLEGAL.
4:54The fact that Gelmstead lives in Fernley has been raised as an issue. Some senators feel that the distance might affect her ability to get to meetings.
I don't know who said that, but I don't see why Ms. Gelmstead's distance from campus should be a factor in her ability to serve. Whoever said this is grasping at straws for reasons not to appoint this candidate.
I hope there are a few Senators able to recognize the signs of groupthink, and who push for the Senate's leaders to take steps to counter the effects. Otherwise, we could be looking at a repeat of last year.
Read more...
UPDATED: Undistinguished omission
Updated on May 6, 2009 at 3:35 p.m.
The Sagebrush published the corrected list on their website. Our compliments to the Sagebrush for correcting this error.
This isn't exactly relevant to anything ASUN, but it deserves attention.
In today's print edition of the Nevada Sagebrush is the list graduates for the spring commencement. There's just one, slightly embarrassing omission: apparently no one from the College of Business Administration is graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree. Well, at least according to the Sagebrush.
Sagebrush Grad 09
This is the same "newspaper" that incorrectly reported today that the Nevada Legislature must adjourn by June 4. That comes as news to everybody working at the Legislature who know sine die must come on June 1. Of course, had the reporter, who in this case was the paper's editor in chief, Nick Coltrain, committed the journalistic sin of fact checking his story by looking at the Legislature's Web site, he would've learned his reporting was in error.
Just another fine example of the kind of "journalism" that the Sagebrush practices. Good thing the Coltrain era is coming to a close and the Fryman era is just beginning. Come on Sagebrush, these types of mistakes are supposed to be left to the ASUN Senate...you're making them look good.
The Sagebrush published the corrected list on their website. Our compliments to the Sagebrush for correcting this error.
This isn't exactly relevant to anything ASUN, but it deserves attention.
In today's print edition of the Nevada Sagebrush is the list graduates for the spring commencement. There's just one, slightly embarrassing omission: apparently no one from the College of Business Administration is graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree. Well, at least according to the Sagebrush.
Sagebrush Grad 09
This is the same "newspaper" that incorrectly reported today that the Nevada Legislature must adjourn by June 4. That comes as news to everybody working at the Legislature who know sine die must come on June 1. Of course, had the reporter, who in this case was the paper's editor in chief, Nick Coltrain, committed the journalistic sin of fact checking his story by looking at the Legislature's Web site, he would've learned his reporting was in error.
Just another fine example of the kind of "journalism" that the Sagebrush practices. Good thing the Coltrain era is coming to a close and the Fryman era is just beginning. Come on Sagebrush, these types of mistakes are supposed to be left to the ASUN Senate...you're making them look good.
Read more...
Driving ASUN Policy
This is just too great to pass up:
Nevada Sagebrush ASUN Blog 5/6/2009Thanks Director Delaplain! :-) We'll have further comments later.
2:01:
Delaplain said accusations from anonymous sources, such as the blog Vis Lupi Est Grex, cannot be allowed to drive ASUN policy.
2:01:
"We can't let people who lack the courage to stand up for what they're saying tear down everything we're trying to do," Delaplain said.
2:02:
Speaker Geremia, as part of her report, echoed Delaplain's statements and said the senate would no longer allow anonymous statements to be read into the record.
2:03:
Geremia cited her authority to recognize speakers as giving her the ability to make such a restriction.
Read more...
Some insight for Insight
Apparently Insight Magazine is hiring...
The Senate even had to write a resolution recognizing the error and urging them to apologize to their victims. (Still hasn't happen) So if you lack journalistic integrity, don't know the difference between Pi Kappa Phi and Pi Kappa Alpha, we encourage you to apply! But just watch out, you might not have any funding.
PS: The Sagebrush still hasn't put ANYTHING on their website about missing an entire college's graduates... We're waiting.
Update: The Sagebrush has published a corrected list. See our update here.
Want to get published in a magazine? Have experience with Flash, InDesign and/or Photoshop and want to put your skills to the test? Apply for a staff position at Insight Magazine, the only student-run magazine at the University of Nevada, Reno. Visit Insight's Web site and download the application PDF. All applications are due to the editor no later than May 14th at 5 p.m. Any questions can be directed to Dana Kudelka at editor@unrinsight.com."If you remember this is the publication that tried to pass off poor editing, poor writing, poor research, and poor judgment as simply a "typo."
The Senate even had to write a resolution recognizing the error and urging them to apologize to their victims. (Still hasn't happen) So if you lack journalistic integrity, don't know the difference between Pi Kappa Phi and Pi Kappa Alpha, we encourage you to apply! But just watch out, you might not have any funding.
PS: The Sagebrush still hasn't put ANYTHING on their website about missing an entire college's graduates... We're waiting.
Update: The Sagebrush has published a corrected list. See our update here.
Read more...
Liberal Arts Job Interview: Procedure and Stuff
We sent this e-mail to the candidates for the open Senate seat. We're republishing it here so everything is on the up-and-up.
One thing that needs to be clarified, when I stated by ballot, I really meant to say by roll call vote. The roll of Senators would be called, and the Senators would respond by giving the name of the candidate of their choice. It should be handled the same way as the election for Speaker was handled.
Dear Candidates:
I thought it would be a good idea to inform you of your rights tomorrow under the Senate's Rules and the Nevada Open Meeting Law, since it is doubtful anyone else would do so. Also, I'll briefly explain what you can expect. I provide you with this information so you are properly armed with the tools necessary to stand up for your own interests, because no one else will.
Under the Rules of the Senate and the Senate's parliamentary authority, it takes a majority of the votes cast to be appointed to the vacant seat. That is the only relevant provision in the rules and parliamentary practice governing the appointment to a vacant seat.
Because there are multiple candidates, the Senate will likely proceed by ballot, much in the same way they did for selecting a Speaker. (This is opposed to considering a resolution making an appointment when there is only one applicant, because only an up or down vote is required on one candidate. The person is either in or not.) The candidate with a majority of the votes wins. If no candidate has a majority after the first round of balloting, the Senate continues balloting until it either makes a selection or decides to keep the seat vacant so as to receive more applicants for the seat, but either must be by majority vote. The rules do not authorize dropping the candidate with the fewest votes in each round of balloting, but a may voluntarily withdraw his or her name from consideration, but the Senate is not obligated to acknowledge the request for withdrawl. It would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law for the Senate to change the rules or adopt different rules at the meeting.
The Senate is bound by the terms of the Nevada Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of NRS). In fact, if the Senate violates that law, senators found guilty of knowingly violating the law can be removed from office and have a disciplinary note placed in their transcripts.
Among the many provisions of the law is the requirement that the Senate must provide, and you are entitled to receive, written notice of tomorrow's meeting by either 21 days' notice by certified mail or 5 days' notice by personal service (NRS 241.033(2)). In fact, if you have not received notice by either method, the Senate cannot proceed with the selection tomorrow, unless you voluntarily waive your right to such notice. You are under no obligation to waive your right to this notice, and it would be improper for the Senate to condition consideration on your waiver of notice.
If you are unable to attend the meeting for any reason, have not received notice of the meeting as is required by law, and have not waived your right to such notice, we strongly suggest you contact the Speaker of the Senate to object to the Senate proceeding with selecting a candidate. If they do anyway, you would have grounds to file a complaint against the Senate for violating your rights under the Open Meeting Law.
Further, under NRS 241.030(4)(e), the Senate may not close the meeting. That means they cannot exclude you from the meeting. Typically, the Senate will request candidates to leave the room during the consideration of the other candidates, but you are under no legal obligation to do so.
The candidate who is duly selected will then be administered the oath of office, as is required by the Constitution and the ASUN law. After taking the oath, you will be a member of the 77th Session of the ASUN Senate.
Those are your rights under the Senate's Rules and the Open Meeting Law and what you can expect tomorrow as far as procedure goes. If you have any questions that I can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact me through this e-mail address.
I wish you the best of luck tomorrow!
Best regards,
Lupus (The Wolf)
~Vis Lupi Est Grex~
The Strength of the Wolf is the Pack
http://vislupiestgrex.blogspot.com
vislupiestgrex@gmail.com
One thing that needs to be clarified, when I stated by ballot, I really meant to say by roll call vote. The roll of Senators would be called, and the Senators would respond by giving the name of the candidate of their choice. It should be handled the same way as the election for Speaker was handled.
Read more...
First One Hundredth Post!
A little more than three months (three months and 3 days, to be exact) after our first post on February 4, 2009, this post celebrates our 100th post. In celebration of our 100th post, we wanted to share with you some statistics about our humble little blog which we believe has become the most read blog for all things ASUN.
Since we created this blog (excluding its authors):
Considering our subject matter is quite specialized and localized, we think it's tremendous the number of readers we do get.
We average about 1 post per day.
We have readers from all over the country, including Bismark, Boston, New York City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Portland, many of whom we assume are former ASUN officers or others interested in ASUN.
The vast majority of our readers use Firefox. Those of you still using IE, time to switch.
The plurality (not majority) of our readers stay for more than one hour.
So here's to our first 100 posts and to our next 100!
Since we created this blog (excluding its authors):
- 7,720 page views
- 84 average per day
- 3,992 unique visitors
- 43 average per day
- 1,972 returning visitors
- 21 average per day
Considering our subject matter is quite specialized and localized, we think it's tremendous the number of readers we do get.
We average about 1 post per day.
We have readers from all over the country, including Bismark, Boston, New York City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Portland, many of whom we assume are former ASUN officers or others interested in ASUN.
The vast majority of our readers use Firefox. Those of you still using IE, time to switch.
The plurality (not majority) of our readers stay for more than one hour.
So here's to our first 100 posts and to our next 100!
Read more...
Is Our Senators Learning: Cause and Effect, Separation of Powers, and Verbs
In this edition of Is Our Senators Learning, we explore cause and effect, the separation of powers doctrine, and, everyone's favorite topic, bill drafting. But first, our executive summary.
Executive Summary
As we explained back in this post, the Senate did not adopt a proper resolution adopting the rules of the Senate. To refresh your memory, this is what a proper rules resolution would have said.
This is what they actually passed.
At the time, we ignored the language stating "including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate." Today we're going to explain the effect of that language.
Rules May Exist Outside of the Rules
Previously we have explained that there may be reasons for putting provisions that are basically rules of the Senate into public law, such as permanence beyond a session, to make them harder to amend, etc. However, just because those rules are in statute doesn't mean that they automatically have effect beyond a session of the Senate. The Senate's constitutional power in Article II, section 2(c) of the ASUN Constitution to adopt rules is exclusive and absolute. "The Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings." The power is exclusive in that it belongs to the Senate and only the Senate. Thus, even though the Senate may have enacted them into law, the Senate can change the rules without passing a new law. When a rule is in law, that law constitutes a rule. That is why it was critically important for the Senate to use the specific language in the model resolution.
There are examples of the Senate adopting things in other resolutions, that do not amend the codified Rules, that also constitute a rule of the Senate. An example of that is S. Res. 75-29 (which was subsequently amended). That resolution created an Interim Committee of the Senate. It looks like a rule, smells like a rule, etc., but it is not included in the Rules of the Senate. Don't believe us? Do a search for "interim" in the codified rules.
Resolutions do not have permanence beyond a session of the Senate. What the 75th Session adopts has no effect in the 76th Session, unless the 76th Session readopts those provisions. Thus, that is why a proper resolution adopting rules includes the language "including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate." What that means is, the stuff that constitutes rules that we put elsewhere besides the codified Rules, that stuff is effective during the 77th Session.
Because the Senate did not readopt that stuff, there is no Interim Committee. And because this item is not on today's Senate agenda, they cannot pass a resolution recreating the committee, unless the senators want to violate the Open Meeting Law. Cause and effect: because the Senate did not adopt a proper resolution, the Interim Committee no longer exists.
When A Bill Amends Law, Have It Say That
Today the Senate is scheduled to consider a bill that putatively amends ASUN Public Law 75-7 to add a duty to the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations (PAPCR). Before mentioning the merit of such a change in duties, first the language of the bill.
The title should also be rephrased. Bill titles typically are phrased in infinitive form (e.g. to amend, to establish, to provide, etc.) Thus, the title of this bill should probably read "To amend ASUN Public Law 75-7 to expand the duties of the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations."
One more thing, is there is a reason the reports and bills aren't being numbered? Is it really that hard to assign a serial number (starting from #1) based on the order in which the various documents are filed? We know the 76th Session had that particular counting deficit, but you guys too?!
One last thing, there is a specific hierarchy to bills. This style was consistently used during the 75th Session. Section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clause, subclause, item, subitem--thus...
Sec. 402. THIS IS A SECTION.
(a) This is a subsection.
(1) This is a paragraph.
(A) This is a subparagraph.
(i) This is a clause.
(I) This is a subclause.
(aa) This is an item.
(AA) This is a subitem.
Notice that each level in the hierarchy is enumerated with a different style:
Separation of Powers and the PAPCR
Surprisingly, this is something the Government Operations Committee has already noticed in its report: this bill likely violates the separation of powers doctrine. The Committee states, "The Committee on Government Operations...questions the idea of giving an executive position additional duty which lies in the Legislative Branch."
Good job, Committee! So then why didn't you kill this bill in committee? Executive branch officers work for the executive branch. To be subject to two masters, the Senate and the President, would be a bad idea. For that reason alone, if this bill should pass, the President should veto it. His officers should work for him and the government (the executive branch), not for anybody else.
We also note that the Committee recommends an amendment. This is interesting because in original legislation reported from committee (meaning it came straight from committee without being introduced and read the first time in the Senate and referred), there cannot be any amendments. What the committee orders reported to the Senate gets sent to the Senate. Thus, if the Committee amended that language in the bill before reporting it, that language should be carried in the bill.
Of course the senators wouldn't know anything about this form and process stuff because nobody is teaching it to them, not to mention that their so-called advisers are not capable of teaching it.
So far, are senators does not seam to be learnings much. Of course, our expert bill drafters would be willing to assist the senators, but we can't force it upon them. All we can do is write about it here and hope it benefits someone.
Executive Summary
- Because the Senators did not pass a proper resolution adopting rules, the Interim Committee does not exist.
- Senate Bill No. 77-[???] violates the separation of powers doctrine.
- The same bill does not actually amend ASUN Public Law 75-7.
As we explained back in this post, the Senate did not adopt a proper resolution adopting the rules of the Senate. To refresh your memory, this is what a proper rules resolution would have said.
Resolved,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.
This is what they actually passed.
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.
At the time, we ignored the language stating "including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate." Today we're going to explain the effect of that language.
Rules May Exist Outside of the Rules
Previously we have explained that there may be reasons for putting provisions that are basically rules of the Senate into public law, such as permanence beyond a session, to make them harder to amend, etc. However, just because those rules are in statute doesn't mean that they automatically have effect beyond a session of the Senate. The Senate's constitutional power in Article II, section 2(c) of the ASUN Constitution to adopt rules is exclusive and absolute. "The Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings." The power is exclusive in that it belongs to the Senate and only the Senate. Thus, even though the Senate may have enacted them into law, the Senate can change the rules without passing a new law. When a rule is in law, that law constitutes a rule. That is why it was critically important for the Senate to use the specific language in the model resolution.
There are examples of the Senate adopting things in other resolutions, that do not amend the codified Rules, that also constitute a rule of the Senate. An example of that is S. Res. 75-29 (which was subsequently amended). That resolution created an Interim Committee of the Senate. It looks like a rule, smells like a rule, etc., but it is not included in the Rules of the Senate. Don't believe us? Do a search for "interim" in the codified rules.
Resolutions do not have permanence beyond a session of the Senate. What the 75th Session adopts has no effect in the 76th Session, unless the 76th Session readopts those provisions. Thus, that is why a proper resolution adopting rules includes the language "including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate." What that means is, the stuff that constitutes rules that we put elsewhere besides the codified Rules, that stuff is effective during the 77th Session.
Because the Senate did not readopt that stuff, there is no Interim Committee. And because this item is not on today's Senate agenda, they cannot pass a resolution recreating the committee, unless the senators want to violate the Open Meeting Law. Cause and effect: because the Senate did not adopt a proper resolution, the Interim Committee no longer exists.
When A Bill Amends Law, Have It Say That
Today the Senate is scheduled to consider a bill that putatively amends ASUN Public Law 75-7 to add a duty to the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations (PAPCR). Before mentioning the merit of such a change in duties, first the language of the bill.
A BillAside from the enacting clause not being in the proper form--"students" should be capitalized--(yes, that is in law), the bill does not amend the law. The bill must be drafted in the present tense (i.e. "the ABC Act is amended by..."). Thus, a properly drafted bill would say, after the enacting clause
Expanding the duties of the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations; Amending Public Law 75-7.
Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated students,
Amending Public Law 75-7 Sec.402 , by inserting line I after line h, “i.) To be a public and media relations advisor to the Speaker of the Senate and all Committee Chairpersons.”
Section 402 of ASUN Public Law 75-7 is amended by adding at the end the following:Instead of saying "inserting," the word "adding" is used, but only when something is being inserted at the end of something else. To insert implies putting it in between something; to add implies putting it at the end. And yes, that double period at the end of the sentence is proper. The period on the inside of the closing quotation mark indicates to include a period to the language that is being added by the amendment. The period mark on the outside of the quotation mark indicates that is the end of the sentence beginning with "Section 402...". Bills must be drafted in incredibly literal terms. No period within the quoted material, no period gets enacted into law.
"(i) To be a public and media relations advisor to the Speaker of the Senate and all Committee Chairpersons.".
The title should also be rephrased. Bill titles typically are phrased in infinitive form (e.g. to amend, to establish, to provide, etc.) Thus, the title of this bill should probably read "To amend ASUN Public Law 75-7 to expand the duties of the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations."
One more thing, is there is a reason the reports and bills aren't being numbered? Is it really that hard to assign a serial number (starting from #1) based on the order in which the various documents are filed? We know the 76th Session had that particular counting deficit, but you guys too?!
One last thing, there is a specific hierarchy to bills. This style was consistently used during the 75th Session. Section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clause, subclause, item, subitem--thus...
Sec. 402. THIS IS A SECTION.
(a) This is a subsection.
(1) This is a paragraph.
(A) This is a subparagraph.
(i) This is a clause.
(I) This is a subclause.
(aa) This is an item.
(AA) This is a subitem.
Notice that each level in the hierarchy is enumerated with a different style:
- Subsections are enumerated with lowercased alpha characters.
- Paragraphs are enumerated with Arabic numerals.
- Subparagraphs are enumerated with uppercased alpha characters.
- Clauses are enumerated with lowercased Roman numerals.
- Subclauses are enumerated with uppercased Roman numerals.
- Items are enumerated with doubled lowercased alpha characters.
- Subitems are enumerated with doubled uppercased alpha characters.
Separation of Powers and the PAPCR
Surprisingly, this is something the Government Operations Committee has already noticed in its report: this bill likely violates the separation of powers doctrine. The Committee states, "The Committee on Government Operations...questions the idea of giving an executive position additional duty which lies in the Legislative Branch."
Good job, Committee! So then why didn't you kill this bill in committee? Executive branch officers work for the executive branch. To be subject to two masters, the Senate and the President, would be a bad idea. For that reason alone, if this bill should pass, the President should veto it. His officers should work for him and the government (the executive branch), not for anybody else.
We also note that the Committee recommends an amendment. This is interesting because in original legislation reported from committee (meaning it came straight from committee without being introduced and read the first time in the Senate and referred), there cannot be any amendments. What the committee orders reported to the Senate gets sent to the Senate. Thus, if the Committee amended that language in the bill before reporting it, that language should be carried in the bill.
Of course the senators wouldn't know anything about this form and process stuff because nobody is teaching it to them, not to mention that their so-called advisers are not capable of teaching it.
So far, are senators does not seam to be learnings much. Of course, our expert bill drafters would be willing to assist the senators, but we can't force it upon them. All we can do is write about it here and hope it benefits someone.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
