Vis Lupi Est Grex

Maybe they should take that recess over the summer. Less for them to screw up when they're not meeting.

You guys are right. I'll email the speaker and urge her to cancel.

To be fair, a mistake with NOML happens every session. As long as they cancel, no harm, no foul. The only problem is that if they have to reschedule for next week they may not be able to make quorum. I don't think anon's comment of "less for them to screw-up when they're not meeting" isn't fair because at this point the 77th session has not made a large enough error for us to have lost all faith in them. However, if they blatantly ignore the mistake and have the meetings anyway I'm sure a maelstorm of consequences will come down on them for knowningly violating the law.

It only matters that the PHYSICAL postings are on time. The website does not count as a posting.

Actually,

That's a novel concept.

NRS 241.020(4) reads as follows:

"If a public body maintains a website on the Internet or its successor, the public body shall post notice of each of its meetings on its website unless the public body is unable to do so because of technical problems relating to the operation or maintenance of its website. Notice posted pursuant to this subsection is supplemental to and is not a substitute for the minimum public notice required pursuant to subsection 3."

The website does count as a posting. The law says so right there. It is a posting in addition to physical posting. The real question is whether time deadline for physical postings, contained NRS 241.020(3)(a), apply to supplemental Internet postings.

I would argue yes. The fact that Internet posting is supplemental to physical posting suggests that the same rules for posting of notice were to apply, namely that they be posted in a timely manner if the public body maintains a website. Also, if Internet posting is required (for those bodies with websites) but timeliness is not, you'd create an absurdity in interpreting the law.

The practice of the ASUN Senate has been to cancel meetings when Internet postings were not done in a timely manner. I see no reason to depart from that reasonable practice.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the notices do not have to be posted in a timely manner, only that they be posted before the meeting occurs. Well, as you point out, the physical posting locations still count and still must be posted in time.

According to the metadata of the files posted to the website, the files themselves weren't created until after the 9 a.m. posting deadline on Thursday, May 21. How exactly do you post a document in a timely manner that hasn't been created yet?

The fact that the files were not created until after the posting deadline is proof that the physical notices themselves were not posted on time. Thus, there are no reasonable grounds, legally defensible or otherwise, for proceeding with these meetings.

Orovada,

I agree that these kinds of mistakes happen every session. However, I'd submit that these mistakes are happening sooner and with more frequency than has been the case in the past.

I think things may actually be worse for this session than past sessions. First, they have the benefit of knowing history. This blog has been a resource in pointing out bad practices and how to correct them. The fact that there is instruction--albeit not from their advisers but instruction nonetheless--makes it less justifiable that they are making mistakes.

Second, the Speaker is an incumbent. She was also a committee chair last session. It may be understandable and excusable for a novice chair to be making errors, but not for a veteran officer.

Third, the fact that the Senate is under charges for violating the OML should make everyone more cautious about not committing further violations. There should be a concerted effort to learn the law, its requirements, and now to apply it to the real-world scenarios that the Senate confronts. There are plenty of knowledgeable individuals around offering assistance, including the members of this blog. The senators have yet to avail themselves of that assistance. They do so at their own peril.

Given those reasons, I argue it is worse for the members of this session to be violating the law than it was for past sessions to have done so.

I would say that Lupus is half right on the point about instances of errors. Usually the Speaker and at least one chair make an agenda error before the summer session. But like he said, this is one of the easiest things to fix, just don't hold the meeting.

If Speaker Geremia holds either meeting (Senate or Oversight) she should be replaced.

By the way, make sure when you cancel the meeting, you put the fact it is canceled on the Website and on the agendas around campus so that your notifying people that it isn't happening. I don't think it's in law anywhere, but it's polite. And that way if you get sued later, you can show that you canceled the meeting and no violation occurred.

I would argue that in the past no one really cared....i don't think it is growing problem within ASUN; it's simply that someone decided to give a shit. i'm sure even the beloved 75th session had posting errors or violations of OML; it's just there wasn't a bunch of thornies to point it out.

No offense thorny i just use you as a scale of how much i dislike people-1 thorny = good person, 10 thornies = Eric Thorny.

Maybe in the past the people watching were more altruistic who cared about the overall purpose of ASUN "to serve the studemts" and whether or not they were fufilling that goal instead of the stupid stuff like whether or not the oaths were done on magic parchment paper.

Next hot topic: Were all oaths signed on the magic ten dollar per leaf parchment paper? VLEG-I'm dying for an answer!

lol. Super, duper, magic parchment? No. I'd just care that the oaths were subscribed to at all.

Anonymous.

Let's go over my name, just in case that you don't know.

Repeat each letter after me.

E
R
I
C

E-R-I-C

T
H
O
R
N
L
E
Y

T-H-O-R-N-L-E-Y

It is of English origin, unfortunately.

You get a "F" for the day.

"i'm sure even the beloved 75th session had posting errors or violations of OML; it's just there wasn't a bunch of thornies to point it out."

There were plenty of "thornies" during the 75th, from the Sagebrush to the Pack Patriot. Maybe its that those involved took the time to become familiar with the law and tried to contain violations before they became material for public fodder.

I completely apologize. It was a honest mistake and I should have realized this considering when encountered the same problem during winter Interim.

The agendas (Senate and Oversight) have been posted for the date we originally scheduled for, Wednesday, June 3rd.

Sincerely,

Gracie Geremia
speaker@asun.unr.edu

Wait, I am confused...

So this is a mistake by the Speaker, right?

So then why are we criticizing the whole Senate body? And why is this indicative of mass failure?

Can someone explain the logic?

Also, in regards to the charges, by reading this blog, it is apparent they are being filed against Speaker Geremia and the 76th session. Again, how is that relevant to the entire body?

With respect to the Oversight and Senate meetings, yes, this was an error by the Speaker.

The reason the Senate gets criticized as a whole is it is responsible under the Open Meeting Law for making sure its meetings are being held properly. Both an individual officer and the body as a whole are liable for violating the Open Meeting Law. The body is held liable by declaring any actions taken in violation of the law void. An officer is held liable by removing her from office if she is found guilty of knowingly violating the law.

Although you are correct that the 76th Session no longer exists, the body continues to exist as an entity that can be complained against under the Open Meeting Law. The Senate didn't disappear just because the session changed.

This is indicative of mass failure because the problems keep occurring, even after they are pointed out, and they seem to be more frequent and occur earlier than has been the case in the past.

I take full responsibility for the violations of NOML during the 77th session (or near violations, in this case). However, the charges against the 76th session are an entirely different matter that I will not speak on behalf of and are something that is being heavily investigated.

But Lupus, the problem was averted. How does that reflect badly on the 77th session when it was Geremia's issue. SOMEONE must have realized it broke the law and then gotten her to change the date. So again, how does that relfect poorly?

And I am not saying that the 76th session doesn't exist so there problems dont either. I am concerned as to how the charges against the 76th are relevant to the current session.

And as far as I can tell, this is the first time the 77th almost broke OML. However, THEY DIDNT.

If you want to find specific evidence that shows a clear increase in mistakes and problems arising from the current session as opposed to previous ones, then maybe I won't dismiss your argument as bias and illogical.

This blog is starting to let me down. The actual post was exactly what it should be. But the Speaker's mistake (which was corrected) is not indicative of a mass failure of the 77th session. Especially because no laws were broken. I just dont get it.

P.S. The University Affairs meeting has also been canceled, due to another honest mistake.

Please feel free to contact the Oversight Committee or the Senate, as a whole, if you have any further concerns or issues to address.

Greg,

It's the fact that an experienced incumbent is making these mistakes--honest as they may be--that is of concern. The kinds of errors that are happening usually do not happen until the turn of the year.

For example, the April 22, 2009 meeting was noticed to occur in 2008 (Case No. AN-001). This was an error Geremia allegedly made. That kind of error--including the wrong year on the agenda--does not usually happen until January, when it could be easy to overlook changing the year. That kind of mistake happening in April is troubling, especially when you take into consideration it was a veteran ASUN officer who allegedly made the mistake. the point you made about these recent concerns being the first time the "77th almost broke OML" is just simply false.

One of the cases that has been filed against the Senate (same case cited above) is that they do not post agendas in enough physical locations to satisfy the law. This is easy to fix: just start posting agendas in another location.

Another case (AN-002) challenges whether the agenda items comply with the clear and complete agenda requirement of the law. These kinds of errors are still being made on a regular basis. Again, easy to fix. The chairs need to educate themselves about what the clear and complete standard is and how to apply it.

Another complaint (AN-004) challenges whether the minutes of meetings are sufficient to satisfy the standard in law that the minutes reflect the substance of what was proposed, discussed, or decided at a meeting. This falls mostly on the secretary, but the Senate has a responsibility to ensure the records of its proceedings are clear and complete. Again, this is a matter of properly training the secretary.

Yet another complaint (AN-005) alleges that minutes of several meetings are missing. This is more likely to happen at the committee level. This is a matter of following up on officers to make sure records are being kept.

I can assure you that there are deficiencies in practically everything the Senate does. Should we be as harsh on them because they're new at this? Perhaps not. But when one of the officers involved is an incumbent, many of these errors are inexcusable.

This Senate also has the benefit of history. As the Sagebrush editorialized about back in April, all the 77th Session should need to do is look at how the 76th Session did it as an example of what not to do.

You are correct, the problem was averted. But that is probably the case only because of this blog. I don't say this to sound egotistical, but what was the series of events that led to these meetings being canceled? Was it being investigated internally or was it this blog that pointed out the problems? The someone who pointed it out was probably this blog, but we will likely never know for sure.

It's admirable that mistakes are caught and corrected before meetings are held in violation of the law. So how do we keep these mistakes from happening again?

What I am saying is this:

Your fight is with Geremia on this one. Attack her stupidity. Attack her for making novice mistakes. But don't spin a problem with Gracie into a problem with the 77th. It isn't becoming on you.

As much as I admire the fact that this blog caught the error, the person who notified me was not an author of this blog. Furthermore, I appreciate being notified of this mistake, as I was not in town and not thinking about it, in all honesty. I can assure you that the committee chairs and myself have a lot more knowledge on NOML, senate rules, public laws, etc than was ever taught to us in the transition last year (76th session). Many of the cases are in direct reference to the mistakes of the 76th session, most of them, in fact. While I can't promise you that this session won't make mistakes, I can promise you that we will work hard to fix those mistakes, learn from them, and always keep in mind that we represent the interests of the undergraduate student population, which is of utmost importance to this session. I beg of you to give the 77th session a chance, come talk to the senators personally (I've never seen a body so motivated), come to committee and Senate meetings, or directly contact your representatives, as we would love to work with all undergraduate students to diminish apathy and represent NEVADA well.

Its funny how some people get upset when a little sunshine is poured on them.

and when is this censor coming off its not as fun when you can't respond immediatly...

DOT,
Just as soon as you learn to be civil in your comments.

Haha, ok, if only civil was required in reality, until then, censor away. It might be because people actually agree with my comments that they aren't being posted.