Proper Process

In a recent post, I asked the following in a rhetorical manner:

"Can the President of the Association present to the Board of Regents on behalf of ASUN, a proposal to add a $10 fee for a writing center and on-campus performing arts without any apparent authority granted by the senate (see the Sagebrush report)?"

President Reilly admitted he did as much last night during an ASUN committee meeting.

This is a slap in the face to pretty much every student and senator on campus. The senate is doing a good job enforcing it's prerogative despite the president's insistence that this be reviewed quickly, and his apparent presumption.

I hope the senate will do its due diligence on this one. Speaker Geremia should (too late for next week) direct more than one committee to look at the bill. Each committee should do its best to engage students. Academics should be looking at the proposal for the tutoring fee. Campus Community and/or University Affairs could be looking at the fine arts fee. Budget and Finance could be analyzing President Reilly's figures to try and understand why what today costs $1.6 million will next year cost $1.8 million. Public Affairs has an obvious role in analyzing any fee increase.

The committees should also get administrators from student services to opine, in public, on the creation of a new, expensive and fairly large department.

Why is Director Rodriguez not being up front with her opinion? Where do Doctors Marczynski and Ellis stand on this question?

There are so many questions that need to be asked for the students to be able to analyze this proposal in its entirety.

Do not allow a false timeline to goad you into making a hasty decision. This proposal does have the potential to help our campus maintain many services students seem to want (e.g., free/subsidized tutoring, the math and writing centers). It also has the potential to double expenditures on programming and open new opportunities for campus publication and dialogue. But in no way does the handful of people one man spoke to constitute grounds for implementing this proposal.

Take your time, take a month if you need to. If this really does have the potential to change the face of this campus as President Reilly claims, whether it is implemented in 2010 or 2011 is of secondary concern.

Tell me which law....

Before the Senate invests too much energy on Joint Vision 2017, it might want to take notice of all of ASUN's structure and operational realities that--ahem--are not enacted into ASUN law. Inkblot? Nope. Legal Services? Barely. ASUN Advertising? Nah ah. The beast that is the "administrative operation" of ASUN? Not a word. Campus Escort? Sorry. ASUN's relationship with publications? No. Not important.

The fact of the matter is very little of what ASUN is and does is codified into statute law passed by the Senate. The consequences? Well, the Senate has pretty much no control over what a unit does once the Senate hands out money to the unit. The best example is Inkblot. Over the years it has been a chameleon, constantly changing its color to suit the needs of one ASUN presidential administration after another. When I began taking notice of ASUN in 2004, Inkblot was fully open for use by clubs. By 2007, it was practically an exclusive publicity arm of ASUN. And not a single word from the Senate dictated that policy shift. And the consequences are even more grave than just the Senate not having control.

Continuing our example, since no law explicitly establishes Inkblot, arguably spending money on it is not legal, as framed under ASUN's Constitution and budget laws. A student literally could file a complaint with the Judicial Council citing this fact, and the Council would probably rule that Inkblot has no basis in law, and therefore it is not legal to spend money on that program. See where I am going with this? Extrapolate that ruling out to every other ASUN program and service that was never established by the Senate, or at least never had the current establishments and practices codified into current law, and you've got one hell of a disaster. We started placing the current structures into law right after the new constitution took effect in 2007, but it never got finished (sorry, guys, but the senators of the 75th Session and I are not gods). There just wasn't enough time and other things took priority. Of course, there's nothing preventing the Senate from picking up where we left off.

The implications in light of Joint Vision 2017

ASUN President Eli Reilly's Joint Vision document (narrative and fees proposal) will necessitate many structural changes in ASUN. Ideally, these changes would be accompanied with implementing legislation so it is absolutely clear what the Senate intends to change and how. One example: programming. Under JV 2017, the programming for the major university weeks (Welcome Week, Homecoming, and Mackay Week) would no longer be within the purview of the elected student government. That's right, it's handed over completely to unelected, unaccountable employees of Student Activities. But wait? We have this fantastic homecoming department just for homecoming and a programming department for everything else that already exists in ASUN. It's in the ASUN law. The Senate has spoken, and the law is the law. Well, until the Senate fixes that conflict, should the plan come to pass, there'd be two groups on campus responsible for programming the exact same event. Problem? Just a little.

But the administrators like having little in law. Less accountability when no written document states what the expectations and limitations are. If you can't point to a written standard of conduct, it's hard to argue someone isn't doing his or her job. Also, each time the Senate writes a law defining how the business of ASUN is to be run, the administrators throw up their hands in protest, arguing that the Senate is infringing on their abilities to conduct business. I call bullshit. That's exactly what a legislature should be doing. This is the table of contents for the Nevada Revised Statutes. All of that law comes from the legislature. Almost all of the law defines how the government and persons and entities within Nevada should do things. The ASUN Senate should endeavor to do the exact same thing, on a much smaller scale, of course.

Joint Vision 2017 may have merit, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking the Senate's work is done when it disposes of this plan by non-binding resolution, which I might add is very vague and poorly written.

The debate is widespread

This debate has sparked widespread discontent among the student body, and even the graduates for the portion of the fee they would be subject to. Below are some links to some of the more interesting sources.

• The Nevada Sagebrush, Senate and University Affairs Committee meeting live blog, October 28, 2009
  
• Get Informed on JV 2017 facebook group
• Graduate Student Association Blog, "New Student Fee Proposal & Activities for Grads"

Be Informed? We couldn't agree more.

"Be Informed on Joint Vision 2017," is the word making its way around facebook. Mostly it's people affiliated with ASUN who are spreading the word. For as important as they think it is for the public of ASUN to be informed, it doesn't matter nearly as much as those who will actually have a vote: the senators on University Affairs first, then perhaps the full Senate, should the proposal not die in committee. But we couldn't agree more. The senators need to be informed, but not just about this plan.

Also, let's be fully honest here. Saying that the Joint Vision 2017 document is "a proposal for what the Association would like to see happen by the year 2017" is just a flatout falsehood. More accurately, it's a proposal that ASUN President Eli Reilly has signed on to that reflects what the University administration, particularly those under Shannon Ellis in Student Services, wants to see happen. Does this plan really serve the students' interests? $1.125 million for a "Student Activities department," which is essentially a bureaucratic duplication of ASUN in the first place? Yeah, sounds like tons of value to the average student just trying to get through college to meet that oh-so-awesome job market that waits beyond.

This plan is wide, complicated, and has many implications, most of which I would guess the senators haven't even begun to conceive. Being informed is great. But being afraid at this point is probably far more useful. The senators are no doubt smarter than the average person (they are in a university, aren't they?), but right now they need to be humbled by the fact that what they don't know, and not knowing it (to borrow from the poetry of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld), is dangerous for not only themselves, but for those they represent.

I like it better how Thoreau put it in Walden: "To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." Those who have vested interests in this plan being adopted will stop at nothing to make sure the senators who have the votes never come to know what it is they don't know. We hope to provide a healthy dose of enlightenment and perspective. We don't know everything, but we do know enough to know this plan is another power grab from what is rightfully ASUN's. Okay, enough being philosophical. It gives me a headache.

GSA and the ASUN Bookstore (Or, who'd you say is getting ASUN's money?)

The Associated Students of the University of Nevada, through several complicated relationships, owns the ASUN Bookstore housed in the Joe Crowley Student Union. Memos of understanding and practice indicate that this is the case. ASUN purchased the bookstore in 1951.

The ASUN and the GSA did not always used to exist as separate entitites. In 1952, the graduate students split, establishing the Graduate Student Association (GSA). Unfortunately, the graduate students negelected to realize at the time that they never retained any say over the bookstore when they left. A bad move when you consider how much revenue the bookstore now generates.

Finally realizing their mistake, in 1997 GSA and ASUN entered into a profit sharing agreement regarding the bookstore. The agreement provided that a certain share of the revenue from the bookstore would be provided to GSA based on a formula. The agreement provided that it was up for renewal in five years, and it took the affirmative votes of both the ASUN and GSA legislative branches to effectuate renewal. The agreement was renewed for five years in 2003.

Another five years passed, and during the 75th Session of the ASUN Senate (2007-2008), the agreement was up again for renewal. On April 2, 2008, I introduced a bill to direct the President of ASUN to take any and all action necessary to terminate the agreement. As far as I know, the agreement was never renewed prior to the deadline imposed by the agreement itself. It would have had to come to my committee (Budget and Finance) for a vote, and it never did. Thus, I feel confident in assuming the agreement no longer is legally binding. Therefore, the agreement is void due to its its failure to be renewed.

Knowing that, now I read the Sagebrush, making the astonishing claim in its editorial this week that the GSA still receives money from the ASUN Bookstore. Huh-ba-wha? If that's the case, then I'd like to know how and why GSA has still been receiving money from ASUN's bookstore. This should be the perfect thing for the Budget and Finance Committee to look into while everyone else is worrying about Joint Vision 2017 (and until a couple of the other committees figure out that they have concurrent jurisdiction over Joint Vision, but that might be a little too complicated for right now).

JV 2017 Timeline

I'm going to address a couple of issues President Reilly may be taking license with.

1) “Even when the new student union was built, we didn’t bring that to a student vote,” [Reilly] said.

While true, the proposal for the Union went through two (maybe three) senates where it was a serious issue . There were several surveys over two years engaging several thousand students (sadly I was here to participate in some of those surveys). There were numerous advisory committees on nearly every issue conceivable involving students from across campus. I don't think anything like that has been done this time around.

2) The fee is urgent, Reilly said, because it will bring back tutoring services needed by students on campus and “keep (ASUN) relevant to students.”

Regardless of when the fee is approved (December 2009 or April 2010), if it is approved, it will not be implemented until Fall 2010. Perhaps President Reilly is concerned that the administration and ASUN will need more than three months to do the footwork necessary to implement the changes promised by the fee. I wouldn't be too concerned about the administration, but ASUN might have some problems transitioning over summer. But worry not, ASUN could write up the laws, proposals and ideas necessary to implement the transition before the fee is approved by students, and be prepared if the Regents approve the plan.

Might it be nice to be able to be sure where the fee stands by years end? Yes. Is it necessary? No.

There are few questions I think are a little more important to have answers to. It would be nice to have an understanding of where the student body stands on subsidizing tutoring (predominantly for math, science and engineering lower level classes). It would be nice to know where the student body stands on effectively doubling the budget of ASUN given the nearly 100% increase in fees the student government enjoyed over the past three years. It would be nice to know where the student body stands on creating a new department with a million dollar budget.

See the fee proposal here.

See the narrative proposal here.

The Democratic Process

Can the President of the Association present to the Board of Regents on behalf of ASUN, a proposal to add a $10 fee for a writing center and on-campus performing arts without any apparent authority granted by the senate (see the Sagebrush report)?

The ASUN constitution promises a representative democratic process to the undergraduate populace of the University of Nevada. This democratic process was designed with checks and balances between the branches. The ASUN constitution promises an educational experience for its officers unmatched by almost all other opportunities on our campus. The educational design of ASUN imagines this democratic process, but promises more.

The senate must be more timely and relevant in engaging this president. He has spent his entire college career working on improving this campus (do not read here that you must support him at all times). JV 2017 was in the works for a considerable period of time. The senate had ample opportunity to make an effort to be part of the process. And even when the proposal was finally made public, it has taken the senate nearly a month to get into a committee for review.

At the same time, President Reilly needs to realize his experience lends him a body of knowledge that very few students ever obtain. The ideas he has are the culmination of years of examination. The senators might need to be engaged a little more arduously than in the past to be able to adequately engage in the process. An acceptance of the educational nature of ASUN means a president with Reilly's experience must slow down a little bit to help educate and engage less experienced senators.

The ASUN political and educational process is a dynamical one, requiring both sides. Sometimes that means not doing things as fast as you want. And sometimes it means stepping a little outside of your comfort zone on ideas and issues. For too many years now, I've watched senators play in their own little sandbox and presidents work in theirs. That helps neither group and is antithetical and destructive to all the leaning processes ASUN envisions.

To Fee is to Tax?

A very quick note on the new theory on taxation and the Nevada Open Meeting Law (NOML) floated by Senator Patrick Kealy and the Government Operations committee.

The law in itself is not where ASUN should be looking for provisions regarding application of the law, and I think you're getting tripped up over semantics.

Here's my two cents:

One, the NOML is not directly applicable to ASUN. The only provision of the NOML that concerns the implementation of the law as it regards student governments is:

NRS 241.038 Board of Regents to establish requirements for student governments. The Board of Regents of the University of Nevada shall establish for the student governments within the Nevada System of Higher Education requirements equivalent to those of this chapter and shall provide for their enforcement.

So, we go to Regents Policy (Title 4, Chapter 20(B)(3)). Items 2 and 3 are the clauses of interest:

2. "Student government" means each association of students within the Nevada System of Higher Education whose constitution has been approved by the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education. (B/R 10/91)

3. The meetings of any multi-member executive or legislative body, committee, subcommittee, commission or subsidiary thereof of a student government shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Nevada Open Meeting Law, Chapter 241 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, as amended. (B/R 10/91)

Hopefully this is self-explanatory. It is the Regents Policy that is the relevant policy to look at when determining if ASUN is subject to the provisions of the NOML.

Two,

• ASUN is a (student) government.
• Governments can both tax and charge fees for services rendered.
• A tax is levied to support the general operations of the government.
• A fee is charged in regards to a specific function or service (generally not understood to be the general operation of a government.

Therefore, the "fee" is in fact a tax levied on behalf of the student government by the Board of Regents. So, if the line of reasoning was even applicable to the situation ASUN is in, the logic is flawed.

Executive Branch and the Open Meeting Law

The government operations committee, am I told, is considering a bill to require (a reiteration of the effort made earlier this year, which was previously written on here) the Executive branch to follow the Nevada Open Meeting Law (NOML) [the law; NOML Handbook; Regent's Policy on the NOML as it applies to student governments].

A little under three years ago I sat a table with a handful of senators for three weeks over winter break. During that time, we wrote the constitution now being used by ASUN. One of the issues we spent considerable time debating was how to construct an executive branch in such a way as to obviate the executive branch from having to follow the NOML. This was done for numerous reasons. However, for the sake of brevity, the most important thing to note is that it was done deliberately and with great consideration--as a review of the 74th sessions records would reveal.

What has transpired to transcend or negate the wisdom and consideration of that deliberate change?

Why is the Senate, or members of the Senate, attempting to recreate the meaning of the law? The record is very clear on the intentions of the drafters of the constitution. The record is very clear on the support granted by the 74th Session and by the students of the University that year to the changes . If we can assume the Regents were aware of the changes and the implications of the changes (not an assumption I would make), they and System legal counsel apparently felt the constitution created a government consistent with Regents' policy.

My impression of the debate that is being crafted is the senators are going to law and policy to win their argument. While the law, when combined with Regent's policy, is sufficiently ambiguous to allow them to win, if this contest is to occur, I hope the sponsoring senators have a clear and honest reason for pursuing this change. Especially given the fact that the opposite move was made only three years ago after nearly a year of consideration.

As a side note, the recent expenditure of over $11,000 was accomplished--in concluding a deal outside of the legislative process given untenable time constraints imposed by the NOML--in a manner consistent with the structural changes of the Executive.

Objective Assessment of All Programs...

I would like to applaud President Reilly for striving to create a vision for the future of our campus and then trying to figure out how to bring it about. His administration's JV2007 provides a considered foundation from which to proceed.

Quoting from the report, "Decisions and the implementation of the
model should be based on: The development of metrics for all of our programs, services, and academic departments; Objective assessment of all programs using the determined metrics".

This idea of objective review and assessment is something I believe is missing from the student oversight of ASUN programs. The amalgamation of programs that is ASUN is a complex entity. Each unit of ASUN has merits and is designed in a way to attempt to serve the student body. How many ASUN leaders know who is being served, and how well?

For the elected members of ASUN, the review process comes up every year during elections. But for almost every other aspect of ASUN, be it Campus Escort, InkBlot, the bookstore, etc, little is done to objectively measure the benefits of the programs.

A simple example is campus escort. The program is, without question, tremendously popular. But does anybody know, with objective certainty, who's using it? Is it 25% residence hall students? Maybe the Residence Hall Association (RHA) or Residential Life (RHLHFS) should be contributing to the program. How many Greeks use it? Maybe they should help secure funding for the program through their alumni networks. But these questions cannot be responsibly raised without information on the constituency and the efficacy of the program. I am aware that pick up and drop off locations are recorded, and perhaps some other data is as well. I would wonder if any Senator has ever asked for a report on the program?

It is only from understanding who is served by a program and why it is used that ASUN leaders can hope to improve and expand existing programs, create new and successful ones, and justify the existence of others.

My proposal in broad terms, is for ASUN to take President Reilly's advice and begin to construct an apparatus within the student government, in partnership with the Student Activities staff, to allow for the review of existing and new programs.

Footnote: During the 75th Session, a law was passed providing a framework to do just this for new programs. I do not believe it has ever been used.