We've discussed UNR Student for Liberty before, particularly their radical views and single-mindedness. We didn't realize just how crazy these folks are until a recent comment popped up on their blog (the one about constitutions not having binding force). Traditional libertarians argue for the minimization of the power of the state so as to maximize individual liberty. UNR Students for Liberty adhere to what they call "anarcho-capitalism," but let's get straight, what they advocate is anarchy. Libertarians recognize that the state is sometimes necessary to secure individual liberty.
Enter their "10 Days Before Christmas" campaign for improvements to ASUN. On the one hand, they believe no government can have legitimacy and thus no government should exist. Ever. On the other hand, they are telling ASUN what it is doing wrong and offering ideas for improvement. Leaving alone their condescension, these guys might be taken more seriously if it weren't for their total hypocrisy about government. (This was a problem for their political party, UNR START, which we explored here.)
If your underlying position is "ASUN should not exist," why should anyone listen to any of your ideas? What they are doing is like a vegan telling a burger lover how to cook his meat for a juicier burger.
If the Senate is looking for ways to improve the club funding policies, let's start with an easy one. Pass a law prohibiting the fraudulent use of club funding. If a club files a request that is approved but tries to spend the money on something else, not only will the club not get reimbursed for the expense but it will risk losing institutional recognition. In other words, lie and risk losing recognition.
None is this will actually change their views or behavior. You can't engage in a constructive dialog with those who are so single-mindedly immature they can't agree to middle ground.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
ASUN Revised Statutes: An interesting idea, but poorly executed
Tonight, the ASUN Senate is set to take up Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's ASUN Revised Statutes bill. The bill is an attempt to create a single volume codification of ASUN law of a general and permanent nature. The bill, while an interesting and even anticipated idea, is poorly executed.
My initial remarks about why the Open Meeting Law will be violated in relation to this bill still stand. Item 18(d) on tonight's Senate agenda suffers from exactly the same deficiencies I pointed out to Sen. Brandon Bishop in a personal e-mail, and if the Senate acts tonight, it will do so in violation of the OML. Fair warning. By the way, the penalty for OML violations, if found, is removal from office by the University, so it's kind of a big deal.
Quickly, my remaining concerns about the bill are below. I have shared all of these concerns with Sen. Hostmeyer in a personal e-mail.
The codification makes substantive changes to existing law. This is the biggest reason it violates the OML. Making substantive changes to existing law in a codification bill is not appropriate. It denies the Senate, its committees, the public, and the President from having a meaningful opportunity to exercise their powers.
The codification, as executed in its implementing legislation, opens a reasonable door that the codification itself is not the law, while at the same time repealing all the general and permanent law already in force. The end result: no law at all in ASUN. Codification is a complicated process. You need to very carefully transition from the "old" law to the "new" codified, compiled, restated law. This bill does not do that. This is probably the single most dangerous flaw.
The codification is duplicative of other "codes." The Code of Elections is already a code. The Rules of the Senate and of the Judicial Council, while not law in the traditional sense, are also "codes" in that they are the rules codified into a single document that can be amended directly.
The style of the Revised Statutes Sen. Hostmeyer has presented departs from the intended (and used) style of choice for ASUN legislation, which is the style the Congress uses for its legislation. If you look at a lot (but certainly not all) of the stuff drafted in the 75th Session, it adheres to this stylistic choice. Arbitrarily departing from this style could create confusion later on. As one example, each section of a bill is intended to become part of a "code" without needing to reorganize the subordinate sections. The ARS style necessitates changing all the cross references within a single bill.
Codification isn't going to solve the problem of officials not reading, knowing, or following the law. Compilation of the laws by official might be a better intermediate step so this codification effort can be fully hashed out, and it's a step that won't require any Senate action. Anyone can make a compilation.
The bill "creates" several departments in ASUN which until this bill have never had any implementing or authorizing legislation under the new constitution (e.g. Inkblot, Sound and Lights, etc.). Creating this new law in a codification bill is inappropriate.
In sum, I think this codification idea has merits, as I told Sen. Hostmeyer, but the Senate would benefit greatly from some informed criticism. Acting without knowing the difference between a codification, compilation, and restatement is just asking for trouble.
My initial remarks about why the Open Meeting Law will be violated in relation to this bill still stand. Item 18(d) on tonight's Senate agenda suffers from exactly the same deficiencies I pointed out to Sen. Brandon Bishop in a personal e-mail, and if the Senate acts tonight, it will do so in violation of the OML. Fair warning. By the way, the penalty for OML violations, if found, is removal from office by the University, so it's kind of a big deal.
Quickly, my remaining concerns about the bill are below. I have shared all of these concerns with Sen. Hostmeyer in a personal e-mail.
The codification makes substantive changes to existing law. This is the biggest reason it violates the OML. Making substantive changes to existing law in a codification bill is not appropriate. It denies the Senate, its committees, the public, and the President from having a meaningful opportunity to exercise their powers.
The codification, as executed in its implementing legislation, opens a reasonable door that the codification itself is not the law, while at the same time repealing all the general and permanent law already in force. The end result: no law at all in ASUN. Codification is a complicated process. You need to very carefully transition from the "old" law to the "new" codified, compiled, restated law. This bill does not do that. This is probably the single most dangerous flaw.
The codification is duplicative of other "codes." The Code of Elections is already a code. The Rules of the Senate and of the Judicial Council, while not law in the traditional sense, are also "codes" in that they are the rules codified into a single document that can be amended directly.
The style of the Revised Statutes Sen. Hostmeyer has presented departs from the intended (and used) style of choice for ASUN legislation, which is the style the Congress uses for its legislation. If you look at a lot (but certainly not all) of the stuff drafted in the 75th Session, it adheres to this stylistic choice. Arbitrarily departing from this style could create confusion later on. As one example, each section of a bill is intended to become part of a "code" without needing to reorganize the subordinate sections. The ARS style necessitates changing all the cross references within a single bill.
Codification isn't going to solve the problem of officials not reading, knowing, or following the law. Compilation of the laws by official might be a better intermediate step so this codification effort can be fully hashed out, and it's a step that won't require any Senate action. Anyone can make a compilation.
The bill "creates" several departments in ASUN which until this bill have never had any implementing or authorizing legislation under the new constitution (e.g. Inkblot, Sound and Lights, etc.). Creating this new law in a codification bill is inappropriate.
In sum, I think this codification idea has merits, as I told Sen. Hostmeyer, but the Senate would benefit greatly from some informed criticism. Acting without knowing the difference between a codification, compilation, and restatement is just asking for trouble.
Read more...
Hot, sexy empowerment
It looks like Sen. Lea Moser, who introduced a resolution this week to commemorate the biggest feminist professor on campus, is showing off her feminist credentials for everyone to see. Originally, we noticed that she had her official Senate portrait on her entry, but it was quickly removed. I wonder who frowned on that.
By the way, trying to curry favor with a professor whose class you are taking by introducing a resolution, and doing so before grades are posted, is not only shameless but unethical.
By the way, trying to curry favor with a professor whose class you are taking by introducing a resolution, and doing so before grades are posted, is not only shameless but unethical.
Read more...
Monday, December 14, 2009
Apportion what?
The ASUN Constitution, in article I, section 1(b), requires the Senate to apportion its seats every two years according to number of students in each college or school. The 75th Senate enacted a law to largely remove itself from the apportionment process. ASUN Public Law 75-28. That law provides that the ASUN President is to transmit a statement of the apportionment and of the Senate for the next two years. This is to be done by the first day of December or one week thereafter. To my knowledge, this has not been done. (For an example of what such a statement looks like at the federal level, see this. By the way, ASUN's apportionment law is modeled after the federal House of Representatives apportionment law.)
Some senators, at a recent Government Operations Committee meeting, while discussing Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's efforts to create revised statutes for ASUN, expressed concern over the President having control of apportionment. (Surprisingly, it sounded like it was the first time they had read that provision, given their tone, but that's another story.) That's a farce, because the ASUN President really doesn't have control over anything. The numbers are the numbers, and the equal proportion method dictates how many seats each college gets.
Under my quick count, using the fall headcount numbers (my math here), CABNR will get its long-awaited second seat at the expense of a Health Sciences seat. One little note that could use some senatorial attention is how, if at all, to count the 160 interdisciplinary students, University Studies Abroad Consortium students and bachelor of science neuroscience students. Typically, they are lumped in with Liberal Arts, since all undeclared majors are counted there. Where they get counted shouldn't matter, as they probably wouldn't get counted in a college where 160 could change apportionment.
Another thing that should be looked into is the basis for the headcount numbers. In the 75th Session, the University's method of counting as the basis for ASUN's apportionment caused some controversy. See section 5 of the ASUN law and this report, particularly my dissenting view. Basically, the University's system was claimed to be incapable of counting a single student more than once, as in the case of multiple majors or degrees. This could substantially throw off the apportionment, as is demonstrated in my dissent when using student credit hours as the basis of the apportionment. Just wanted to share my knowledge.
Some senators, at a recent Government Operations Committee meeting, while discussing Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's efforts to create revised statutes for ASUN, expressed concern over the President having control of apportionment. (Surprisingly, it sounded like it was the first time they had read that provision, given their tone, but that's another story.) That's a farce, because the ASUN President really doesn't have control over anything. The numbers are the numbers, and the equal proportion method dictates how many seats each college gets.
Under my quick count, using the fall headcount numbers (my math here), CABNR will get its long-awaited second seat at the expense of a Health Sciences seat. One little note that could use some senatorial attention is how, if at all, to count the 160 interdisciplinary students, University Studies Abroad Consortium students and bachelor of science neuroscience students. Typically, they are lumped in with Liberal Arts, since all undeclared majors are counted there. Where they get counted shouldn't matter, as they probably wouldn't get counted in a college where 160 could change apportionment.
Another thing that should be looked into is the basis for the headcount numbers. In the 75th Session, the University's method of counting as the basis for ASUN's apportionment caused some controversy. See section 5 of the ASUN law and this report, particularly my dissenting view. Basically, the University's system was claimed to be incapable of counting a single student more than once, as in the case of multiple majors or degrees. This could substantially throw off the apportionment, as is demonstrated in my dissent when using student credit hours as the basis of the apportionment. Just wanted to share my knowledge.
Read more...
Two for two
The Commission on Association Elections, under the dazzling leadership of censured former Sen. Jeremiah Todd, is two for two this year--that's two for two in canceled meetings. Sure have been a lot of canceled meetings in ASUN this term. At least he hasn't violated the Open Meeting Law, the basis for his censure as a senator.
Read more...
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Blatant hypocrisy
Come on guys, when even Coffin and Keys is pointing out your hypocrisy, you should probably take it down a notch or two.
UNR Students for Liberty have some legitimate beefs with ASUN, but you can't assert you do not acknowledge the legitimacy of government while at the same time suckling from the government's tit.
You've already shown that you don't quite buy into this "government is not legitimate" notion by accepting public funds, so why don't you guys abandon it in favor of encouraging real change in ASUN. You guys have a student judiciary available to you that would be more than willing to be used once and a while.
UNR Students for Liberty have some legitimate beefs with ASUN, but you can't assert you do not acknowledge the legitimacy of government while at the same time suckling from the government's tit.
You've already shown that you don't quite buy into this "government is not legitimate" notion by accepting public funds, so why don't you guys abandon it in favor of encouraging real change in ASUN. You guys have a student judiciary available to you that would be more than willing to be used once and a while.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
