A committee of the Senate is not the Senate

The 78th Session senators have now had a few weeks' taste of summer, which means it's time for the Senate to recess until August and leave those poor souls who are in Reno (and who volunteer) to handle the Senate's business.

What usually occurs (at least in every interim period since 2007) is the Senate establishes an interim committee that has the authority to consider legislation within the jurisdiction of the standing committees and report it to the Senate by the time the Senate reconvenes from its break. Below is the model resolution establishing an interim committee (S. Res. 75-29).

Associated Students Statutes at Large Volume 75--Unofficial

When the Senate adopts rules of the Senate at the beginning of a session in the model fashion, readopting this type of resolution is unnecessary (sort of discussed here and here). Anyway, that's sort of off topic.

Enter Sen. Jesus Palma, who has introduced S. Res. 78-25 (thanks for numbering legislation!), scheduled to be considered at today's Senate meeting. The resolution would create an interim committee that is "entrusted with the full power and duties of the Senate," including the authority to pass legislation. That legislation would automatically sunset when the Senate reconvenes following a recess. The resolution is creative, no doubt about that, but it is fatally unconstitutional. Before I get to the constitutional concerns, a couple nitpicky points.

• The legislation says the committee (called the "Summer Session" in the legislation, but let's call a spade a spade) is to have a number of members "not to equal or exceed a majority of the full Senate; but must consist of at least twelve Senators." With a 22-member Senate, a majority is 12. The reason staying below a majority is critical is because generally under the Open Meeting Law, whenever a quorum (defined as majority) of a public body meets, it must be noticed and conducted under the OML.
• Ignoring that this committee would have power to pass legislation, it's exceedingly rare for the presiding officer of the parent body to also chair a committee (a continuing problem for the Oversight Committee) because a presiding officer should maintain the appearance of impartiality; the chair of a committee must advocate for the committee's positions, creating an inherent conflict.

Constitutionally, this "Summer Session" idea is dead on arrival. The ASUN Constitution is explicit about the enactment of legislation. In order for a bill to become law, it must first have "passed the Senate." ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 4(a). While the Senate may have all the legislative power of the Association, ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 1, and have the power to make all laws necessary for ASUN, ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 3(a), that doesn't mean it has the power to rewrite by rule the constitutional process for enacting laws. Sen. Palma's proposed committee would do just that.

The proposed committee also deprives the students of their representation because the full Senate is not considering the legislation before it goes to the President for him to sign or veto. Those senators who are not on the committee will have no vote, and thus the students who those senators represent will be unrepresented.

The proposal also leaves some questions unanswered. Does legislation the committee "passes" have to be presented to the President for approval? If so, what if the President vetoes a bill? Does it go to the committee for an override? What about the constitutional provisions governing veto overrides by the Senate, ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 4(b)-(e)? Does this committee obliterate the President's power to make recess appointments, ASUN Const. art. III, sec. 2(c)? If the committee truly has the "full power" of the Senate, can it expel senators from the Senate under article II, section 2(c) of the ASUN Constitution? And the list goes on. This alone should be sufficient evidence that this "committee with full power" proposal is a bad idea.

Finally, the Senate cannot delegate to a committee the constitutional powers that are explicitly vested in the body as a whole (e.g., enacting legislation, confirming executive appointments, proposing constitutional amendments). To do so would circumvent the exclusive processes laid out in the constitution.

This proposal reminds me of a couple of proposals that were considered during the 74th Senate Session (selected documents here). Assuming this proposal is based on one of those, a critical point that Sen. Palma seems to be unaware is that the previous ASUN constitution did not explicitly dictate how legislation became law; the present one does. That single difference precludes this proposal.

Rarely does the Senate need to take immediate action during the summer. If the need does exist, however, convening a special meeting with distant senators teleconferencing or video-conferencing should not be much of an impediment to achieving quorum.

In short, the model interim committee established during the 75th Session should be adequate, and it carries with it none of the constitutional concerns as does this proposal, since it is a committee of the Senate just like any other. Sen. Palma's proposal is certainly creative, but the constitutional concerns make it unworkable.

Budgets and appropriations

One of the more nuanced items in ASUN is the difference between a budget and appropriations. The ASUN Constitution states that the Senate has the power "[t]o set a budget for the ASUN, but no money shall be spent from the treasury without appropriations made by law." ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 3(a)(2). This clause clearly indicates there is a difference between a "budget" and "appropriations made by law."

It may help to have some definitions. Black's Law Dictionary defines budget as "[a] statement of an organization's estimated revenues and expenses for a specified period, usu. a year." An appropriation is defined as "[a] legislative body's act of setting aside a sum of money for a public purpose." An appropriations bill is "[a] bill that authorizes governmental expenditures." And a budget bill is "[a] bill designating how money will be allocated for the following fiscal year."

Applying these definitions to ASUN, in its simplest form, a budget bill is one that sets an estimate of the amount of money coming into ASUN (revenues) and the amount going out (expenditures). A budget does nothing more than that. It does not authorize spending. That is what an appropriations bill (or several) is for. This distinction is important because the fiscal year 2009 budget was invalidated in Judicial Council Case No. AN-006 in part because proper appropriations were never made. That brings us to tonight.

The Senate is going to take up a bill setting the budget, which reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated students,[*]
That the budget of the Associated Students for Fiscal Year 2011 is hereby made effective as set out in Schedule A of this law.

[*] Could someone seriously fix the bill template to capitalize "students," as it is supposed to be?

So if this is all the Senate passes, ASUN cannot legally spend any money in the next fiscal year because no appropriations have been made by law. So what does a proper appropriation look like? I'll give a current example. Below is a properly drafted appropriations bill using figures in the proposed budget for next fiscal year.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated Students, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Senate for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, namely:

SENATE

Compensation, Officers and Employees

For compensation of officers, employees, and others as authorized by law, $72,573.70, which shall be paid from this appropriation without regard to the following limitations:

office of the secretary

For the Office of the Secretary, $15,810.00.

fringe benefits

For fringe benefits expenses, $2,155.70.

Expenses of the Senate

For expenses of the Senate and its officers and employees, $6,000.00.

Travel

For travel expenses as authorized by Senate resolution or law, $6,000.00.

Hosting

For hosting expenses, $1,500.00, of which $500.00 is for summer training and $1,000.00 is for the outreach efforts of the Senate.

This Act may be cited as the "Senate Appropriations Act, 2011".

That is a proper appropriations bill for just the Senate. Repeat for each department, office, account, or other unit of ASUN. The appropriations process is one way by which the Senate can exert control over the executive on how to spend money.

If the reader needs more evidence that this is the proper appropriations process, look up appropriations bills from the 75th Senate Session here. One note, ASUN Public Law 75-2 is a special case because the budget and spending authorizations for that fiscal year were adopted under the previous constitution. That law was intended simply to make effective under the new constitution the prior authorizations. It was not meant as a model of a proper appropriations act for subsequent fiscal years.

N.B.: Changes to appropriations were not made by striking dollar amounts in the budget and inserting new ones (as has become the practice since the 75th Session), but were made by enacting new appropriations bills. See, e.g., ASUN Public Laws 75-23, 75-24, and 75-30. For an example of a rescission, see ASUN Public Law 75-31. For an example of capital spending, see ASUN Public Law 75-43. (I'd link to the individual files on the ASUN website, but they've been needlessly scrubbed.)

Stop pretending it didn't happen

To whomever had the brilliant idea to scrub the ASUN website of history:

Please stop pretending it never happened. Yes, I know the Senate repealed all legislation and reintegrated it into a comprehensive codification, but those documents exist. They happened. Repealing them doesn't make them go away; it just means they don't have present force or effect. By scrubbing the website, you're making historical research next to impossible to conduct solely on the web.

K thx.

[Bottoset] sucks. Hard.

I thought long and hard about writing (and posting) this entry. The (non)story doesn't deserve the attention. Neither do the people who are responsible. But to let it go without response would be even worse than staying silent.

The Sagebrush, which seems to have taken an interest to ASUN again (maybe they just didn't like those in the 77th Session), reported today that a couple of genius senators have introduced a bill to abolish ASUN. Okay, that's really being overly generous, because the bill does no such thing. The operative part of the bill:

Therefore, be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated students, that ASUN and all it encompasses be abolished immediately, and that fees stop being collected from the student body.

The evidence for this proposed enactment?

a. ASUN represents a small minority on this campus, as evidenced by a 10% voter turnout during elections.

b. Compulsory fees are unethical, and create pay for a handful of bureaucrats while wasting student money on pizza and frivolous expenditures.

c. ASUN has abused its authority, and must be stopped.

d. ASUN sucks. Hard.

This bill, just like the petition UNR SFL has been circulating, is destined for failure. Epic failure.

First, the Senate cannot abolish itself, much less the rest of ASUN. It doesn't have that power. Even the voters in ASUN do not have the power to force the issue. The only entity with the legal authority to abolish ASUN is the Board of Regents.

Second, as most (except the bill's sponsors) readily acknowledge, it's a joke. Third, the sponsors clearly haven't thought the bill through. What happens if it passes? Seriously. This more than anything else I'd like a response to.

One last little question. Doesn't supporting this bill, and especially voting for it, either explicitly or implicitly constitute a violation of the oath ASUN officers take to support the ASUN Constitution? Why is that not grounds for expulsion from the Senate? If being clearly subversive to the body you are bound to support doesn't qualify as an offense sufficient to expulsion, I don't know what does.

I hope a senator gets wise and objects to this bill's consideration or moves to indefinitely postpone this joke of a bill. To do otherwise invites ridicule.

---

Update: May 5 at 9:20 p.m.
Turns out the bill is heading to Sen. Bottoset's committee, Government Operations, for a hearing. This will certainly be interesting to watch unfold.

Disaster in Anarcho-Capitalist Utopia

An oil drilling company critically underestimates the potential harm from having its oil rig fail, and millions of gallons of crude begin pumping into the Gulf of Mexico. The drilling company immediately defaults.

Who cleans up the oil?

The Free Rider Problem

Over at UNRSFL, poster Keabag has posted a set of questions raised by Barry Belmont's Anarcho-Capitalism II lecture. Keagbag's 12 questions more-or-less center around the free rider problem, but I have seen Barry dance around answering direct questions about this apparent flaw in his philosophy on several occasions, and I'm curious to see if he will do so again.

The main problem with idealistic cities-in-thought (e.g., anarcho-capitalism, communism, pure capitalism) is that they gloss over the problem of members who are either not able or willing to make equal contributions to society.

Philosophies like Barry's tend to take a hard-line approach: people who do not contribute will face social pressure to conform, or else they will be excluded from essential functions of society (dating, selling, etc…), and that people who are incapacitated (the elderly, the severely handicapped, orphans) will either be taken in and cared for by their families, or else private individuals will raise the necessary capital to provide for those folks as an altruistic gesture. But this solution ignores the history of humanity that shows that even when private entities attempt to intervene to help those in need, there are still many who are unable to receive the assistance they need in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

I expect Barry would deny that such a result would occur in his idealistic system of government. Yet, even Ludwig von Mises, one of Barry's anarcho-capitalist heroes, argued that government was necessary for a limited number of functions, and it was because, as a practical matter, human self-interest is not sufficient for ensuring the smooth operation of society. Only governments, through their monopoly on the legal application of force, are in a position to solve market failures such as the free rider problem (even if they do so inefficiently).

It will be very interesting to see how Barry responds to Keabag's insightful questions. I suggest following the discussion.

A logical reason to not be mean

Basis: A person tends to ignore statements—regardless of the statements validity—from individuals the person dislikes while receiving openly statements from individuals the person does like.

Assumption: An individual’s aversion to mean people is predicated on biology or sociology (the way in which the brain is wired or matures due to cultural influences, etc) and is therefore not easily overcome and not instantly arbitrary.

Proposition: When attempting to convince others of one’s own correctness the stated assumption should be accounted for.

I make a claim I would like others to take seriously.
I know it is more likely to be accepted if I am well received.
I know I can increase my chances of being well received if I propose my claim respectfully.

Conclusion: Propositions (e.g., criticisms) should always be as truthful as possible. However, presenting propositions with respect and dignity will never harm one’s chances of being heard. Therefore, not being mean is a logical route to convincing others of one's own correctness.

Mean

Our good friends at UNR Students for Liberty have a post discussing meanness. Reading the title, I immediately filled in the blanks and assumed Mr. Belmont was going to confess to making average arguments. However, he was only ardently defending his juvenile approach to debate. Alas. However, I was interested enough to look up mean in the dictionary.

We all know mean is the sum of a group divided by the number of members, in other words, the average.

But did you know that mean is also defined as inferior and poor? As in He has a mean and narrow understanding of human relationships.

BUT, mean also means excellent, very skillful or effective. As in He is a mean debator.

So, mean can describe anything along the continuum from crap to cream of the crop.

Sagebrush awakens to ASUN's problems

Hallelujah! Although, just a few demonstrably false facts. Some comments too, where appropriate.

[F]ormer university student Corinna Cohn ... filed [complaints] to the student judicial council that the senate violated Nevada Open Meeting Law in several instances, in part by not posting meeting minutes online and not keeping complete and accurate minutes in 2008 and 2009." (Emphasis added)

In the complaint for Case No. AN-005, Cohn actually complained that the Senate did not produce written minutes of several of its meetings, as the Open Meeting Law (OML) requires. It was the Judicial Council order that got its reasoning wrong. It wasn't because the minutes weren't online; it's because ASUN could not prove they were ever produced by handing them over.

Although passed properly by both the senate and president in 2008 and 2009 the bills did not go through legal channels for certification after their passing as the senate rules require.

Not entirely true. There are other bases for invalidation, including countless OML problems, but the Judical Council arguably exceeded its authority by not declaring the actions void on the grounds of the OML problems that Cohn complained of, despite the Council making specific findings to the contrary and despite the defending parties' lack of denying anything in her complaints.

If you do what I argue is the prudent thing, which is to apply the Council's holdings to all items specifically complained against, you get a much different list of what is invalid and why. Remember, the ASUN never disputed Cohn's complaints. I argue that just because the Judicial Council hasn't said an act is void doesn't mean that the facts can independently demonstrate to the Senate and President that there are errors that need to be cured.

Eli Reilly, who served as the student body president during this time ... said he didn’t know bills weren’t being enrolled properly because “I sign it or I don’t. It’s not my job to make sure that clerical things are being followed through.”

Although Eli is, I suppose, technically correct that he has no independent duty to ensure the Senate follows procedural rules it must abide by, one complaint specifically alleged that Eli did not perform specific statutory duties required of him, like create an adequate record of when bills were presented to him and when he signed them into law.

Many Associated Students of the University of Nevada leaders say the procedural mistakes come from lack of instruction between sessions.

So do the advisors have a duty to become intimately familiar with the system the students created? Aren't they really the only substantial common thread from session to session?

“There just wasn’t any training[," Geremia said.]" Since then, the senate has enacted a training session during the transition period.

And a lot of good that training did for the 77th Session, which engaged in much of the same despicable conduct. The next graf in the story is my personal favorite.

Just one year before the errors, the senate of that time re-wrote the entire ASUN Constitution, transforming the roughly 10-page document to nearly 200 pages.

This single statement could not be more demonstrably false. The present ASUN constitution. The previous ASUN constitution. Notice how the current constitution is about half the size the old one. Where did this 200-page number come from? From all the laws enacted in pursuance of the present constitution. Big difference.

“It’s part of the issue of the complexity of the laws they’ve created for themselves,” ASUN advisor Sandy Rodriguez said. “It was inevitable based on what the 75th session wrote and its complexity.”

Very noticable what isn't said here (it's not my job to teach the senators what their job requires). Also, notice the tone. Blame the guys who really created the mess, the ones who made everything so damn complicated. Nice deflection. So how do you explain the people who created the system didn't find it so complicated?

The seven meetings declared null ... failed to comply with the constitution’s open-meeting laws.

The ASUN Constitution does not contain open meeting laws. The state legislature has required the Board of Regents to require student government to comply with the state's open meeting law, but also requires the Board of Regents to enforce it. NRS 241.038. The Regents have essentially said, student governments, you must comply with every letter of the OML. So how did the ASUN Judicial Council get to this? It found that since ASUN enacted this law, it gave the Council a way to apply the OML under ASUN law.

The judicial council ruled to void the meetings after all parties agreed Nevada Open Meeting Law was violated when the minutes detailing the meetings were deemed missing.

Well, Fryman, you got that fact correct here, so why didn't you get it right in your story's first graf?

Some claim that advisors failed to step in when the body was violating state open meeting laws. Rodriguez, however, sent 2008-09 Speaker Priscilla Acosta a five-page document detailing the issue of missing and incomplete minutes three months before Cohn filed any grievances.

This is perhaps the most interesting issue that has come to light in all of this: whether the ASUN's business manager has a duty under Regents policy to stop spending when spending was not lawfully approved under the student government's constitution.
 
On the whole, this story is exactly what the student body needs to see. Hopefully, it starts discussions about whether the advisors have a duty to ensure ASUN plays by its own rules and whether the advisors really understand the shift to a more formal system of student governance the students demanded with the present constitution's adoption.

Hypothetical

Here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's say you are a director of a student association. You realize that your current group of student legislators (let's say there are 76 of them) don't know what they are doing. They cannot pass their legislation, and they are fudging up everything they touch. You send them a harsh letter telling them that they need to get their act together.

(1) Does the letter establish the director had notice that the student government was not legally enacting bills?

(2) If so, is that sufficient to show that the director knew she was violating Regents policy by spending money that had not been approved by the students?

There may be an exam on this material.

ASUN AG Macaluso nails it

In a recent ASUN Attorney General opinion to President-elect Jose (at the time of the opinion), AG Macaluso correctly opined that the ASUN Constitution does not require nominees for the Judicial Council to have earned 60 credit hours in residence at the University of Nevada. See the opinion here.

Of particular pride for me was this mention: "[T]he writers of our constitution recognized the fact that transfer students would desire election or appointment to [office] and [the constitution] provides them this opportunity."

Yes, yes we did.

So what all is now void, and what remains?

Bringing order to chaos once again will be a difficult task for the 78th Session of the Senate. As I recently pointed out, the first thing they should do is get their bearings. As a gesture of good will, the fine folks at VLEG have compiled a couple of documents that might prove helpful. They are linked below.

Acts Voided Under Judicial Council Cases

Legislative Acts Invalidated

One caveat: I am applying the ruling's findings to all items the petitioner complained against, even if the Council did not specifically address it. My reasoning is two-fold. First, for consistent application and in hopes of finding a holistic solution, logic demands it. The fact is insufficient practices persist, and the rulings give instruction.

Second, procedurally, the defending parties in the cases all admitted liability and did not dispute any material facts. Thus, petitioner was entitled to the judgment she sought in her complaints.

One last point: these documents advocate for corrective action. The Senate is on abundant notice that, as a matter of ASUN law, the standards in the state's open meeting law apply internally and are judicially enforceable. The Senate should now seek to avoid new harm and mitigate past harm by curing it. Indeed, I am merely an observer providing my two cents, but I hope I have demonstrated I am a knowledgeable observer.

Briefing the cases making waves in ASUN

Since the Judicial Council has issued its final orders in cases virtually erasing the 76th Senate Session's acts, and some 77th Session acts, too, now seems an appropriate time to review what the cases were about, how the Council ruled, and the rulings' immediate effects.

BRIEFS OF CASES

Case No. AN-001: Open Meeting Law (OML) complaint; a notice of a meeting that misstates the date of the meeting by including the wrong year does not satisfy the clear and complete agenda requirement.

Facts: The Senate held a meeting on April 22, 2009. The posted notice of the meeting said the meeting was for "April 22, 2008."

Held: A notice of a meeting that incorrectly states the date the meeting is to occur violates the Open Meeting Law as applied under ASUN law.

Reasoning: The clear and complete agenda requirement under the OML requires that an agenda clearly state when a meeting is scheduled so as to give actual notice to the public. An error that causes confusion, even when inadvertent or minor, is no excuse.

Notes: Although the Council did not declare actions taken during that meeting void, the OML states that any action taken in violation of the law is void.

Case No. AN-002: OML complaint; agenda items must satisfy clear and complete agenda requirement to give public notice of what public body will discuss or decide at meeting.

Facts: Petitioner alleged certain agenda items, for meetings held between May 7, 2008, and May 6, 2009, violated the OML's clear and complete agenda requirement, as elucidated under Nevada case law and state attorney general opinions. Specifically, Petitioner alleged agenda were vague and misleading, giving the public insufficient notice of what would be discussed or decided at public meetings of the Senate. Additionally, the failure to list the numbered designation of legislation on agendas confused the public by not giving them actual notice of what the Senate would consider at meetings.

Held: The Senate must adhere to the complete and clear agenda requirements applicable under state law. Because complaint was unchallenged, Petitioner's summary judgment granted.

Reasoning: The OML's standards apply to the ASUN with equal force as at the state level. When agendas are vague, the public is not on notice of what their representatives will discuss and decide.

Notes: Although not expressly declared, since summary jugment was granted in full, all items listed in Petitioner's complaint are, under the OML, void.

Case No. AN-003: ASUN law case; bills certified properly enrolled and having passed the Senate in the form of the enrolled bill by a secretary of the Senate who was appointed after the bills passed the Senate were fraudulently certified.

Facts: The Senate passed bills numbered 76-1 through 76-19 during the period of May 7, 2008, to February 25, 2009. The secretary of the Senate who certified passage of those bills was not appointed until March 4, 2009.

Held: The Secretary of the Senate cannot certify the passage of bills that predate her appointment. Any bills so certified are fraudulently certified and cannot withstand scrutiny. A secretary of the Senate must have actual knowledge of the passage of bills to certify them. Therefore, all such acts so certified are void.

Reasoning: Bills not passed and certified correctly undermines the legislative record's integrity, creating doubt about the legitimacy of enactments.

Case No. AN-004: OML complaint; written minutes of meetings must comply with the OML standard that the substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided are included.

Facts: Petitioner alleged that minutes of Senate meetings did not comply with minutes standard because they were vague and did not provide sufficient detail so the public could know the substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided at meetings of the 76th and 77th Sessions of the Senate (up to the date of the complaint).

Held: Minutes that do not comply with the OML standard are insufficient to give public notice of what occurred during the meeting.

Notes: Council declined to void actions taken during the meetings at issue. However, under the OML, where violations are found, the acts are void as a matter of law.

Case No. AN-005: OML complaint; minutes must be produced within 30 working days of a meeting.

Facts: Petitioner alleged that numerous sets of minutes from meetings of the Senate were not produced within 30 days of a meeting, many of which were never produced at all.

Held: Minutes for a meeting that are not produced within 30 working days of a meeting violates the OML. When minutes are not produced within 30 working days of a meeting, the actions taken at the meeting are void.

Reasoning: Without minutes minutes being published in a timely manner, the students have no way of knowing what their representatives did in their name and with their money. Voiding the acts taken at meetings with no minutes is only real option because there is no way to determine if the meeting occurred, what happened at the meeting if it did occur, and, should disputes arise about what was decided at a meeting, what did in fact occur. Without a record, the meeting must be presumed, under the OML, to not have occurred.

Notes: Council decided to not declare meetings void when Senate, as of the date of the order, had published minutes. However, under the OML, where violations of found, as a matter of law they are void.

Case No. AN-006: OML and ASUN law complaint to invalidate FY2009 budget; minutes not produced within 30 working days of a meeting creates a void meeting; audio recordings must be produced within 30 days of a meeting, and when not produced creates a void meeting; meeting held when notice and agenda was not posted in enough locations is void; agenda that does not list the location and place of a meeting with particular clarity creates a void meeting; when acts creating evidence of essential steps in the legislative process are omitted, proof of valid enactment cannot be verified; enactment of a budget by itself does not create a constitutionally recognized appropriation; successive amendments to a budget or appropriation are void in and of themselves when the base enactment is void; spending without lawful authorization is illegal; promulgation of a bill, within a reasonable time of enactment, is required.

Held: Because Respondents admitted liability, Petitioner granted summary judgment on all grounds listed in complaint. All enactments related to the ASUN budget for fiscal year 2009 are void.

Reasoning: Respondents did not challenge allegations, thus creating no issue.

Notes: This case served to invalidate all spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year.

Inheriting a mess

Newly elected Senate Speaker Brandon Bishop, along with 21 other senators who began their one-year terms of office Wednesday night, have inherited a mess, mostly not of their doing. It's a terrible situation to be in. You're new, you're excited, you don't really know what's going on, though some of the cockier senators may think they do (I'm looking at you, incumbents), and that's difficult enough, but now the Judicial Council has just pissed on your joyous day by erasing much of what a Senate did two sessions ago and created precedents that could spell doom for much of the previous session as well. Sucks, don't it?

How Bishop immediately leads the Senate through these murky times will speak volumes about his potential as Speaker. Humbly, I submit three things he should do immediately, so as to not create further damage.

First, get your bearings. You need to figure out what the Council said and how it applies to the here and now. Just because the acts invalidated happened ages ago (not even 2 years ago, to those of us existing in the real world) doesn't mean it won't have repercussions on what happens on today and tomorrow. For instance, the fact the Open Meeting Law was violated and bills were not properly enacted isn't the only reason the FY2009 spending was invalidated. It's also because enacting a budget doesn't satisfy the appropriations clause of the ASUN Constitution. (Senators who just read that and are lost, welcome to the real world.)

Second, make damn sure you don't make new mistakes, especially on the same grounds as the old ones. This should be pretty obvious, but sometimes student leaders can be particularly thick-skulled. Bishop seems pretty level-headed, so hopefully he won't disappoint. Indeed, he already seems to be off to a much more competent start than his predecessor given his first agenda. Each session does not exist in a vacuum. Institutions like the Senate must be cognizant of what happened in the past because often it has an effect on what can be done in the present.

The Open Meeting Law is the most immediate thing Bishop needs to become proficient in. As short as the law may be, it covers a lot and has a lot of nuance to it. Seek out competent help, and I can tell you right now, it doesn't exist among the ASUN student development personnel. You can decide to go it alone, but I hope you can see how well that worked out for Speakers Priscilla Acosta and Gracie Geremia. That's not to say the advisors are completely worthless, but learn their weaknesses.

Third, once you have your bearings and have ensured you won't make the same mistakes twice, or new ones for that matter, it's time to start cleaning up the mess. That's going to be considerably more complicated than it may appear now. It will take time. It will take patience. It will take assistance from others. Don't rush this step, because doing so will increase the likelihood of mistakes.

Oh, I almost forgot: while all this is happening, you've got until June 30 to enact a lawful budget and make appropriations for ASUN for the next fiscal year. Don't get too excited now.

Finally, be aware that although the Judicial Council may have ruled, this story ain't over yet. Others will be gunning to point fingers and assign blame to someone. It will go beyond the confines of the ASUN sandbox. Just be aware. Others still might decide to have some fun at ASUN's expense and start picking away at the 77th Session's acts, now that the heavy lifting of establishing some precedents is done. All I can say is learn, and learn quickly.

It may seem the whole world is instantly against you, but it just seems that way. Seek outside advice. You may find your biggest assets are not in the ASUN bubble. This is somewhat self-serving, but seeking help from exceptional former senators might be a good idea.  Some are willing to help, they just need to be asked.

Now that's a press release

Corinna Cohn is taking her cases to the court of public opinion. Maybe the Ostrich Times will decide this is worth covering now. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

STUDENT GOVERNMENT AT UNR SPENT $1.6 MILLION ILLEGALLY

A bill authorizing spending for the Associated Students of the University of Nevada (“ASUN”) during the 2008-2009 fiscal year was one of nineteen bills the ASUN Judicial Council has ruled was illegally enacted. The ruling means that the Association never approved its $1.6M budget in accordance with its constitutional requirement. Board of Regents bylaws require expenditures be approved by the student association in order to guarantee financial accountability.

The rulings follow from a series of complaints filed in March 2009 by Corinna Cohn, a 2009 UNR graduate, who charged ASUN officers with violating provisions related to the Nevada Open Meeting Law after the ASUN Senate established a pattern of not publishing accurate meeting agendas and minutes, and for not following the Association’s own procedures for legally enacting legislation. The Council released its opinions this week after ASUN officers wrote letters admitting their errors and after the Council found gross errors in essential processes.

Cohn filed the complaints after UNR administrators informed her that they would not interfere with what is essentially a student affair until the Association’s Judicial Council made a ruling on whether any ASUN laws had been broken. However, Regents policies require administrators to serve as a check on the student government to ensure ASUN conducts its business according to both state law and association rules.

The ruling means that any expenses paid by ASUN during the 2008-2009 fiscal year were done so without legal authorization. Examples include contracts for goods and services, operating expenses for the student newspaper, grants to school clubs, and salaries paid to student workers and professional administrators.

The University recently announced plans to reduce its budget by $11 million to meet requirements set by the Nevada legislature during its March special session.

The Press's Civic Duty

Much is different between the University of Nevada and the school in the southern desert wasteland of Nevada, but one difference recently struck me as surprising, and disappointing.

The UNLV Rebel Yell, in Thursday's edition, had three news stories that directly mentioned the happenings in CSUN, the undergraduate companion to ASUN, two of which were on the front page. Hardly an issue of the Rebel Yell goes by without a story about what CSUN, and particularly its Senate, is doing.

It struck me because when I look to the Nevada Sagebrush, ASUN is lucky to get any mention at all, much less front page coverage, particularly on important stories, like how the Judicial Council has been picking away at the Senate's actions because they didn't follow important procedural rules (the ASUN Constitution).

The Sagebrush has a civic duty to keep the undergraduates at Nevada informed about the happenings of their student goverment, to which each student is compelled to pay $5 per credit. Instead, the venerable Sagebrush seems more like the Ostrich Times for all things ASUN.

I find this entirely relevant because Sagebrush Editor-in-Chief Jessica Fryman, who this past weekend was renewed for a second year as editor, seems awfully timid when it comes to covering ASUN, especially compared with some of her predecessors.

Maybe she's just doing what other Sagebrush editors were afraid of doing: cutting ASUN coverage because hey, nobody gives a shit about ASUN. Maybe the Sagebrush's declining coverage is partly to blame for that attitude among the student body. But maybe she doesn't cover ASUN because there's no point in giving valuable column inches to a bunch of rank amaterus who are consumed with self-aggrandizement and patting themselves on the back for working hard but never delivering results. Maybe it's because the Senate in particular is largely irrelevant, even though it is supposed to take front and center in ASUN.

I have always been a fan of the Sagebrush, even after they took their various shots at me. Although I was never a staffer, I was proud when they earned a Pacemaker Award under the leadership of Brian Duggan. But something's amiss lately, and I hope they find their cojones once again. Keep a fire to the asses of everyone in ASUN. It keeps them honest.

Is the Sagebrush shirking its civic duty? I welcome comments.

ASUN spending of $1.6M illegal, Council finds

Last night and early this morning, the ASUN Judicial Council released its orders in three remaining cases challenging the legal sufficiency of several acts of the Senate during its 76th Session, including bills authorizing spending for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. (Last discused here.)

In unanimous opinions, the Council declared the 2009 fiscal year budget was not legally passed and thus all money ASUN spent was without legal authorization. The Council also invalidated most of the 76th Senate's actions because of gross violations of the Open Meeting Law and because the Senate's secretary fraudulently certified the passage of legislation.

The opinions effectively wipe the 76th Session from the books, finding that the Senate and other ASUN officers did not fulfill their legal and constitutional requirements during the course of enacting legislation.

The Council excoriated the Senate, its Speaker, and ASUN President Eli Reilly for not following the proper, legal processes. These rulings come after the defending parties in the cases admitted liability but plead the Council look past the errors since they were not committed with malicious intent.

With these rulings, experts in ASUN process agree that they could serve as valuable precedents to overturn much of what the 77th Session did, including the budget for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30.

These rulings come on the heals of 78th Session convening last night. The Council also ordered the opinions to be read to the new senators in an open meeting so they can be apprised of the seriousness of the situation they now find themselves in.

We expect to have a fuller analysis in the near future.

Updated to clarify that Geremia was not held personally responsible. The office was sued, and she was in the office at the time these rulings were signed.

Making history

My everlasting admiration (whatever that's worth) to the first person who can explain how, in my mind, what is depicted in this photo made ASUN history. Note to the persons depicted in the photo: you are ineligible to receive my everlasting admiration.

Clarification: I'm referring only after the current ASUN Constitution took effect, so since 2007.

WTF is up with club funding

When I was an ASUN Senator--my first time around, nearly four years ago--the UNR Rugby club was just starting to become something exceptional. They were gaining national recognition, had managed to get a very good coach and were looking for opportunities to improve their name recognition. They came to ASUN for money to augment their travel fund. Their budget request was heard at the same meeting as a request from the Apple Boppers (a club dedicated to destroying apples in the pursuit of Nirvana or some such BS).

I made the argument that support of a club like the Rugby Club, because of the recognition it could garner for the school, is probably more valuable than support for a club like the Apple Boppers (especially in an environment of scarce resources).

Sandy disagreed. All clubs are created equal. Who are mere senators to create distinctions, she argued. A reasonable ideological distinction to be sure. It was not some form of the philosophy I argued at that meeting that became the dominant one in the execution or drafting of club funding policies over the next few years. It was Sandy's.

I believe this is a fundamental flaw in ASUN. Not all ideas are created equal. Not all pursuits are equally valid. Not all clubs are equally beneficial. A club like the Pack Patriot or UNR-SFL or RHA or AASA does much more for the campus culture and the students directly involved than clubs like the Apple Boppers or Club 1457, but the funding procedures don't recognize that. They don't even hope to attain a level of awareness that would allow intelligently directed "investment" in the campus' future.

This is unfortunate given the high demand for funds in the face of the limited supply. The ASUN should seek to achieve a funding structure that supports campus community, education and development.

Don't get no respect...

ASUN Senator Jessica Purney, a two-term representative for the College of Education, called out two-term ASUN President Eli O'Reilly in her status, writing: "Eli Reilly once again has no respect for the legislative body by vetoing an almost unanimous bill from the 77th session because of his opinion."

On one hand it seems like Sen. Purney's rationale completely misses the obvious point that the ASUN Constitution establishes a separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, and that it is the President's prerogative to veto legislation just as it is the Senate's prerogative to override a veto.

Furthermore, the Senate is by far the more powerful branch of government. Sen. Purney complains that the executive pushed the Senate to pay for mascot uniforms for the athletic department, and that he created high-paying positions on his cabinet. However, those positions were funded by the consent of the Senate, and the Senate can destroy those positions at nearly any time (so long as they are not constitutional offices).

On the other hand, I think it says something about the ASUN advisors that even with two years of experience, ASUN government officials seem to have so many gaps in their institutional knowledge. As an undergrad I probably would pointed the finger at Sen. Purney and impugn her competence for complaining about problems that have constantly been within her domain to address and fix. Having developed a broader view of ASUN, I think it is more appropriate to ask why the faculty advisor to the Senate has not provided more guidance to the legislature to inform them of their legal powers.

Most senators end up serving only one term. That is not enough time for them to learn on their own what power they wield. They must rely on someone else for assistance. If that advisor is indifferent, or worse, calculating, there is a risk that ASUN will be less able to fulfill its mission to serve the needs of all students.

This raises the question… what portion of the ASUN budget goes to feed the salaries of ASUN professional faculty?

What happens to an office when it is repealed?

Tonight the ASUN Senate will consider a bill to create an ASUN Department of Traditions. Overall, the reorganization of the existing Homecoming Programming Department to include other large events seems to be an interesting idea, although there still isn't a clear reason why there needs to be two programming departments in ASUN.

One thing, though, caught my eye in the bill. It repeals the act establishing the Homecoming Programming Department and the Director of Homecoming Programming without dealing with those who hold office with unexpired terms.

It appears that someone holds the office of director right now. The current officer's term, under the act, expires November 30, 2011. So what happens to this officer should this bill become law?

To me, the critical issue is whether an incumbent has a vested right in continuing to hold office until the natural termination of the term. I really don't know the answer to this question. It seems reasonable to me that the Senate has the unfettered power to abolish the offices it creates, but it also seems reasonable that an officer has some sort of contract right in her appointment to an office.

Thoughts?

A response to legal questions with Faceboook and ASUN?

Timing seems awfully coincidental.

Ken Munsterman, March 31 at 3:03pm

Hello everyone! Just to give you the heads up, we have created a new ASUN fan page! This new page is your source for everything from your student government, from activities to important reminders. Please join the page as this group will be shut down in two weeks.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Associated-Students-of-the-University-of-Nevada-Reno/294825107734

Maybe this is a response to the legal issues I posed here.

What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.

It is easy to assume one's cause so virtuous as to justify any action in support of it. The youthful libertarians of UNR Student's for Liberty convinced themselves their recent Abolish ASUN event was a justified attack on a system they find wasteful. Not too many people were amused with the event. Many expressed disgust. However, the political savants at UNR-SFL remain unapologetically unabashed. Those who are annoyed, bemused, confused, disgusted, enraged, flabbergasted, etc are just too simple-minded to get the enlightened point being made by UNR-SFL.

Well, John Russell has proved his assumed beliefs might be just a little too large for him to wear intelligently. His recent post condemning ASUN's Flipside Productions recent event suggests he still does not get why people will label him and his fellow club members hypocrites and still support Flipside's event.

You stand on a soapbox professing disdain for waste and then engage in waste yourself; regardless of the purpose, you are a hypocrite. The club's petty behavior may have made a point, but it was not done elegantly. It was done with contempt and displayed rank hypocrisy.

p.s. Another reason you are all hypocrites is your voluntary attendance at a tax supported state sponsored school.

Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
~Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Wasteful spending is wasteful spending

As rare as this occasion is: Agreed.

Now, that's not to say that all entertainment programming is wasteful. Spending on entertaining as part of larger events, such as Homecoming and Mackay Week, is probably more justifiable than just a random event. This spending might also be justified as providing students something to do late at night as an alternative to drinking.

Holding two events with essentially the same activities within a short time period seems duplicative, as well. Duplicative events by their nature are wasteful. To our friends at UNR SFL, I pose this question: Ignoring your premise that ASUN is wasteful because it coercively takes from all to support the "annonyingly active," is all programming spending wasteful? If not, what is not wasteful?

There might also be First Amendment issues implicated by ASUN's practice of banning from their Facebook pages individuals who express dissenting views. Even though government is utilizing a private service (Facebook), the government cannot act in ways that violate a person's constitutional rights. And guess what, ASUN is a government actor. At the very least, ASUN might want to consult with an attorney to determine what its First Amendment liabilities are with respect to its use of Facebook and other social media outlets to connect with ASUN members.

And we're not the only ones to notice this as an issue. The problem with the ASUN's Facebook pages is it appears ASUN and ASUN officers create forums with no announced limits on participation--an open forum--and then engage in editorial control over comments and membership--censorship. This is a no-no and potentially opens ASUN and the University to liability in a civil rights suit.

Senate should abandon laws revision

Given the recent revelations about the cases filed against the Senate and other ASUN officials challenging their legal sufficiency, the Senate might want to wake up and take notice about what is happening.

Just today the Judicial Council informed the parties that it intends to grant summary judgment against ASUN on all remaining cases in light of two ASUN officers admitting liability in the cases.

Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's project to revise and codify all ASUN law is in serious jeopardy given these cases. Practically, the Senate should scrap this project so it can get its bearings in light of the Judicial Council decisions. Much of what ASUN has done during the 76th Senate Session is now invalid, and the application of the precedents could invalidate much of what the 77th Session has done.

The biggest problem at this point is it is entirely unclear what is the law and what is not the law given the decisions against ASUN. Sen. Hostmeyer's project only works if what is being revised and codified is in fact currently law. But under the Open Meeting Law (OML), any action taken in violation of that law is void. The Judicial Council has now ruled that the Senate has engaged in countless OML violations. This is fatal to the revised statutes (now called the revised code) project.

Although in three of the cases the Judicial Council declined to declare the ASUN actions invalid under the OML, ASUN should nonetheless treat them as invalid for a couple of reasons. First, it is the right thing to do. Second, the University and Board of Regents could later step in and invalidate the acts with much more severe consequences. And if some other entity invalidates the underlying acts, the revised statutes would instantly become worthless. There would be no ability to rely on it, defeating its very purpose. The safest thing to do is treat any actions taken as invalid, within the scope of the considered cases, and fix them. Therefore, the senators should scrap the revision proposal, at least until they determine where everything stands. This will take some time.

Most of my previous concerns with the project still apply. I have new concerns about the implementation bill because it creates an inherent conflict in what is the law. The original enactment and the codification? This isn't how codification works. Since ASUN's law and constitution borrows much from the federal system, the Senate would be well advised to borrow the code style the feds use. This would promote consistency and stability, as well as promote the ability for students to learn the styles because many resources are readily available.

Update: For anyone who cares, this is our 200th post. Yay us!

BREAKING: Judicial Council rules against Senate, Speaker, President

The ASUN Judicial Council today announced it would issue summary judgment in favor of Corinna Cohn in her remaining cases pending against the ASUN Senate, Speaker of the Senate, ASUN President, and other ASUN officers, including a case to have ASUN's spending during fiscal year 2009 declared illegal.

In the statement filed today, the Council canceled Friday's scheduled hearing on the cases and said that, in light of the admissions of liability from ASUN Senate Speaker Gracie Geremia and ASUN President Eli Reilly, it would issue summary judgment in Cohn's favor. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.) The Council said it would meet Friday to discuss the summary judgment orders and release them in a timely manner.

Two of the pending cases alleged the ASUN Senate violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) by not keeping and timely producing written minutes of its meetings and violated ASUN law by not properly preparing bills for presidential consideration. The third case challenged the validity of ASUN's budget for fiscal year 2009 on multiple grounds, including several OML violations.

These three cases and three cases decided last month could have far reaching consequences. With respect to the budget, the Council's forthcoming ruling will declare that the ASUN illegally spent around $1.5 million last year. The cases regarding OML violations could have the effect of invalidating much of what the Senate has done in the past couple of years.

The rulings could also open Geremia and other senators to individual liability under the university's code of conduct. Any violation of the OML found under the code of conduct can result in automatic removal from office, as well as other disciplinary sanctions.

Check back later for analysis and commentary.

ASUN officers admit liability in cases challenging laws

ASUN President Eli Reilly and Speaker of the Senate Gracie Geremia admitted liability in three cases alleging violations of the Open Meeting Law (OML) and ASUN laws governing enactment of legislation.

In separate statements filed yesterday, respondents Reilly and Geremia admitted that laws, processes, and safeguards were not followed in the Senate consideration and enactment of several bills. Shortly after the filings, the petitioner in the cases, Corinna Cohn, requested the Council issue summary judgment in her favor since nothing at issue was in dispute. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.)

In his statement in the case to invalidate the fiscal year 2009 budget, Reilly said, "I will admit that process was not entirely followed surrounding the signing into law of the Association budget for fiscal year 2009." Reilly further pleads that none of the omissions were done "in a malicious or intentional manner."

Regarding the case challenging the Senate's failure to timely produce written minutes of its meetings, Geremia blames noncompliance on poor advisement, the fact that student government officials and employees receive no formal training on the law's requirements, and have a high turnover rate from session to session. Geremia also claims that the 75th Session committed similar violations, but that is not before the Council. Geremia concludes that the problems will cease with proper training and advisement.

In the case challenging the proper preparation of legislative measures after Senate passage, Geremia writes, "I recognize that the process was not carried out in the correct manner.... There are many reasons to (sic) why this process wasn’t followed, ranging from a transition in Senate advisement to the resignation of the Secretary of the Senate." Geremia similarly concludes that improved communication will ensure mistakes like this do not occur in the future.

Geremia's statements tended to point the blame at others, particularly ASUN administrative faculty, while Reilly's statements accepted responsibility but claimed the liability was of no consequence since it wasn't done with malicious intent.

None of the statements explicitly indicates the Senate or executive branch should escape the consequences of liability, but all intimate that the Council should overlook the violations of the law.

The statements are in response to three cases still pending from more than a year ago. In February, the Council ruled against ASUN in three other cases alleging various violations of the OML, but refused to invalidate the underlying Senate actions (VLEG coverage here).

To date, the Senate has taken no action in response to these cases. No item has listed these cases on a Senate agenda, and presumably no formal discussion has taken place at Senate meetings regarding these cases. It does not appear Geremia issued her statements admitting liability with the consent of the Senate, possibly exceeding her authority as speaker. The Senate is named as a respondent in the cases and the Senate never delegated authority to the speaker to answer the cases.

Geremia's admissions of OML liability also open her to university disciplinary sanctions under the NSHE Code. The punishment for being found liable for OML violations is removal from office and other possible sanctions under the code of conduct, including disciplinary notation on the violator's transcript.

All six cases, if ruled in Cohn's favor, will create binding precedents that will invalidate much of the 76th Senate Session's actions, and could have application to the acts of the current Senate session as well.

The three cases pending are scheduled for argument on March 26. With the admissions of liability, it is possible the Council will cancel argument and issue summary judgment.

The cases pending are numbered AN-003, AN-005, and AN-006 (available here).

Still pending, three years later

Another ASUN Election has passed, and a constitutional amendment ratified by the students an eternity ago (three years) is still pending. This has been well discussed in this space before. Since the previous posts have been getting some traffic lately, perhaps someone has noticed this somewhat important oversight.

Previous posts:
What Constitutional Amendment?
Oh, That Constititonal Amendment
Another BoR meeting, constitutional amendment still pending

Since the amendment was ratified back in 2008, the Regents have enacted a policy delegating the approval power over student government constitutions to the Chancellor. See section 1.3.6 of Chapter 1, Title 2, Board of Regents Handbook. Thus, the Regents do not have to approve the amendment, but the amendment still must be formally transmitted to the university president, and ASUN law is explicit about whose duty that is.

Once again, in hopes of making this all so utterly easy a caveman could do it, below is a specimen certificate, updated for current Election Commission Chairman Jeremiah Todd. All he needs to do--literally--is print out the certificate the number of times required under ASUN law, sign them, and send to them to the required recipients.

I have to say, I'm hard pressed to think of anything more embarassing to anyone ever involved in ASUN, the administrative faculty included, than letting the people's votes go ignored, particularly on something so important.

Specimen Certificate to UNR President on ASUN Constitutional Amendment_rev 2010-03-19

Please, someone, anyone, fix this so I can stop writing about it.

Congratulations to the President and Vice President elect and the Members of the 78th ASUN Senate

As promised, some brief analysis.

• Jose won by an 8-point margin
• Sadykova won by a 14-point margin
• All 5 incumbent senators won reelection. The only ASUN insider to lose was Shirley Diaz, although it was inevitable for an insider to lose in that race.
• 14 men and 8 women were elected to the Senate
• About 12 percent of the undergraduate student body voted, about the same as in the past few years
• Both advisory funding questions passed by more than 60 percent of the vote
• The closest race, in the School of Journalism, was decided by three votes

Once we have the numbers, we will compare voter turnout rates by college.

The most surprising result from this election was student support for increased fees. By significant margins, both questions passed. It is evidence that even in times of increased tuition and fees, students are willing to pay additional fees for specific programs and services.

Also of note is how smoothly this election was conducted. Major kudos to Commission Chair Jeremiah Todd and his entire crew. Their hard work is apparent and they deserve our praise. Great job, guys!

2010 ASUN General Election Uncertified Results

Winners in bold; NOTA stands for none of the above. Some analysis later.

President of the Associated Students
Charlie Jose-850
Casey Stiteler-713

Vice President of the Associated Students
Shirley Diaz-657
Leissan Sadykova-855

Senator for the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources (2 seats)
Jeffrey Fine-49
Corey Jokerst-78
Randy Pares-38
Chelsea Truax-61
NOTA-0

Senator for the College of Business Administration (3 Seats)
Jake Butera-151
Richard Corn-117
Jacob Crawley-91
Mathew Neben (Incumbent)-157
NOTA-20

Senator for the College of Education (2 seats)
Ashlee Benton-35
Jourdan Douglas-17
Edna Meza-43
David Ronan-48

Senator for the College of Engineering (2 Seats)
Alexandria Hill-70
Adam Khan-70
Roger Przybyla-53
NOTA-16

Senator for the College of Liberal Arts (8 Seats)
Joseph Barrett-124
Brandon Bishop (Incumbent)-231
Mitch Bottoset (Incumbent)-162
Samuel Crampton-144
Christopher Day-164
Branden Jung-167
Tatiana Kosyrkina-113
Lea Moser (Incumbent)-187
Ann Newsome (Incumbent)-164
Joey Nizuk-123
Jesus Palma-242
Jordan Weaver-119
NOTA-58

Senator for the College of Science (2 Seats)
Joseph Agor-38
Angel Arias-33
Jennifer Masters-54
Natasha Monga-87
Lauren Riley-74
NOTA-0

Senator for the Division of Health Sciences (2 Seats)
John Haller-51
Reynaldo Veloz-67
Kim Williams-70

Senator for the School of Journalism
Jonathan Moore-61
Misha Ray-59

Ballot Question 1- JV $5 Art Fee
Yes-865
No-506

Ballot Question 2- JV $25 Student Support Services Fee
Yes-855
No-534

Flashback to 2006

Taking no opinion on the votes expressed here, notice anything amiss?

Bragging rights go to the first person to answer what is wrong and cite to some authority.

Just what exactly do they hope to accomplish?

The UNR Students for Liberty Ludicrousness want to Abolish ASUN. So what exactly do they hope to accomplish? Oh, right. Abolish ASUN. Unfortunately, their latest endeavor in ludicrousness is destined to fail. Putting aside their pure hypocrisy, why are their efforts wasted? Because what they want can't happen.

What exactly is their petition seeking? A student ballot question to dissolve ASUN? Board of Regents action to eliminate ASUN? The petition is unclear as to its effect. Without the petition's legal effect being clear, it is insufficient to be recognized. Aside from the petition's lack of clarity, other concerns exist.

First, as a matter of ASUN law, the petition does not propose a proper popular initiative. The ASUN Constitution limits popular initiatives by petition to constitutional amendments and popular enactment and repeal of legislative acts (i.e. laws subordinate to the constitution). There is nothing in the ASUN Constitution that authorizes the dissolution of the Association (compare student government constitutions that contain express dissolution provisions). As a matter of ASUN law, the petition seeks something that the government cannot grant: a popular vote on whether to abolish ASUN. (This is predicated on my understanding of what the petition in fact seeks.)

Second, the petition is directed to the Board of Regents, suggesting that the petition is not intended to implicate ASUN's electoral process at all (can you understand my confusion about what this petition is asking for?). The Regents are not inclined to abolish ASUN without the consent of the students. But if ASUN cannot legally place a dissolution question on the ballot, this question will never get to the Regents. The only way I see the Regents abolishing ASUN is if the organization becomes so demonstrably corrupt that wiping the slate clean is the only option.

Third, even assuming that ASUN could place a dissolution question on the ballot, what vote would be sufficient to abolish ASUN? A majority of those voting? A majority of the membership of ASUN? It is entirely unclear what vote is necessary, as a matter of law, to dissolve a student government. To me, it seems that an absolute majority of the membership is required. Also, keep in mind that ASUN is not self-chartering. The Board of Regents is the chartering authority. Thus, to eliminate ASUN requires their approval, and as I've said, it's unlikely they'll grant it.

Fourth, the electronic version is an unacceptable medium in which to circulate the petition. ASUN law does not allow for petitions to be circulated electronically. Thus, the ASUN Attorney General has no authority to accept such a petition.

Finally, what the petition is against, namely "a student government that funds itself through a compulsory student fee," implicates a solution that is worse than what exists now. Implicitly, UNR SFL is in favor of an ASUN that does not obtain revenue through a mandatory fee. But it's that mandatory fee that prevents ASUN from engaging in content and viewpoint discrimination when deciding who gets funding and who does not. In other words, if UNR SFL requested funds for its "Abolish ASUN" event under a voluntary fee system, ASUN could deny the request simply because it didn't agree with the message. It is because ASUN has a mandatory fee that the U.S. Constitution prevents ASUN from engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

One last thing to consider: Getting rid of ASUN isn't going to make college less expensive by $5 per credit. The Regents will happily reallocate that money to something else. In short, doing away with ASUN will do more harm to students than good because the students will lose their official representation.

Sweet, sweet video evidence

At the risk of giving Mitch Bottoset and Chris Day attention they do not deserve, we give you this YouTube video.



Pay particular attention at the 2:30 mark in the video. A couple of thoughts.

The Code of Elections makes it a violation to "[use] ASUN authority, facilities, funds, or resources for campaign purposes." Section 14(b)(5). A plain reading of that statute seems to indicate that filming campaign videos in ASUN offices is prohibited.
 
Bottoset and Day (probably for show, given this is intended to be a funny campaign video) appear to pick the lock to ASUN Vice President Charlie Jose's office. Ignoring whether they actually picked the lock, were they authorized to enter that office? If yes, then the only issue is the issue above. If no, is this trespassing or gaining unauthorized entry to an office, in violation of the System Code and state criminal law?

Update: As I initially suspected, the candidates state they were authorized to be in the office. As to my first question, they indicate that even the Election Commission is unclear about how the statute should be applied. Personally, I am torn as to whether this particular instance should be prohibited, never mind if it actually is. In any event, it's clear that this particular statute needs some tweaking to cure its vagueness.

A sure way to lose a debate and a giant in the room

A great way to lose a debate: agree with your opponent(s). That is all Jacob Camp, candidate for ASUN President, did in last week's debate. I'm pleased to see the Nevada Sagebrush picked up on this, which was, to several observers of the debate, a giant gorilla in the room. So kudos to the Sagebrush for paying attention to and reporting on the details that mattered. I don't think it's a stretch to say, as far as ASUN coverage is concerned, this is so far the best issue under Editor-in-Chief Jessica Fryman.

That said, there was another giant in the room during the "debate," (available online here--apologies for poor audio) and it wasn't Eli Reilly's epic ego or Casey Stiteler's sense of entitlement, not even Jacob Camp's love fest (but no homo!). It was how painfully obvious how woefully unfamiliar the candidates are--even insiders!--with what ASUN is.

You want to know what ASUN is? An excellent--nay, the only--place to start is with the charter document, the ASUN Constitution, included below for your reading pleasure. For, in the words of "West Wing" character Toby Ziegler, referring to the U.S. Constitution, "in all it is the owner's manual and we should read what it has to say!"

Constitution of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada, 2007

What should we take away from that reading? A few things.

1. ASUN is an association composed of every undergraduate student at Nevada.
2. The purpose of the undergraduate student body in establishing ASUN under this constitution is, according to the Preamble, to "advance our interests, set forth our duties, and provide for meaningful participation in the governance of our University." Basically, look after the interests of all undergrads.
3. The association is governed by a tripartite representative government, and it looks a hell of a lot like the federal government. Although true, this is a government composed of students (i.e. "student government"), it is a government nonetheless.
4. ASUN is governed under a rule of law.

Now that you've read the ASUN Constitution, we have a framework within which to review the debate. The most evident conclusion is that no candidate is familiar with the owner's manual, the ASUN Constitution. Even Jacob Camp, who claimed superiority over his opponents because he had a copy with him, botched a most basic issue about which offices are created in the constitution. His response after the debate was, "oops."

Particularly with the vice presidential candidates, each has a notion of what the vice president should be, not what it is under the constitution. For those who are curious, the vice president's only constitutional obligations are to be able to succeed to the presidency if need be, to preside over the Senate during judicial impeachments, and do what the Senate or President delegate. That's it. All the jockeying of who is better for diversity was pointless.

I know this next point is nitpicky, but precision with language matters.

• Legislator, n., a member of a legislature
• Legislature, n., a body composed of legislators
• Legislation, n., a written document legislators debate in a legislature

The terms are never interchangeable. Get these right or you'll lose life points.

Last point, universal among the candidates is the idealism to "do good," to "do the right thing," or to help make the campus better. Those are all laudable motivations, but that isn't your job. Getting elected to ASUN means getting elected to run, manage, and lead a government. It is a job with public weight. It means legal duties and obligations, and legal consequences if mistakes are made.

Too often students believe that ASUN is a popular place to be, a resume builder (the perpetual favorite), and really not that serious a thing. But ASUN is more than that. It is a proving ground for future elected leaders. It is a place to learn about functions of government, how governments work. It isn't a sandbox on some playground. So candidates, stop treating it like it is. You'll earn much more credibility if you do.

A little presumptuous?

Maybe it's just me, but it seems just a little bit presumptuous to start inviting people to the presidential debate you will hope to appear in before you've even won a spot in the general election.

"The President shall give to the Senate information of the state of the Association"

The ASUN Constitution requires the President to "give to the Senate information of the state of the Association, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he or she shall judge necessary and expedient." ASUN Const. art. III, sec. 2(d). This language, borrowed directly from article II, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, basically means the ASUN President must give a State of the Association address, if we can assume an intent to mirror the practices (I was there, and we can).

Although this provision did not exist under the previous ASUN Constitution, in 2006 the Senate invited ASUN President Jeff Champagne to deliver his annual address before the Senate. 74 ASUN Stat. 11. The invitation was issued under a Senate statute that required the president to deliver an annual address in the fall semester. ASUN Senate Statutes, section 350.1 (April 11, 2007). Since the Senate acts and communicates through the legislation it passes, the invite was a formal resolution.

Since then, the practice envisioned under the current constitution is dramatically lost. During the 75th Session, rather than coordinate a date with the Senate so the address could be attended formally, as it was during the 74th Session, ASUN President Sarah Ragsdale decided to go it alone: she scheduled the event on her own, sent out her own invitations, and never consulted the Senate until after invites were sent out.

The Senate attempted to salvage the event by formally inviting the President to deliver her address before the Senate, as constitutionally required, but the resolution was not agreed to. The Senate felt it had been snubbed (rightfully so, given that the address is to be given to the Senate), and the result was the Senate largely boycotted the speech.

ASUN President Eli Reilly never did deliver a message to the Senate during the 76th Session.

This year, President Reilly is borrowing from Ragsdale. He appears to be going it alone. Why President Reilly is continuing this poor practice is unclear, but it might have something to do with the lack of a professional interbranch relationship between Reilly and Speaker Gracie Geremia.

It is not an accident that we used the language from the Federal Constitution in the ASUN Constitution's rewrite, now all of three years old. We intended the practice to mirror the Congress and the President's State of the Union message. I'd suggest the Senate fix this misunderstanding, take the upper hand, invite the President, and get the practice back in order, but we all know how well the Senate follows procedure and the intended practice set by those who preceded them.

Three strikes against Senate in Council rulings

In three unanimous decisions released yesterday, the ASUN Judicial Council ruled against the ASUN Senate for various violations of the Nevada Open Meeting Law (OML) and ASUN laws implementing the OML.

About a year after initially being filed, the decisions in these cases represent a victory for the petitioner, Corinna Cohn.

In the three cases, the Council found the Senate violated the OML several ways: (1) including an incorrect date on an agenda for a meeting that was held, (2) not satisfying the "clear and complete" agenda requirement, and (3) publishing minutes that do not reflect the substance of what was proposed, discussed, or decided at a meeting.

In none of the cases did the Council decide to invalidate the actions taken in violation of the OML, citing the desire to issue warnings first. But the Council noted it is within its constitutional and statutory power to invalidate actions should similar cases arise in the future.

It is unclear whether the Council exceeded its authority in declining to invalidate the actions, given the plain language of NRS 241.036, which states that any action taken in violation of any provision of the OML is void.

In the case regarding meeting minutes, the Council had especially harsh words for the Senate. "Minutes not recorded with careful and required detail of all actions occurring during the meeting of the Senate is in no way acceptable and is deemed intolerable by requirements of ASUN Law," the Council said in its written decision.

Although these cases have no teeth in and of themselves, they could serve as valuable precedents to invalidate other actions of the Senate, as similar deficiencies have been noted in Senate practice the last two sessions.

These cases were ruled on summary judgment, meaning that the Council found that the petitioner made her case and that the Senate could present no reasonable defense. Some believe that this bodes well for future petitioners who wish to challenge Senate actions based on OML violations.

These cases also could serve as a foundation for seeking individual officer liability under the University code of conduct. ASUN officers who violate the OML are liable to disciplinary action for violating a stated NSHE policy. Such discipline can extend to removal from office and a disciplinary note being placed on a violator's transcript.

Still remaining to be argued are three more cases. One challenges whether the secretary of the Senate can certify to the accurate enrollment and passage of bills purportedly passed before her appointment. The second seeks to invalidate actions taken at meetings where no minutes were published. The third seeks to invalidate the fiscal year 2009 budget. Although that fiscal year has passed, any ruling on that case could set precedents for what is acceptable budgetary practice. The third case also contains several OML violation allegations.

The cases are numbered AN-001 through AN-006. All six cases, evidence, and the rulings are available here.

BREAKING: Judicial Council rules against Senate

According to official records, the ASUN Judicial Council yesterday ruled on three of six complaints against the ASUN Senate for various violations of the Nevada Open Meeting Law. Details to come.

Diversity: The Paradox of Paradox

ASUN has a diversity commission that has the supposed goal of helping to push individuals understanding of identity beyond traditional defining characteristics. We should not see black, brown or white. Male and female, there is no difference. Gay, straight, bi, trans-gender, etc does not matter.

There are a few things that are hard to articulate surrounding this particular topic. Sean's attempt at levity and irony attempted to hit on this. There are nearly 40 comments--some not very civil, others noteworthy--on the post, most of which demonstrate a lack of rhetorical skill. Being a vainglorious bastard, I hope to provide some tools here to help some of the people talking about this. I also hope that this might move the discussion, if it continues here, in a more civil direction.

It seems to me, in my very humble and often humbled opinion, that we must recognize the extant notion of diversity to move beyond using it to define people. We cannot flip a switch and divest the world of bigotry, racism, hatred, sexism, ageism, zealotry etc. These are cultural patterns that are in some cases millennium old. They are ingrained in the cultural psyche (gasp, how dare I), embedded in History. This is the unfortunate ambiguity facing the Diversity Commission.

There is also the notion of identity with which to contend. Starting with the premise that individuals are in fact unique presents a problem in attempting to define someone's identity. In the West (gasp again) at least, there is I think a prevalent notion that the individual has a unique identity. And in fact that identity is a natural right. In the simplistic bifurcation of society into state and individual, the state has not the right to demand conformance to social norms (unless the norms protect other individuals from harm) and most not attempt to subsume the individual.

But if we demand an identity, must we not have means to define that identity? Undoubtedly, a concept such as race fails utterly in capturing essential characteristics of an individual. However, other things like religion, geographic location and nationality do often capture parts of a persons identity. And this line of reasoning leads to the trap of accepting these ideas, but we must not accept them, because by accepting them we acknowledge their legitimacy, and we started off not wanting to recognize that they have a legitimate role in defining the individual.

It is here that reality strikes a blow.

Barry Belmont, who I believe confesses to the egregious sin of being a Libertarian, wrote the following in a post belittling Speaker Geremia's apparent non-stance stance (which, unlike Belmont, I think had some valid criticism on contributor Sean's puerile post),

Put yourself [in a blind [wo]mans place] for a day, Gracie. Try to feel how much better the world is when you stop trying to categorize others and realize we’re all just hurtling around this big ol’ universe on a tiny rock. We’re not men, we’re not women, we’re not white nor black nor brown, we’re not Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, we’re not vegetarians and meat-eaters, not gay or straight, not the differences that divide us. We’re just people.

We’re 99+% of the same genetic stuff. It’s time we start acting that way.

I'm honestly a little surprised by that stance, but delving into why would be too many words tangent to my point. To the point, Belmont is from what I have perceived a man of ideas. He has, although I am only acquainted with his writings on SFL, impressed me with his knowledge, logic and rhetoric. I know him solely for his ideas. And he has claimed it is the merit of a person's ideas that is what is worth recognition. However, it is in these ideas themselves that we cannot easily or simply escape from religion or race or sex, because it is these ideas that define, at least in part, identity.

I hold very strongly my belief in the sovereignty of the individual. And I also unequivocally believe my feelings on this have been very heavily shaped by my socioeconomic status and my opinions on religion. These nebulous ideas do play a role in helping us use language to capture the essences of identity. They may be flawed, and each of us has a unique definition for them, but they nonetheless do help create an ultimately imperfect definition of who we are.

And it is for this reason, I see legitimacy for something like the Diversity Commission to exist. However, I have not seen anything from the Diversity Commission that attempts to engage students in this dialogue.