"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.

UNR Students for Liberty and Beautiful Irony

In an ingeniously cruel move, the UNR Students for Liberty have secured funding from ASUN for an Abolish ASUN event. I can't imagine a more brilliant way to demonstrably validate their view that ASUN bureaucracy is a joke.

What's more disturbing is the ease with which the funding was given. You can view the brilliant discourse had by the club commission in a video provided by SFL. I'm sure there are some legal ramifications I am unaware of that might compel the government to fund SFL without discrimination, but that is not what happened.

I grow regularly more and more convinced ASUN serves little purpose. When the club commission cannot stand in defense of the government it purports to serve, the institution has a problem. I've always stood behind ASUN as a great tool to help students learn, but I've seen very little in my years to suggest that SFL is not correct. It seems all ASUN is good at is taking money from all students to redistribute to more active students. ASUN must learn how to advocate for students on issues students care about and be able to defend at least some part of its institution against the funny, but childish antics, of SFL.

Response to budget cuts: let's hold hearings!

With the latest round of state budget cuts threatening to put the state back to the stone age, and cuts to higher education that are practically inhumane, students across the state are rallying for action. Students at UNLV are planning a walkout (Nevada State College students reportedly are joining). UNLV students have an activism page set up on facebook, SaveUNLV, and they even have a Web site. Students from the College of Southern have consistently been vocal against budget cuts at Board of Regents meetings. The student response at Nevada? Let's hold some hearings!

Now, we can debate the merits of a walkout, which to me seems like a stupid, misdirected effort at activism, but at least it's activism. But ASUN? Holding hearings? Now? Really?! The time for hearings has passed. You guys are way behind the curve. Now is the time for activism.

I look at the ASUN Web site, and there is not a single mention of budget cuts. Instead, I'm told about scholarships, some thing called "The Conference," and some useless waste of money about stereotyping through words.


Instead of spending time in a room insulated from your peers, it's time to start rallying them to Carson City to lobby the legislature that budget cutting is not the solution. Instead of spending money on a sexual health week and a leadership conference, why not spend it on flooding legislators with letters explaining why the state must consider diversifying revenue to spare higher education?

One thing is clear, Nevada: It's time to take matters into your own hands, because the ASUN is busy looking out for their selfish interests, not the interests of its 12,500 undergraduate members.

At least not all hope is lost. Some Nevada students seem to have the right idea.

A year later, cases coming to trial

Nearly one year after being filed, six cases variously against the Senate, its leader and secretary, the President, and other ASUN officials are finally coming to trial.

In March 2009, student Corinna Cohn (who is a contributor to this blog) filed six complaints in the ASUN Judicial Council alleging gross violations of the Open Meeting Law and of the ASUN Constitution in the passage of legislation during the 76th Session of the Senate.

The first case docketed is AN-005, a case that alleges the Senate violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) by failing to keep written minutes of its proceedings, is scheduled for February 17, during a Senate meeting.

The OML requires public bodies, which the Senate is, to keep written minutes and produce them within 30 working days after a meeting. Failure to do so constitutes a violation. The consequences of a judicial finding of a violation include invalidation of the actions taken at the meeting. If handled by the university conduct office, consequences include removal from office and a disciplinary note being included on the offender's transcript.

The result of invalidation would be far reaching, voiding many pieces of legislation, including last year's budget. All of the cases have the potential to wipe the 76th Session from the books. And since practice has not changed since that session, a favorable ruling for Cohn could lead to challenges of the actions taken during this session, as well.

Respondents in the case, purportedly being represented by the Senate's leader, Speaker Gracie Geremia, complained in documents filed with the Council that Cohn no longer has standing to bring the complaints because she has since graduated.

Geremia has also questioned the ethics of hearing complaints from individuals who are no longer students. "The students of the Association are paying into a system that's paying for judicial wages. As of now, our judicial council is working on cases from an individual who is no longer a student. How is this ethical. (sic)," Geremia wrote in a filing with the Council.

The Council has rejected both arguments, noting that Cohn was a member when the cases were initially filed and thus has standing to see the cases through. The Council did, however, require Cohn to find a representative to argue her cases, which she did.

The cases, which were originally scheduled to be heard in May 2009, were indefinitely postponed because then Chief Justice Ashley Nikkel graduated. The new Chief Justice, Ebeth Palafox, was out of the country for most of the summer, and the cases languished on the docket. Nothing was done until last month, when Cohn received a communiation from Palafox notifying her that the cases were on.

Also of note is Justice Taylor R. Anderson, who formerly recused himself from the cases back in May, is now back on the cases, causing Geremia to take exception. "Ms.Cohn (sic) and Mr.Anderson (sic) have discussed and agreed upon this issues in my presence, prior to his appointment as a justice," Geremia wrote. So far, the Council has instructed Geremia to ask for a recusal hearing if she believes it is warranted.

These cases also rekindle interesting constitutional and parliamentary questions about who can properly represent the Senate in these cases (previously discussed on VLEG here). Although the Senate considered a resolution to allow the parliamentarian to represent the Senate, there is no record of it being agreed to.

Recently, the Judicial Council has been critical of the failures of the Senate and President to properly handle the reapportionment of the Senate for the next two years.

Code of Elections now up-to-date

In our continuing desire to be a service to those in and those interested in ASUN, we have taken the liberty of updating the Code of Elections, because apparently compiling a document is too much work for those whose jobs it is. You can find our compilation of the document here.

Also, coming soon is a guide to the elections. In it, we will discuss key election policies, some homework all candidates should be doing, and whether or not any of that stuff in the Election Code is actually valid.

One more thing, the candidate packet published by the Election Commission, which was curiously updated after the filing deadline, is not at all accurate. You might as well ignore it.

Cheers!

Sagebrush incapable of basic fact checking

The Nevada Sagebrush, in its latest show of being incapable of even the most basic fact checking, embarrassingly (and erroneously) states that Division of Health Sciences students will be without representation when Sen. Geremye Teeter resigns this week. Sen. Renee Freeman recently resigned.

But, what's this? DHS has three senators, you say? Indeed, it does. Sen. Kimberly Anichowski. Can't she get any love for representin'?

And guess what's worse? They have an editorial cartoon about it this week, too.

Now, in the Sagebrush's defense, they might have gotten confused about DHS losing a senate seat under the reapportionment for the next two sessions. But that doesn't take effect until after the elections.

This is really sad, Sagebrush. I'd expect this kind of rank amateruism from the senators.

The morality of a filing fee

I don't intend this to be a discussion of the legal standing of erecting a monetary barrier to running for an ASUN office.

I have one simple question, in which I ask the concession of one assumption. Assume a student has a desire to run for office but doesn't have the means to pay the $50 fee held against potential campaigning violations. What recourse is available to said student under official ASUN policy that would allow the student to run?

I am unaware of any official mechanism in place to afford such a student the opportunity to run.

As the title of this post implies, the moral implications are disturbing. Perhaps the system should be modified?

Fewer candidates file for election

Fewer students filed for ASUN elections this year than last, according to government records. As of the filing deadline Friday, 48 students filed for executive and legislative races, with 3 each in the presidential and vice presidential races, prompting a primary election on March 3-4.

Last year, 54 students filed in the executive and Senate races, 2 each for president and vice president and 50 for the Senate. In 2008, 41 students filed for office.

Of the 48 who filed, 3 have not yet qualified to run, all in the Senate, according to official listings. To qualify for election to the Senate, a candidate must have a 2.75 GPA, be enrolled in at least 7 undergraduate credits, be a member of the college in which the candidate is running, and pay a $50 filing fee.

Five incumbents are running for reelection in the Senate. Mathew Neben, in the College of Business, and Brandon Bishop, Mitch Bottoset, Lea Moser, and Ann Newsome, all in the College of Liberal Arts. Last year, 5 incumbents ran for reelection, all but one winning reelection.

Two candidates who ran for Senate but lost last year have filed again this year: Christopher Day and Tatiana Kosyrkina, both for the College of Liberal Arts.

In the presidential race, Casey Stiteler, who is the Director of Programming, will face off against Vice President Charlie Jose and Jacob Camp. Jose previously removed his name from candidacy but reapplied before the deadline.

In the vice presidential race, Sen. Shirley Diaz (Liberal Arts) will face Leissan Sadykova, a club commissioner, and Ryan Childers. Sadykova ran for Senate last year and lost.

The general election is March 10-11. All officers are elected to single year terms beginning on April 14.

University e-mail going bye-bye

Some of our more "in" readers may know that in a budget saving move, NSHE System Computing Services will no longer provide centralized, systemwide student e-mail support. This means that Fallon Mail is going bye-bye. The Nevada Sagebrush reported on this back in September, after a senator mentioned it during a Senate meeting.

Each campus has the option to implement replacement services for students. Many students expressed displeasure, arguing that cutting student e-mail service would make it much more difficult for students to prove eligibility for online software discounts.

The lesser university in the southern portion of the state, Nevada Southern (a/k/a University of Nevada, Las Vegas), is replacing their student e-mail system with Google Mail, which is provided free to educational institutions.

So if UNLV can afford the nominal increase in costs for existing staff to manage the system, why can't Nevada? It isn't because UNLV is better than Nevada, is it?

And why isn't the ASUN Senate doing anything about this? You want to tackle something that matters to students, this is a great issue.