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.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Sagebrush awakens to ASUN's problems
Hallelujah! Although, just a few demonstrably false facts. Some comments too, where appropriate.
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.
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.
[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.
Read more...
Monday, April 19, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
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.
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.
Read more...
Sunday, April 18, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
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.
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.
Read more...
Friday, April 16, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
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.
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.
Read more...
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.
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.
Read more...
Thursday, April 15, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
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.
Clarification: I'm referring only after the current ASUN Constitution took effect, so since 2007.
Read more...
Sunday, April 11, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
Friday, April 9, 2010
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?
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?
Read more...
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
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?
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?
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
