Sunday, April 18, 2010
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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment