Vis Lupi Est Grex

It's clearly a joke, and more than that, it's an insult: a spray of seltzer to the face of the dehydrated man begging for water. Barry has already said that he did not submit the bill.

Barry may be a jerk, but he is a sincere jerk, and it pisses me off that someone in Bottoset's position would use it mock one of his constituents.

If people don't take ASUN seriously, it's not just because of joke legislation, it's because of the people who run the organization.

SCORE! The SECOND Vis Lupi post I didn't "deserve!!!"

I am not going to defend myself. I am doing what I was called upon by a constituent to do.

I will say this however... I am not mocking Barry. In fact, I am scared to death of him and his movement. I think it is important to understand not the content of the bill, but rather the attitude behind it. I stand behind the language used because it is indicative of the way a large body of students feel, whether misguided or not.

But thanks for the publicity! I appreciate it.

Mitch, I didn't realize Barry is your constituent. He isn't in the College of Liberal Arts, is he?

This comment has been removed by the author.

Not at all, but if a senator is introducing legislation on behalf of someone, shouldn't it at least be by one of that constituent's senators?

I scrapped my comment because I see I misinterpreted Anonymous' question. Sorry!

I'm intrigued, Mitch. You say you are afraid of Barry's movement. Why? I'm genuine when I say I would like to have a response to my substantive points. How do you respond, Mitch, to those who argue that you can't abolish ASUN from within, or even by a popular vote of the students? Finally, as a senator, don't you have a duty to ensure ASUN's continued success or existence?

Since you asked nicely, I suppose I should indulge.

I would agree with your assertion that ASUN cannot be abolished from within, as it is the Board of Regents who has the final say. That being said, let's say SFL gets a referendum question on the ballot to Abolish the Association. Let's pretend, for hypothetical purposes, it wins. Now, I think it is clear that the matter would have to be taken up with the Board of Regents. The leaves the BoR with two options... One is to go ahead with the way students voted, and the other is to ignore it. To ignore it would be to invalidate our democratic process, as it sends the message that they only listen to the student's when it is convenient. From thereon out, ASUN is [more of] a joke because our voting process has been invalidated. So I'd say there is a good chance ASUN as we know it would be scrapped.

So, all that being said, I think it is pretty clear that the bill that was presented would not be able to accomplish anything and therefore never put the Association in harm's way. This bill is a symbolic gesture that shows that we are willing to listen to criticisms. This isn't a one trick pony, "Ahhh so funny" bill. This is a multi-step process aimed at addressing student concerns.

I too am glad it made it to my committee, as I can ensure it does not die out completely.

And finally Anonymous, just because I am a Liberal Arts Senator doesn't mean I should turn away a student who has an opinion. To be honest, I don't know which college Barry belongs to, and I don't care. I don't screen the students I talk to in order to make sure they are Liberal Arts as well. Isn't it important to represent not only my college, but also the entire student body? Or am I missing something?

Mitch,

Thank you for responding. Assuming for a moment that the question of abolishment can be put to ASUN's members (which is no sure thing), what vote is sufficient to indicate to the Regents the students want to abolish ASUN? A majority of those who vote? A majority of the entire membership? Some higher threshold of either population, voters and members?

Now, if you will, let's address the more fundamental problem. Can ASUN submit an abolishment question under present ASUN law? I think the answer is no. Why is that not the case?

First let's assume. We'll take the recent passage of the new fees as an example. I believe the Board of Regents have made their position known by allowing those fees to come into effect based on a majority of the students who voted yes on it. So let's say Barry and his buddies get their question passed by one vote, that is a majority. And by BoR precedent, it should be accepted as student will because we can ONLY assume the students that didn't vote simply have no opinion one way or another. If the BoR denied the legitimacy of one majority over the other, than aren't elections pointless and useless?

Isn't this one of Barry's points? That a small minority of students control things like new fees? It would only seem logical that the BoR would be in quite a pickle.

As to the principle of putting it on the ballot, I cannot cite any specific law that makes a case one way or another. It would be inherently silly to establish the proper procedure to dissolve the body. I rely on two things then to form my argument.

One: In passing conversation, the Attorney General has made mention that they are working within the rules of the association and that it would likely get on a ballot. I trust him implicitly, as he is far more knowledgeable than I when it comes to that stuff.

Two: I again look to the recent passage of the fees for this example. ASUN has no legal authority to impose fees on students. Only the BoR can do that. Despite the fact that it passed, it still needed to pass the BoR before they could come into effect. Therefore, couldn't a similar question be placed on the referendum, even IF ASUN has no direct authority? Even if this means the abolition of the association? I contend, philosophically, that it can.

I think you're too comfortable with your comparisons. Comparing abolishment with the imposition of fees is an inappropriate comparison. There is ample precedent to indicate that the Regents use student referenda as merely gauges of opinion. The questions are advisory and never implicate the power or authority of the student government itself. Dissolution is very different (I prefer this word to "abolishment"). There is no such precedent to which I am aware that the Regents would treat dissolution similarly. The nature of destroying something is too different to allow direct comparison.

As I have written before, I believe it is not legal or proper for UNR SFL to force ASUN to place a dissolution question on the ballot. It is inherently against ASUN's (as an institution) interests, and ASUN is without the authority to allow such a question. This is not an amendment to ASUN's constitution or an item of enactment subordinate to the ASUN Constitution. Thus, no matter what the ASUN AG may have said, there is no legal basis to get this question on the ballot. The fees comparison fails because fees have no direct effect on ASUN; dissolution clearly does.

To address the second part of your argument in favor of a dissolution question, to me the only valid way to get a dissolution question on the ballot is the Regents must force the issue. ASUN as an institution can do nothing that is contrary to its existence, and it cannot allow activities under its authority to undermine its existence. Thus, UNR SFL must petition the Regents to have them hold a referendum to determine whether there is ample student support to dissolve ASUN. This presents a problem. What vote is sufficient?

If we compare to corporation law, it takes the consent of a majority of the shareholders to dissolve. If we compare to state-established special districts, it takes a majority of the qualified (or registered) voters to support dissolution. ASUN has no shareholders per se, and it has no voter registration. Therefore, the proper threshold, in my view, is a majority of the membership. This is the reality of why ASUN is likely very safe.

Here's the biggest pickle, as you say. There is ample persuasive authority to indicate it takes a majority of the membership to dissolve, but under state law it takes only a majority of voters in an election to create. It's easier to create than to dissolve. The reason for that, I think, is to protect an organization from an insurgent minority.

In all of this, I find one fact most amusing: Barry must rely on the same coercive power he finds so despicable to accomplish his aims.

Mitch, everyone knows you have a man crush on Attorney General Macaluso. Just remember not to get any grass stains on your knees.

And people call me a troll?

This is a great article. Thank you foe the information you give, Have a great day !

purchase twitter favorites

Thanks for sharing such amazing articles that are such easy to read. They are totally engaging! I’m definitely coming back for more.visit website to learn more

Please let me know when you are going to post even more such amazing articles. They are totally interesting to read and understanding them is easy as well. visit here to purchase twitter favorites