Tonight the ASUN Senate considered whether to proceed with impeachment against ASUN President Jake Pereira. According to the Nevada Sagebrush, the Senate has voted to indefinitely postpone impeachment proceedings against Pereira. In parliamentary procedure speak, that means the allegations forwarded by the Judicial Council are officially dead.
Cooler heads have prevailed, and hopefully this will not mar President Pereira's term and the Senate's session so early in their tenure. With that, this blog can safely return to mothballs for another four or more years.
Showing posts with label ASUN Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ASUN Senate. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Sunday, May 4, 2014
They finally did it. They broke ASUN. Or: what a mighty fine constitutional crisis you've created.
This blog has been sitting in mothballs for nearly 4 years. Its contributors, long since graduated from the University of Nevada and the halls of student government, have moved on to bigger and better things. To get a little biblical, we moved on to helping souls that wanted to be saved. It seems in our absence the youthfully exuberant officers, senators, and justices in the Associated Students of the University of Nevada have managed to create quite a constitutional crisis--and only two weeks into the Senate's 82d Session. What promise! There's scandal, intrigue, raw exercises of power, allegations of corruption and intimidation, a secret society is involved, a newly-elected president only two weeks into his term is facing possible removal from office. And, sadly, though perhaps not surprisingly, very little actual reason is being flung around the Joe Crowley Student Union in the ASUN offices in the weeks before summer break.
To shamelessly borrow a phrase from the secret society involved, "for the betterment of the University of Nevada," Vis Lupi Est Grex rises from theashes mothballs and offers its considered, detached, dispassionate, and reasoned view on the recent goings-on in ASUN. I thought long and hard about whether to publish this post. I am taking this opportunity to make my comments public for two primary reasons: (1) I believe the leaders in ASUN would benefit from having access to these thoughts and (2) I'm growing tired of repeating them on a person-by-person basis. Although I have offered below significant criticisms of how this process has unfolded and whether Pereira is deserving of impeachment, I am not a person with a vote and my only desire is to give those who do have the vote some outside perspective and reliable information. How those with the power ultimately choose to use it is up to them, though I hope they'll exercise their power better informed as a result of this blog post. For those with the intestinal fortitude, or perhaps the slightly masochistic leanings to read a post of 6,542 words, click on. But you were warned.
To shamelessly borrow a phrase from the secret society involved, "for the betterment of the University of Nevada," Vis Lupi Est Grex rises from the
Read more...
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
A committee of the Senate is not the Senate
The 78th Session senators have now had a few weeks' taste of summer, which means it's time for the Senate to recess until August and leave those poor souls who are in Reno (and who volunteer) to handle the Senate's business.
What usually occurs (at least in every interim period since 2007) is the Senate establishes an interim committee that has the authority to consider legislation within the jurisdiction of the standing committees and report it to the Senate by the time the Senate reconvenes from its break. Below is the model resolution establishing an interim committee (S. Res. 75-29).
Associated Students Statutes at Large Volume 75--Unofficial
When the Senate adopts rules of the Senate at the beginning of a session in the model fashion, readopting this type of resolution is unnecessary (sort of discussed here and here). Anyway, that's sort of off topic.
Enter Sen. Jesus Palma, who has introduced S. Res. 78-25 (thanks for numbering legislation!), scheduled to be considered at today's Senate meeting. The resolution would create an interim committee that is "entrusted with the full power and duties of the Senate," including the authority to pass legislation. That legislation would automatically sunset when the Senate reconvenes following a recess. The resolution is creative, no doubt about that, but it is fatally unconstitutional. Before I get to the constitutional concerns, a couple nitpicky points.
The proposed committee also deprives the students of their representation because the full Senate is not considering the legislation before it goes to the President for him to sign or veto. Those senators who are not on the committee will have no vote, and thus the students who those senators represent will be unrepresented.
The proposal also leaves some questions unanswered. Does legislation the committee "passes" have to be presented to the President for approval? If so, what if the President vetoes a bill? Does it go to the committee for an override? What about the constitutional provisions governing veto overrides by the Senate, ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 4(b)-(e)? Does this committee obliterate the President's power to make recess appointments, ASUN Const. art. III, sec. 2(c)? If the committee truly has the "full power" of the Senate, can it expel senators from the Senate under article II, section 2(c) of the ASUN Constitution? And the list goes on. This alone should be sufficient evidence that this "committee with full power" proposal is a bad idea.
Finally, the Senate cannot delegate to a committee the constitutional powers that are explicitly vested in the body as a whole (e.g., enacting legislation, confirming executive appointments, proposing constitutional amendments). To do so would circumvent the exclusive processes laid out in the constitution.
This proposal reminds me of a couple of proposals that were considered during the 74th Senate Session (selected documents here). Assuming this proposal is based on one of those, a critical point that Sen. Palma seems to be unaware is that the previous ASUN constitution did not explicitly dictate how legislation became law; the present one does. That single difference precludes this proposal.
Rarely does the Senate need to take immediate action during the summer. If the need does exist, however, convening a special meeting with distant senators teleconferencing or video-conferencing should not be much of an impediment to achieving quorum.
In short, the model interim committee established during the 75th Session should be adequate, and it carries with it none of the constitutional concerns as does this proposal, since it is a committee of the Senate just like any other. Sen. Palma's proposal is certainly creative, but the constitutional concerns make it unworkable.
What usually occurs (at least in every interim period since 2007) is the Senate establishes an interim committee that has the authority to consider legislation within the jurisdiction of the standing committees and report it to the Senate by the time the Senate reconvenes from its break. Below is the model resolution establishing an interim committee (S. Res. 75-29).
Associated Students Statutes at Large Volume 75--Unofficial
When the Senate adopts rules of the Senate at the beginning of a session in the model fashion, readopting this type of resolution is unnecessary (sort of discussed here and here). Anyway, that's sort of off topic.
Enter Sen. Jesus Palma, who has introduced S. Res. 78-25 (thanks for numbering legislation!), scheduled to be considered at today's Senate meeting. The resolution would create an interim committee that is "entrusted with the full power and duties of the Senate," including the authority to pass legislation. That legislation would automatically sunset when the Senate reconvenes following a recess. The resolution is creative, no doubt about that, but it is fatally unconstitutional. Before I get to the constitutional concerns, a couple nitpicky points.
- The legislation says the committee (called the "Summer Session" in the legislation, but let's call a spade a spade) is to have a number of members "not to equal or exceed a majority of the full Senate; but must consist of at least twelve Senators." With a 22-member Senate, a majority is 12. The reason staying below a majority is critical is because generally under the Open Meeting Law, whenever a quorum (defined as majority) of a public body meets, it must be noticed and conducted under the OML.
- Ignoring that this committee would have power to pass legislation, it's exceedingly rare for the presiding officer of the parent body to also chair a committee (a continuing problem for the Oversight Committee) because a presiding officer should maintain the appearance of impartiality; the chair of a committee must advocate for the committee's positions, creating an inherent conflict.
The proposed committee also deprives the students of their representation because the full Senate is not considering the legislation before it goes to the President for him to sign or veto. Those senators who are not on the committee will have no vote, and thus the students who those senators represent will be unrepresented.
The proposal also leaves some questions unanswered. Does legislation the committee "passes" have to be presented to the President for approval? If so, what if the President vetoes a bill? Does it go to the committee for an override? What about the constitutional provisions governing veto overrides by the Senate, ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 4(b)-(e)? Does this committee obliterate the President's power to make recess appointments, ASUN Const. art. III, sec. 2(c)? If the committee truly has the "full power" of the Senate, can it expel senators from the Senate under article II, section 2(c) of the ASUN Constitution? And the list goes on. This alone should be sufficient evidence that this "committee with full power" proposal is a bad idea.
Finally, the Senate cannot delegate to a committee the constitutional powers that are explicitly vested in the body as a whole (e.g., enacting legislation, confirming executive appointments, proposing constitutional amendments). To do so would circumvent the exclusive processes laid out in the constitution.
This proposal reminds me of a couple of proposals that were considered during the 74th Senate Session (selected documents here). Assuming this proposal is based on one of those, a critical point that Sen. Palma seems to be unaware is that the previous ASUN constitution did not explicitly dictate how legislation became law; the present one does. That single difference precludes this proposal.
Rarely does the Senate need to take immediate action during the summer. If the need does exist, however, convening a special meeting with distant senators teleconferencing or video-conferencing should not be much of an impediment to achieving quorum.
In short, the model interim committee established during the 75th Session should be adequate, and it carries with it none of the constitutional concerns as does this proposal, since it is a committee of the Senate just like any other. Sen. Palma's proposal is certainly creative, but the constitutional concerns make it unworkable.
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
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...
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...
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Senate should abandon laws revision
Given the recent revelations about the cases filed against the Senate and other ASUN officials challenging their legal sufficiency, the Senate might want to wake up and take notice about what is happening.
Just today the Judicial Council informed the parties that it intends to grant summary judgment against ASUN on all remaining cases in light of two ASUN officers admitting liability in the cases.
Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's project to revise and codify all ASUN law is in serious jeopardy given these cases. Practically, the Senate should scrap this project so it can get its bearings in light of the Judicial Council decisions. Much of what ASUN has done during the 76th Senate Session is now invalid, and the application of the precedents could invalidate much of what the 77th Session has done.
The biggest problem at this point is it is entirely unclear what is the law and what is not the law given the decisions against ASUN. Sen. Hostmeyer's project only works if what is being revised and codified is in fact currently law. But under the Open Meeting Law (OML), any action taken in violation of that law is void. The Judicial Council has now ruled that the Senate has engaged in countless OML violations. This is fatal to the revised statutes (now called the revised code) project.
Although in three of the cases the Judicial Council declined to declare the ASUN actions invalid under the OML, ASUN should nonetheless treat them as invalid for a couple of reasons. First, it is the right thing to do. Second, the University and Board of Regents could later step in and invalidate the acts with much more severe consequences. And if some other entity invalidates the underlying acts, the revised statutes would instantly become worthless. There would be no ability to rely on it, defeating its very purpose. The safest thing to do is treat any actions taken as invalid, within the scope of the considered cases, and fix them. Therefore, the senators should scrap the revision proposal, at least until they determine where everything stands. This will take some time.
Most of my previous concerns with the project still apply. I have new concerns about the implementation bill because it creates an inherent conflict in what is the law. The original enactment and the codification? This isn't how codification works. Since ASUN's law and constitution borrows much from the federal system, the Senate would be well advised to borrow the code style the feds use. This would promote consistency and stability, as well as promote the ability for students to learn the styles because many resources are readily available.
Update: For anyone who cares, this is our 200th post. Yay us!
Just today the Judicial Council informed the parties that it intends to grant summary judgment against ASUN on all remaining cases in light of two ASUN officers admitting liability in the cases.
Sen. Sean Hostmeyer's project to revise and codify all ASUN law is in serious jeopardy given these cases. Practically, the Senate should scrap this project so it can get its bearings in light of the Judicial Council decisions. Much of what ASUN has done during the 76th Senate Session is now invalid, and the application of the precedents could invalidate much of what the 77th Session has done.
The biggest problem at this point is it is entirely unclear what is the law and what is not the law given the decisions against ASUN. Sen. Hostmeyer's project only works if what is being revised and codified is in fact currently law. But under the Open Meeting Law (OML), any action taken in violation of that law is void. The Judicial Council has now ruled that the Senate has engaged in countless OML violations. This is fatal to the revised statutes (now called the revised code) project.
Although in three of the cases the Judicial Council declined to declare the ASUN actions invalid under the OML, ASUN should nonetheless treat them as invalid for a couple of reasons. First, it is the right thing to do. Second, the University and Board of Regents could later step in and invalidate the acts with much more severe consequences. And if some other entity invalidates the underlying acts, the revised statutes would instantly become worthless. There would be no ability to rely on it, defeating its very purpose. The safest thing to do is treat any actions taken as invalid, within the scope of the considered cases, and fix them. Therefore, the senators should scrap the revision proposal, at least until they determine where everything stands. This will take some time.
Most of my previous concerns with the project still apply. I have new concerns about the implementation bill because it creates an inherent conflict in what is the law. The original enactment and the codification? This isn't how codification works. Since ASUN's law and constitution borrows much from the federal system, the Senate would be well advised to borrow the code style the feds use. This would promote consistency and stability, as well as promote the ability for students to learn the styles because many resources are readily available.
Update: For anyone who cares, this is our 200th post. Yay us!
Read more...
BREAKING: Judicial Council rules against Senate, Speaker, President
The ASUN Judicial Council today announced it would issue summary judgment in favor of Corinna Cohn in her remaining cases pending against the ASUN Senate, Speaker of the Senate, ASUN President, and other ASUN officers, including a case to have ASUN's spending during fiscal year 2009 declared illegal.
In the statement filed today, the Council canceled Friday's scheduled hearing on the cases and said that, in light of the admissions of liability from ASUN Senate Speaker Gracie Geremia and ASUN President Eli Reilly, it would issue summary judgment in Cohn's favor. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.) The Council said it would meet Friday to discuss the summary judgment orders and release them in a timely manner.
Two of the pending cases alleged the ASUN Senate violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) by not keeping and timely producing written minutes of its meetings and violated ASUN law by not properly preparing bills for presidential consideration. The third case challenged the validity of ASUN's budget for fiscal year 2009 on multiple grounds, including several OML violations.
These three cases and three cases decided last month could have far reaching consequences. With respect to the budget, the Council's forthcoming ruling will declare that the ASUN illegally spent around $1.5 million last year. The cases regarding OML violations could have the effect of invalidating much of what the Senate has done in the past couple of years.
The rulings could also open Geremia and other senators to individual liability under the university's code of conduct. Any violation of the OML found under the code of conduct can result in automatic removal from office, as well as other disciplinary sanctions.
Check back later for analysis and commentary.
In the statement filed today, the Council canceled Friday's scheduled hearing on the cases and said that, in light of the admissions of liability from ASUN Senate Speaker Gracie Geremia and ASUN President Eli Reilly, it would issue summary judgment in Cohn's favor. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.) The Council said it would meet Friday to discuss the summary judgment orders and release them in a timely manner.
Two of the pending cases alleged the ASUN Senate violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) by not keeping and timely producing written minutes of its meetings and violated ASUN law by not properly preparing bills for presidential consideration. The third case challenged the validity of ASUN's budget for fiscal year 2009 on multiple grounds, including several OML violations.
These three cases and three cases decided last month could have far reaching consequences. With respect to the budget, the Council's forthcoming ruling will declare that the ASUN illegally spent around $1.5 million last year. The cases regarding OML violations could have the effect of invalidating much of what the Senate has done in the past couple of years.
The rulings could also open Geremia and other senators to individual liability under the university's code of conduct. Any violation of the OML found under the code of conduct can result in automatic removal from office, as well as other disciplinary sanctions.
Check back later for analysis and commentary.
Read more...
Monday, March 22, 2010
ASUN officers admit liability in cases challenging laws
ASUN President Eli Reilly and Speaker of the Senate Gracie Geremia admitted liability in three cases alleging violations of the Open Meeting Law (OML) and ASUN laws governing enactment of legislation.
In separate statements filed yesterday, respondents Reilly and Geremia admitted that laws, processes, and safeguards were not followed in the Senate consideration and enactment of several bills. Shortly after the filings, the petitioner in the cases, Corinna Cohn, requested the Council issue summary judgment in her favor since nothing at issue was in dispute. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.)
In his statement in the case to invalidate the fiscal year 2009 budget, Reilly said, "I will admit that process was not entirely followed surrounding the signing into law of the Association budget for fiscal year 2009." Reilly further pleads that none of the omissions were done "in a malicious or intentional manner."
Regarding the case challenging the Senate's failure to timely produce written minutes of its meetings, Geremia blames noncompliance on poor advisement, the fact that student government officials and employees receive no formal training on the law's requirements, and have a high turnover rate from session to session. Geremia also claims that the 75th Session committed similar violations, but that is not before the Council. Geremia concludes that the problems will cease with proper training and advisement.
In the case challenging the proper preparation of legislative measures after Senate passage, Geremia writes, "I recognize that the process was not carried out in the correct manner.... There are many reasons to (sic) why this process wasn’t followed, ranging from a transition in Senate advisement to the resignation of the Secretary of the Senate." Geremia similarly concludes that improved communication will ensure mistakes like this do not occur in the future.
Geremia's statements tended to point the blame at others, particularly ASUN administrative faculty, while Reilly's statements accepted responsibility but claimed the liability was of no consequence since it wasn't done with malicious intent.
None of the statements explicitly indicates the Senate or executive branch should escape the consequences of liability, but all intimate that the Council should overlook the violations of the law.
The statements are in response to three cases still pending from more than a year ago. In February, the Council ruled against ASUN in three other cases alleging various violations of the OML, but refused to invalidate the underlying Senate actions (VLEG coverage here).
To date, the Senate has taken no action in response to these cases. No item has listed these cases on a Senate agenda, and presumably no formal discussion has taken place at Senate meetings regarding these cases. It does not appear Geremia issued her statements admitting liability with the consent of the Senate, possibly exceeding her authority as speaker. The Senate is named as a respondent in the cases and the Senate never delegated authority to the speaker to answer the cases.
Geremia's admissions of OML liability also open her to university disciplinary sanctions under the NSHE Code. The punishment for being found liable for OML violations is removal from office and other possible sanctions under the code of conduct, including disciplinary notation on the violator's transcript.
All six cases, if ruled in Cohn's favor, will create binding precedents that will invalidate much of the 76th Senate Session's actions, and could have application to the acts of the current Senate session as well.
The three cases pending are scheduled for argument on March 26. With the admissions of liability, it is possible the Council will cancel argument and issue summary judgment.
The cases pending are numbered AN-003, AN-005, and AN-006 (available here).
In separate statements filed yesterday, respondents Reilly and Geremia admitted that laws, processes, and safeguards were not followed in the Senate consideration and enactment of several bills. Shortly after the filings, the petitioner in the cases, Corinna Cohn, requested the Council issue summary judgment in her favor since nothing at issue was in dispute. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.)
In his statement in the case to invalidate the fiscal year 2009 budget, Reilly said, "I will admit that process was not entirely followed surrounding the signing into law of the Association budget for fiscal year 2009." Reilly further pleads that none of the omissions were done "in a malicious or intentional manner."
Regarding the case challenging the Senate's failure to timely produce written minutes of its meetings, Geremia blames noncompliance on poor advisement, the fact that student government officials and employees receive no formal training on the law's requirements, and have a high turnover rate from session to session. Geremia also claims that the 75th Session committed similar violations, but that is not before the Council. Geremia concludes that the problems will cease with proper training and advisement.
In the case challenging the proper preparation of legislative measures after Senate passage, Geremia writes, "I recognize that the process was not carried out in the correct manner.... There are many reasons to (sic) why this process wasn’t followed, ranging from a transition in Senate advisement to the resignation of the Secretary of the Senate." Geremia similarly concludes that improved communication will ensure mistakes like this do not occur in the future.
Geremia's statements tended to point the blame at others, particularly ASUN administrative faculty, while Reilly's statements accepted responsibility but claimed the liability was of no consequence since it wasn't done with malicious intent.
None of the statements explicitly indicates the Senate or executive branch should escape the consequences of liability, but all intimate that the Council should overlook the violations of the law.
The statements are in response to three cases still pending from more than a year ago. In February, the Council ruled against ASUN in three other cases alleging various violations of the OML, but refused to invalidate the underlying Senate actions (VLEG coverage here).
To date, the Senate has taken no action in response to these cases. No item has listed these cases on a Senate agenda, and presumably no formal discussion has taken place at Senate meetings regarding these cases. It does not appear Geremia issued her statements admitting liability with the consent of the Senate, possibly exceeding her authority as speaker. The Senate is named as a respondent in the cases and the Senate never delegated authority to the speaker to answer the cases.
Geremia's admissions of OML liability also open her to university disciplinary sanctions under the NSHE Code. The punishment for being found liable for OML violations is removal from office and other possible sanctions under the code of conduct, including disciplinary notation on the violator's transcript.
All six cases, if ruled in Cohn's favor, will create binding precedents that will invalidate much of the 76th Senate Session's actions, and could have application to the acts of the current Senate session as well.
The three cases pending are scheduled for argument on March 26. With the admissions of liability, it is possible the Council will cancel argument and issue summary judgment.
The cases pending are numbered AN-003, AN-005, and AN-006 (available here).
Read more...
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Sweet, sweet video evidence
At the risk of giving Mitch Bottoset and Chris Day attention they do not deserve, we give you this YouTube video.
Pay particular attention at the 2:30 mark in the video. A couple of thoughts.
The Code of Elections makes it a violation to "[use] ASUN authority, facilities, funds, or resources for campaign purposes." Section 14(b)(5). A plain reading of that statute seems to indicate that filming campaign videos in ASUN offices is prohibited.
Bottoset and Day (probably for show, given this is intended to be a funny campaign video) appear to pick the lock to ASUN Vice President Charlie Jose's office. Ignoring whether they actually picked the lock, were they authorized to enter that office? If yes, then the only issue is the issue above. If no, is this trespassing or gaining unauthorized entry to an office, in violation of the System Code and state criminal law?
Update: As I initially suspected, the candidates state they were authorized to be in the office. As to my first question, they indicate that even the Election Commission is unclear about how the statute should be applied. Personally, I am torn as to whether this particular instance should be prohibited, never mind if it actually is. In any event, it's clear that this particular statute needs some tweaking to cure its vagueness.
Pay particular attention at the 2:30 mark in the video. A couple of thoughts.
The Code of Elections makes it a violation to "[use] ASUN authority, facilities, funds, or resources for campaign purposes." Section 14(b)(5). A plain reading of that statute seems to indicate that filming campaign videos in ASUN offices is prohibited.
Bottoset and Day (probably for show, given this is intended to be a funny campaign video) appear to pick the lock to ASUN Vice President Charlie Jose's office. Ignoring whether they actually picked the lock, were they authorized to enter that office? If yes, then the only issue is the issue above. If no, is this trespassing or gaining unauthorized entry to an office, in violation of the System Code and state criminal law?
Update: As I initially suspected, the candidates state they were authorized to be in the office. As to my first question, they indicate that even the Election Commission is unclear about how the statute should be applied. Personally, I am torn as to whether this particular instance should be prohibited, never mind if it actually is. In any event, it's clear that this particular statute needs some tweaking to cure its vagueness.
Read more...
Monday, February 22, 2010
"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.
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.
Read more...
Thursday, February 18, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
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.
Read more...
Sunday, February 7, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
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.
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.
Read more...
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
Monday, February 1, 2010
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.
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.
Read more...
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.
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.
Read more...
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Wasteful Spending
President Reilly recently sent a proposal (warning: .doc file) to Senator Hostmeyer, Chair of the Committee on Budget and Finance. He is asking for $5,000 for the purchase of WAC Basketball Tournament tickets and nearly $8,200 so ASUN can pay for the replacement suits for Alphie and Wofie.
I'll address my concerns regarding purchasing new mascot outfits. In 2009, Athletics was to receive $7 million from the state, with $2 million going to athletic scholarships.1 The department ended up with around $5.85 million.2 The department also expected to generate $17 million in self supporting revenue.3 The figure to date is $15.1 million.4
What's my point? ASUN has a budget that sits at a little over 10% of the athletic budget. Yet ASUN can afford an expenditure of $8,200 but athletics can't? I'm dubious. But, let's accept the premise. Then, we can conclude ASUN has more money than it knows what to do with, if 9 months into a term it has that much money lying around. This is just one example of many of why ASUN does not need more money. Note, this money is not coming out of the contingency fund, but the nearly $30,000 that still remains uncommitted. Thirty-thousand dollars out of a discretionary fund of somewhere around $600,000.
I would personally like to see the top coaches and department heads, all of whom make make very nice six-figure salaries sacrifice a little for the respect of Nevada. How very populist of me.5
I won't say much on the $5,000 for WAC tournament tickets other than that I paid for my own tickets back in 2006, and I'm pretty sure there was not an inadequate supply of similar minded fans. This is, in my mind, just another example of wasteful, unnecessary, hard to justify spending. But, when you have more money than you know what to do with, it's easy to throw it at things. Like the geniuses over at SFL.
References
1 Parker and Shively, "University Budgets: A Guide for the Perplexed", 2009.2 2009-2010 State Appropriated Budgets.
3 Parker and Shively, 2009.
4 2009-2010 Self-Supporting Budgets. (warning: .xls (Excel) file)
5 Executive Salary Schedule.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
