It's been some time since our last post, which must mean the Senate has not been doing much lately. We did notice one item of interest on the next Phantom Committee agenda, however: "a resolution reiterating the requirement of the ASUN Executive Board to comply with [the] Nevada Open Meeting Law." This got our attention because there is no requirement for the Executive Board to comply with the Open Meeting Law. Hell, there isn't even an "Executive Board."
We need to begin by dealing with two unfounded assumptions on which this agenda item is based. First, there is no Executive Board. There used to be one, but that was under ASUN's previous constitution. There is something called the President's Advisory Cabinet, established under Title VII of the Executive Branch Act of 2007 (ASUN Public Law 75-7; 75 ASUN Stat. 13). Second, there is nothing in ASUN law to require this group to abide by the Open Meeting Law.
With those two assumptions out of the way, we can now look to the Open Meeting Law for guidance. The Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of NRS) requires public bodies to conduct their business openly, in view of the public. The OML applies to student governments because the Nevada Legislature has required the Board of Regents to adopt regulations equivalent to the OML for student governments and to provide for their enforcement (NRS 241.038). The Regents have done that, and the policy is codified in the Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 20, Part B, section 3 (link). The Board of Regents policy essentially says that student governments must comply with the OML.
The Open Meeting Law applies only to public bodies. The law defines a public body as "any administrative, advisory, executive or legislative body of the State or a local government which expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue or which advises or makes recommendations to any entity which expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, including, but not limited to, any board, commission, committee, subcommittee or other subsidiary thereof" (NRS 241.015(3)).
The Nevada Attorney General advises us that in order for a body to be a public body, it "administrative, advisory, executive or legislative body of the State or a local government," meaning that it "must (1) owe its existence to and have some relationship with a state or local government, (2) be organized to act in an administrative, advisory, executive or legislative capacity, and (3) must perform a government function" (Open Meeting Law Handbook, link). If any one of the elements are missing, the body is not a public body. Applying these elements to the President's Cabinet, condition 1 is only partly satisfied. Although the Cabinet does owe its existence to the Senate (only because it enacted a law establishing the Cabinet), it does not have any relationship with the Senate. Condition 2 is satisfied because it acts in an advisory capacity. Condition 3 is not satisfied because it is only advising the President, who himself is not a a public body.
The law also requires that the body be collegial in nature, meaning that the members share equal power through their votes. The members of the Cabinet have no collective power; the ASUN President is not bound by its advice. Therefore, under the OML, the President's Cabinet is not required to obey the OML.
However, the language the Regents used in applying the OML to student governments is a little grayer. It says that the OML applies to "[t]he meetings of any multi-member executive or legislative body, committee, subcommittee, commission or subsidiary thereof" (Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 20, Part B, section 3(3)). Even under this broader application, the OML does not seem to apply. The President's Advisory Cabinet is not an executive body. It has no collective decision-making power of its own, it has no collective ability to execute policy, etc. Its members each possess decision-making and executive powers in their own departments, but it is the President in this case who possesses all the power.
This language also suffers from circular reasoning. Assume it says the Cabinet must follow the OML according to the OML's provisions, but the OML, according to its provisions, says it does not. Even if you assume the Cabinet is covered within the term "multi-member executive body," the OML says that it doesn't apply to a body such as the Cabinet.
For those reasons, we believe the Cabinet is not required to obey the OML. Now, that's not to say that the Senate could not pass a law requiring the Cabinet to abide by the OML's provisions, but it would be subject to constitutional challenge in the Judicial Council on the grounds that it violates the separation of powers doctrine, that it prevents the President from receiving candid advice from his department chiefs, and that it abuses the deliberative process privilege enjoyed by executives.
Now, there may be more to this story than we are aware. Perhaps a university attorney has disagreed with our interpretation of the OML and Regents policy. Even if that were the case, it would take a disciplinary action to test that interpretation. Unfortunately, under federal law disciplinary actions cannot be disclosed by the university, so we'd likely never know about it, unless a subject of such an action were to speak out.
But given the fact that this is a nonbinding resolution the Phantom Committee is deliberating, and given the phrasing that it would "reiterate" a requirement that is presumed to already exist, we think this is coming from some senators who are misinformed on the reach of the OML, and whose motivation is probably that they don't like that President Eli Reilly and his cronies are allegedly meeting behind closed doors to share their mutual disdain for Gracie Geremia and discussing how to undermine her every move, starting with elevating Sen. Brandon Bishop's status.
Showing posts with label Resolutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Resolutions. Show all posts
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: It's Hard to Legislate Without Reading
It's been a while since our last post, and now seemed like as good a time as any for a revival of sorts. In this edition of Is Our Senators Learning, we explore why it might be more appropriate for us to call this series "Is Our Senators Reading" instead.
First, however, I'd like to commend Senator Shirley Diaz for doing what senators should be doing, and that is writing legislation. While she still has much to learn about bill drafting, she is proving herself to be both thoughtful and willing to learn, both traits invaluable for a senator to possess. However, we are not without our criticism.
Executive Summary
Today the Phantom Committee is taking up three bills, all drafted by Sen. Diaz. (meeting info). The first bill relates to the Department of Homecoming Programming and the terms of office of its officers. The second bill relates to the Diversity Commission. The third bill (which really isn't a bill at all--it's a resolution) makes amendments relating to the Senate's parliamentarian.
Bill No. 1: Homecoming Programming Department
The first bill up for consideration changes the term of office of the Director of Homecoming from expiring on November 30 to expire instead on the dead day in the spring semester. The bill further provides that the terms of office of the subordinates in the department will expire on dead day in the spring as well.
First to the merits of the bill. It is uncertain why Sen. Diaz, at the urging of the the Director of Homecoming, Molly Fronapfel, proposes to change the term of office for the Director. As originally conceived, the Director would be in office for a full year, beginning soon after the end of the previous homecoming. This would allow the Association to have people in place to give homecoming the attention it deserves, much like the Alumni Association does now. In fact, it was then Director of Programming Eli Reilly who proposed the November 30 date.
One reason that comes to mind why this change is proposed is so a new president will have complete control over who is in office at the change of an administration. But this goes against the philosophy that experience and competence should outweigh patronage in ASUN, especially in the less political offices.
The bill also defines the terms of the subordinates in the department. No complaints as to that provision.
From a drafting standpoint, this bill needs some tweaking. First of all, the bill moves the term of office provisions from the law creating the Homecoming Director (ASUN Public Law 75-29) and moves it into a law that defines the terms of office of several other executive officers (ASUN Public Law 75-50). There are differing philosophies on how to group similar provisions of law, but it is generally more acceptable to put the term of office for an officer in the same law that created the office. (That's right, the 75th Session of the Senate that normally receives this blog's highest praises got lazy. Instead of amending the various laws that created the offices, they merely created another law and listed the offices and their terms. This would be a good thing for some senator to fix.)
So rather than have provisions relating to one officer scattered throughout the statutory law, it makes better sense to keep it all together. In that light, we have drafted a substitute to the bill under consideration. It is below.
A BILL
To amend the term of office of the Director of Homecoming, to provide for the terms of office of the Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming Programming, and for other purposes.
If, however, Sen. Diaz is partial to her original bill's organization, it's been redrafted to adhere to ASUN's bill drafting style below.
Bill No. 2: Diversity Commission
The second bill up for consideration changes the name of all things related to the Diversity Commission to the Unity Commission. This is a minor bill and doesn't seem to do much other than change some names.
On drafting style, we'd prefer the language to read as follows:
Notice the change to the second part of the bill. You cannot amend amendatory bills like you can standalone bills. The reason why is once the bill has been enacted, its amendatory provisions are considered to be "executed" and are no longer permanent law. It's like telling someone to write down "The sky is red," later giving that person an instruction to change "red" to "blue," and then later changing your mind on the amendatory instruction by changing the instruction (if that makes any sense). You can't do things that way. You have to amend the underlying language, as amended.
Up to this point, it appears that Sen. Diaz has been doing her homework. Aside from mainly stylistic and legalistic points, she's doing as well as can be expected for senators who receive no (real) training on the mechanics of legislating.
Resolution regarding the Senate's Parliamentarian
This is the resolution that gave rise to the lament at the beginning of this post that we should call the IOSL series "Is Our Senators Reading."
I'm going to ignore the matters of style for this piece of leigslation in favor of focusing on the merits. This resolution would make significant changes to the parliamentarian's role in the Senate.
First, the resolution creates an Office of the Parliamentarian. It would authorize the parliamentarian to appoint a deputy. The resolution also expands the scope of the parliamentarian in an expansive way. It authorizes the parliamentarian to represent the Senate or senators in suits before the Judicial Council. The resolution also authorizes the parliamentarian to render opinions on the constitutionality of legislation. This could be dangerous. As a general proposition, when a legislative body acts, it does not question the constitutionality of its acts. However, we do see value in having someone, acting in the capacity of a legislative counsel, providing such opinions. But the Speaker should never rule on such matters from the Chair.
There are two clauses (c)(7) in the resolution, but one of them provides that the Parliamentarian "shall assist the Secretary on the Publication of the Statues at Large of the Association." Why "Publication" is capitalized is beyond me, but this is the specific section that gives us doubt that the senators are reading the laws. The Secretary of the Senate does not publish the Statutes at Large; the Archivist does (ASUN Public Law 75-39, section 15).
Finally, a point that matters: precedence vs. precedents. There is a difference. (See also here.) And for those readers old enough to remember, this reminded me of the time the Judicial Council, back in 2004 or 2005, didn't understand the difference between "precident" and "president."
The resolution is good in that it provides a deputy for the parliamentarian and that it defines that someone is authorized to represent the Senate in cases before the Judicial Council. However, this resolution needs more work before it is ready to be reported out of committee.
All in all, kudos to Sen. Diaz for putting forth the effort to do what a senator should do. Now, to all the other senators: Get crackin'!
First, however, I'd like to commend Senator Shirley Diaz for doing what senators should be doing, and that is writing legislation. While she still has much to learn about bill drafting, she is proving herself to be both thoughtful and willing to learn, both traits invaluable for a senator to possess. However, we are not without our criticism.
Executive Summary
- Senator Diaz is turning out to be quite the legislator. She already holds the record for most bills drafted by a senator in this session.
- The Senate cannot change the terms of office for officers when such change affects contractual obligations.
- You cannot amend amendatory bills directly; you have to amend the underlying language.
- These words are not equivalent: precedence / precedent / president
Today the Phantom Committee is taking up three bills, all drafted by Sen. Diaz. (meeting info). The first bill relates to the Department of Homecoming Programming and the terms of office of its officers. The second bill relates to the Diversity Commission. The third bill (which really isn't a bill at all--it's a resolution) makes amendments relating to the Senate's parliamentarian.
Bill No. 1: Homecoming Programming Department
The first bill up for consideration changes the term of office of the Director of Homecoming from expiring on November 30 to expire instead on the dead day in the spring semester. The bill further provides that the terms of office of the subordinates in the department will expire on dead day in the spring as well.
First to the merits of the bill. It is uncertain why Sen. Diaz, at the urging of the the Director of Homecoming, Molly Fronapfel, proposes to change the term of office for the Director. As originally conceived, the Director would be in office for a full year, beginning soon after the end of the previous homecoming. This would allow the Association to have people in place to give homecoming the attention it deserves, much like the Alumni Association does now. In fact, it was then Director of Programming Eli Reilly who proposed the November 30 date.
One reason that comes to mind why this change is proposed is so a new president will have complete control over who is in office at the change of an administration. But this goes against the philosophy that experience and competence should outweigh patronage in ASUN, especially in the less political offices.
The bill also defines the terms of the subordinates in the department. No complaints as to that provision.
From a drafting standpoint, this bill needs some tweaking. First of all, the bill moves the term of office provisions from the law creating the Homecoming Director (ASUN Public Law 75-29) and moves it into a law that defines the terms of office of several other executive officers (ASUN Public Law 75-50). There are differing philosophies on how to group similar provisions of law, but it is generally more acceptable to put the term of office for an officer in the same law that created the office. (That's right, the 75th Session of the Senate that normally receives this blog's highest praises got lazy. Instead of amending the various laws that created the offices, they merely created another law and listed the offices and their terms. This would be a good thing for some senator to fix.)
So rather than have provisions relating to one officer scattered throughout the statutory law, it makes better sense to keep it all together. In that light, we have drafted a substitute to the bill under consideration. It is below.
A BILL
To amend the term of office of the Director of Homecoming, to provide for the terms of office of the Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming Programming, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated Students,You'll also notice that I added a section 4 regarding the application of the changes made by the bill. The Senate cannot constitutionally change the term of office if it will affect a contractual obligation. Appointing someone to an office with a fixed date of termination, and then moving the date forward, would deprive that person of the wages she would otherwise be entitled to. Therefore, this sort of change should not apply until the successor takes office.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Department of Homecoming Amendments Act of 2009”.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TERM OF DIRECTOR OF HOMECOMING.
Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended to read as follows:
“(A) The Director of Homecoming shall serve for a term of one year beginning on Dead Day in the spring semester. On the expiration of the term, the Director shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subparagraph, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 3. TERM OF ASSISTANT DIRECTORS AND PROGRAMMERS.
(a) Section 4 of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended by adding to the end the following new subsection:
“(e) TERMS OF OFFICE.—Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming shall hold office for a term of one year. On the expiration of the term, a Programmer shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subsection, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not apply to any person holding an office covered by the provisions of this Act as of the date of enactment of this Act.
If, however, Sen. Diaz is partial to her original bill's organization, it's been redrafted to adhere to ASUN's bill drafting style below.
A BILLWe've discussed other points of bill drafting convention in other posts.
To amend the term of office of the Director of Homecoming, to provide for the terms of office of the Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming Programming, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated Students,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Department of Homecoming Amendments Act of 2009”.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TERM OF DIRECTOR OF HOMECOMING.
Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended to read as follows:
“(A) The Director of Homecoming shall serve for a term of one year beginning on Dead Day in the spring semester. On the expiration of the term, the Director shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subparagraph, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 3. TERM OF ASSISTANT DIRECTORS AND PROGRAMMERS.
(a) Section 4 of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended by adding to the end the following new subsection:
“(e) TERMS OF OFFICE.—Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming shall hold office for a term of one year. On the expiration of the term, a Programmer shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subsection, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not apply to any person holding an office covered by the provisions of this Act as of the date of enactment of this Act.
Bill No. 2: Diversity Commission
The second bill up for consideration changes the name of all things related to the Diversity Commission to the Unity Commission. This is a minor bill and doesn't seem to do much other than change some names.
On drafting style, we'd prefer the language to read as follows:
SECTION 1. DIVERSITY COMMISSION REDESIGNATION.
(a) Redesignation.--The Diversity Commission Act of 2009 (ASUN Public Law 77-4) is amended by striking "Diversity Commission" in each place it appears and inserting "Unity Commission".
(b) Technical Amendments.--Section 2(c)(7) of the Executive Compensation Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75-48; 75 ASUN Stat. 144), as amended, is further amended by striking "Diversity" and inserting "Unity".
Notice the change to the second part of the bill. You cannot amend amendatory bills like you can standalone bills. The reason why is once the bill has been enacted, its amendatory provisions are considered to be "executed" and are no longer permanent law. It's like telling someone to write down "The sky is red," later giving that person an instruction to change "red" to "blue," and then later changing your mind on the amendatory instruction by changing the instruction (if that makes any sense). You can't do things that way. You have to amend the underlying language, as amended.
Up to this point, it appears that Sen. Diaz has been doing her homework. Aside from mainly stylistic and legalistic points, she's doing as well as can be expected for senators who receive no (real) training on the mechanics of legislating.
Resolution regarding the Senate's Parliamentarian
This is the resolution that gave rise to the lament at the beginning of this post that we should call the IOSL series "Is Our Senators Reading."
I'm going to ignore the matters of style for this piece of leigslation in favor of focusing on the merits. This resolution would make significant changes to the parliamentarian's role in the Senate.
First, the resolution creates an Office of the Parliamentarian. It would authorize the parliamentarian to appoint a deputy. The resolution also expands the scope of the parliamentarian in an expansive way. It authorizes the parliamentarian to represent the Senate or senators in suits before the Judicial Council. The resolution also authorizes the parliamentarian to render opinions on the constitutionality of legislation. This could be dangerous. As a general proposition, when a legislative body acts, it does not question the constitutionality of its acts. However, we do see value in having someone, acting in the capacity of a legislative counsel, providing such opinions. But the Speaker should never rule on such matters from the Chair.
There are two clauses (c)(7) in the resolution, but one of them provides that the Parliamentarian "shall assist the Secretary on the Publication of the Statues at Large of the Association." Why "Publication" is capitalized is beyond me, but this is the specific section that gives us doubt that the senators are reading the laws. The Secretary of the Senate does not publish the Statutes at Large; the Archivist does (ASUN Public Law 75-39, section 15).
Finally, a point that matters: precedence vs. precedents. There is a difference. (See also here.) And for those readers old enough to remember, this reminded me of the time the Judicial Council, back in 2004 or 2005, didn't understand the difference between "precident" and "president."
The resolution is good in that it provides a deputy for the parliamentarian and that it defines that someone is authorized to represent the Senate in cases before the Judicial Council. However, this resolution needs more work before it is ready to be reported out of committee.
All in all, kudos to Sen. Diaz for putting forth the effort to do what a senator should do. Now, to all the other senators: Get crackin'!
Read more...
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Phantom Committee
When Senator Brandon Bishop calls a meeting of several senators to order tomorrow, he will be giving life to a sort of shadow committee, one that the senators all believe exists and has power to exist, but in reality does not. Hence the title of this post. This phantom committee will be "apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but [will have] no physical reality." Well, no legal reality.
Remember back when the Senate thought it adopted rules at its first meeting of the session? We do, and it is somewhat of an important point. Well, the senators, try as they might, attempted to do it right this time (we applaud the effort) but managed to pull off a magic trick. Before the senators decided to go on extended holiday for the entire summer, despite the end-of-semester posturing that they would work tirelessly while everyone else was up at Tahoe working on their tans, we blogged that because the Senate didn't adopt a legally and parliamentarily proper rules resolution, the Interim Operations Committee did not exist.
Enter Sen. Patrick "Rules" Kealy to the rescue--sort of. At the June 3 Senate meeting, Sen. Kealy offered a resolution to adjourn the Senate for the summer (I guess it's too much to ask that the senators work for the students while the students are away). Included in that resolution was a clause that read, "The Interim Committee of the Senate is hereby active during the recess of the Senate. The duties, membership, and chairperson may be decided at the discretion of the Speaker, pursuant to Senate Rule XI."
Looks simple enough, right? The Interim Committee will be active. Just one slight problem: This committee doesn't legally exist. It would have had the Senate adopted a proper rules resolution at the beginning of the year. Why? The Interim Committee is not included in the codified Rules of the Senate; instead, it was created under a standalone resolution (S. Res. 75-29) (see here, page 221 of the scribd document). (That resolution was subsequently amended by S. Res. 75-64 to allow the committee to meet during spring break.)
Since the Senate did not readopt this resolution for this session, as should have been done at its first meeting, the Interim Committee does not exist. Yet, here we have the trick of this committee, which does not exist, meeting tomorrow. Thus, when the group of senators meet tomorrow, despite the Senate's best intentions, they will be without the legal authority to meet. Of course this is very easy to fix. A resolution like the one below would suffice.
The resolution is short, clear, and unambiguous. It not only makes clear to the senators what they believed was clear already, but allows people looking back to have clarity as well. Indeed, if you compare Sen. Kealy's clause to the actual resolution that created this committee in the first place, it becomes clear that the membership selection is somewhat different than what is precsribed in Rule XI, especially with respect to selecting a chairperson.
Sen. Bishop, since you are the parliamentarian of the Senate, we expect you will take this analysis under consideration and take the reasonable course of action to cancel tomorrow's meeting so that this legal and parliamentary oversight can be corrected by the full Senate. (Oh, and while you're at it, if you could fix the problem that exists with the Senate's rules, too, that'd be great. We've got some other quarrels, but let's start with something simple, eh?)
In reality, we fully expect that this post won't even get the lip service it deserves, let alone actually be taken seriously. No worries, just another item to add to the list of ways the ASUN Senate has tried but failed.
Remember back when the Senate thought it adopted rules at its first meeting of the session? We do, and it is somewhat of an important point. Well, the senators, try as they might, attempted to do it right this time (we applaud the effort) but managed to pull off a magic trick. Before the senators decided to go on extended holiday for the entire summer, despite the end-of-semester posturing that they would work tirelessly while everyone else was up at Tahoe working on their tans, we blogged that because the Senate didn't adopt a legally and parliamentarily proper rules resolution, the Interim Operations Committee did not exist.
Enter Sen. Patrick "Rules" Kealy to the rescue--sort of. At the June 3 Senate meeting, Sen. Kealy offered a resolution to adjourn the Senate for the summer (I guess it's too much to ask that the senators work for the students while the students are away). Included in that resolution was a clause that read, "The Interim Committee of the Senate is hereby active during the recess of the Senate. The duties, membership, and chairperson may be decided at the discretion of the Speaker, pursuant to Senate Rule XI."
Looks simple enough, right? The Interim Committee will be active. Just one slight problem: This committee doesn't legally exist. It would have had the Senate adopted a proper rules resolution at the beginning of the year. Why? The Interim Committee is not included in the codified Rules of the Senate; instead, it was created under a standalone resolution (S. Res. 75-29) (see here, page 221 of the scribd document). (That resolution was subsequently amended by S. Res. 75-64 to allow the committee to meet during spring break.)
Since the Senate did not readopt this resolution for this session, as should have been done at its first meeting, the Interim Committee does not exist. Yet, here we have the trick of this committee, which does not exist, meeting tomorrow. Thus, when the group of senators meet tomorrow, despite the Senate's best intentions, they will be without the legal authority to meet. Of course this is very easy to fix. A resolution like the one below would suffice.
Resolved, That Senate Resolution 75-29, as amended, shall apply in the 77th Session of the Senate in the same manner as such resolution applied in the 75th Session of the Senate.
The resolution is short, clear, and unambiguous. It not only makes clear to the senators what they believed was clear already, but allows people looking back to have clarity as well. Indeed, if you compare Sen. Kealy's clause to the actual resolution that created this committee in the first place, it becomes clear that the membership selection is somewhat different than what is precsribed in Rule XI, especially with respect to selecting a chairperson.
Sen. Bishop, since you are the parliamentarian of the Senate, we expect you will take this analysis under consideration and take the reasonable course of action to cancel tomorrow's meeting so that this legal and parliamentary oversight can be corrected by the full Senate. (Oh, and while you're at it, if you could fix the problem that exists with the Senate's rules, too, that'd be great. We've got some other quarrels, but let's start with something simple, eh?)
In reality, we fully expect that this post won't even get the lip service it deserves, let alone actually be taken seriously. No worries, just another item to add to the list of ways the ASUN Senate has tried but failed.
Read more...
Friday, May 29, 2009
Updated: Falling on Deaf Ears
Update: May 31, 2009 at 7 p.m.
The whole issue is now moot. The Assembly overrode the Governor's veto. S.B. 283 is now law.
Update: May 31, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Looks like the whole issue of this ASUN Senate resolution might become entirely moot. Last night, the Nevada Senate overrode the Governor's veto to S.B. 283. The bill is in the Assembly today for an attempt at an override. On passage in the Assembly, the measure fell two votes short of the two-thirds required to override the Governor's veto. That means the Assembly will need to find two more yes votes in order to override the veto.
VLEG has obtained exclusively a copy of a memo said to have been prepared for the ASUN Senate.*
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Senate of the Associated Students, UNR
From: Nevada Legislature
Re: S.B. 283
In case you haven't heard, the Nevada Legislature will adjourn no later than June 1, 2009. That comes before June 3, 2009. The resolution (E. Res. 77-__) you will be considering to encourage us to override the Governor's veto on S.B. 283, the domestic partner legislation, won't get to us in time. (By the way, what the hell is an E. Resolution anyway?)
As you may not be aware, the Nevada Constitution requires us to adjourn no later than 120 days after convening(art. 4, sec. 2(2)). That day is Monday, June 1, 2009, during this legislative session. Because of that, should your "E. Resolution" pass, no one will be here to receive it, read it, care anything about it, etc.
It is commendable that you are taking an interest in our business, but taking up a resoltuion urging us to do something and not bothering to look at a calendar--the expression "falling on deaf ears" comes to mind, but it's much, much worse. It's like showing up to a party several weeks late. Where were you guys back when this bill was being heard? This resolution should've been ready for presentation during the hearings on this bill, which were over a month ago, not after we've already adjourned for the biennium.
We'd say "nice try," but this has "FAIL" written all over it. In the future, we recommend that you learn about the legislative process before you do something as embarrassing as misrepresent your Association. (And your I. Res.'s and E. Res.'s--the hell?)
*Not really, but it sure would be hilarious.
The whole issue is now moot. The Assembly overrode the Governor's veto. S.B. 283 is now law.
Update: May 31, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Looks like the whole issue of this ASUN Senate resolution might become entirely moot. Last night, the Nevada Senate overrode the Governor's veto to S.B. 283. The bill is in the Assembly today for an attempt at an override. On passage in the Assembly, the measure fell two votes short of the two-thirds required to override the Governor's veto. That means the Assembly will need to find two more yes votes in order to override the veto.
VLEG has obtained exclusively a copy of a memo said to have been prepared for the ASUN Senate.*
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Senate of the Associated Students, UNR
From: Nevada Legislature
Re: S.B. 283
In case you haven't heard, the Nevada Legislature will adjourn no later than June 1, 2009. That comes before June 3, 2009. The resolution (E. Res. 77-__) you will be considering to encourage us to override the Governor's veto on S.B. 283, the domestic partner legislation, won't get to us in time. (By the way, what the hell is an E. Resolution anyway?)
As you may not be aware, the Nevada Constitution requires us to adjourn no later than 120 days after convening(art. 4, sec. 2(2)). That day is Monday, June 1, 2009, during this legislative session. Because of that, should your "E. Resolution" pass, no one will be here to receive it, read it, care anything about it, etc.
It is commendable that you are taking an interest in our business, but taking up a resoltuion urging us to do something and not bothering to look at a calendar--the expression "falling on deaf ears" comes to mind, but it's much, much worse. It's like showing up to a party several weeks late. Where were you guys back when this bill was being heard? This resolution should've been ready for presentation during the hearings on this bill, which were over a month ago, not after we've already adjourned for the biennium.
We'd say "nice try," but this has "FAIL" written all over it. In the future, we recommend that you learn about the legislative process before you do something as embarrassing as misrepresent your Association. (And your I. Res.'s and E. Res.'s--the hell?)
*Not really, but it sure would be hilarious.
Read more...
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: Cause and Effect, Separation of Powers, and Verbs
In this edition of Is Our Senators Learning, we explore cause and effect, the separation of powers doctrine, and, everyone's favorite topic, bill drafting. But first, our executive summary.
Executive Summary
As we explained back in this post, the Senate did not adopt a proper resolution adopting the rules of the Senate. To refresh your memory, this is what a proper rules resolution would have said.
This is what they actually passed.
At the time, we ignored the language stating "including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate." Today we're going to explain the effect of that language.
Rules May Exist Outside of the Rules
Previously we have explained that there may be reasons for putting provisions that are basically rules of the Senate into public law, such as permanence beyond a session, to make them harder to amend, etc. However, just because those rules are in statute doesn't mean that they automatically have effect beyond a session of the Senate. The Senate's constitutional power in Article II, section 2(c) of the ASUN Constitution to adopt rules is exclusive and absolute. "The Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings." The power is exclusive in that it belongs to the Senate and only the Senate. Thus, even though the Senate may have enacted them into law, the Senate can change the rules without passing a new law. When a rule is in law, that law constitutes a rule. That is why it was critically important for the Senate to use the specific language in the model resolution.
There are examples of the Senate adopting things in other resolutions, that do not amend the codified Rules, that also constitute a rule of the Senate. An example of that is S. Res. 75-29 (which was subsequently amended). That resolution created an Interim Committee of the Senate. It looks like a rule, smells like a rule, etc., but it is not included in the Rules of the Senate. Don't believe us? Do a search for "interim" in the codified rules.
Resolutions do not have permanence beyond a session of the Senate. What the 75th Session adopts has no effect in the 76th Session, unless the 76th Session readopts those provisions. Thus, that is why a proper resolution adopting rules includes the language "including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate." What that means is, the stuff that constitutes rules that we put elsewhere besides the codified Rules, that stuff is effective during the 77th Session.
Because the Senate did not readopt that stuff, there is no Interim Committee. And because this item is not on today's Senate agenda, they cannot pass a resolution recreating the committee, unless the senators want to violate the Open Meeting Law. Cause and effect: because the Senate did not adopt a proper resolution, the Interim Committee no longer exists.
When A Bill Amends Law, Have It Say That
Today the Senate is scheduled to consider a bill that putatively amends ASUN Public Law 75-7 to add a duty to the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations (PAPCR). Before mentioning the merit of such a change in duties, first the language of the bill.
The title should also be rephrased. Bill titles typically are phrased in infinitive form (e.g. to amend, to establish, to provide, etc.) Thus, the title of this bill should probably read "To amend ASUN Public Law 75-7 to expand the duties of the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations."
One more thing, is there is a reason the reports and bills aren't being numbered? Is it really that hard to assign a serial number (starting from #1) based on the order in which the various documents are filed? We know the 76th Session had that particular counting deficit, but you guys too?!
One last thing, there is a specific hierarchy to bills. This style was consistently used during the 75th Session. Section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clause, subclause, item, subitem--thus...
Sec. 402. THIS IS A SECTION.
(a) This is a subsection.
(1) This is a paragraph.
(A) This is a subparagraph.
(i) This is a clause.
(I) This is a subclause.
(aa) This is an item.
(AA) This is a subitem.
Notice that each level in the hierarchy is enumerated with a different style:
Separation of Powers and the PAPCR
Surprisingly, this is something the Government Operations Committee has already noticed in its report: this bill likely violates the separation of powers doctrine. The Committee states, "The Committee on Government Operations...questions the idea of giving an executive position additional duty which lies in the Legislative Branch."
Good job, Committee! So then why didn't you kill this bill in committee? Executive branch officers work for the executive branch. To be subject to two masters, the Senate and the President, would be a bad idea. For that reason alone, if this bill should pass, the President should veto it. His officers should work for him and the government (the executive branch), not for anybody else.
We also note that the Committee recommends an amendment. This is interesting because in original legislation reported from committee (meaning it came straight from committee without being introduced and read the first time in the Senate and referred), there cannot be any amendments. What the committee orders reported to the Senate gets sent to the Senate. Thus, if the Committee amended that language in the bill before reporting it, that language should be carried in the bill.
Of course the senators wouldn't know anything about this form and process stuff because nobody is teaching it to them, not to mention that their so-called advisers are not capable of teaching it.
So far, are senators does not seam to be learnings much. Of course, our expert bill drafters would be willing to assist the senators, but we can't force it upon them. All we can do is write about it here and hope it benefits someone.
Executive Summary
- Because the Senators did not pass a proper resolution adopting rules, the Interim Committee does not exist.
- Senate Bill No. 77-[???] violates the separation of powers doctrine.
- The same bill does not actually amend ASUN Public Law 75-7.
As we explained back in this post, the Senate did not adopt a proper resolution adopting the rules of the Senate. To refresh your memory, this is what a proper rules resolution would have said.
Resolved,That the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Sixth Session, including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate, are adopted as the Rules of the Senate of the Seventy-Seventh Senate.
This is what they actually passed.
Resolved, that the Senate has adopted the Rules of the Senate pursuant to Article II sec. 2(c) of the Constitution of the Associated Students.
At the time, we ignored the language stating "including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate." Today we're going to explain the effect of that language.
Rules May Exist Outside of the Rules
Previously we have explained that there may be reasons for putting provisions that are basically rules of the Senate into public law, such as permanence beyond a session, to make them harder to amend, etc. However, just because those rules are in statute doesn't mean that they automatically have effect beyond a session of the Senate. The Senate's constitutional power in Article II, section 2(c) of the ASUN Constitution to adopt rules is exclusive and absolute. "The Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings." The power is exclusive in that it belongs to the Senate and only the Senate. Thus, even though the Senate may have enacted them into law, the Senate can change the rules without passing a new law. When a rule is in law, that law constitutes a rule. That is why it was critically important for the Senate to use the specific language in the model resolution.
There are examples of the Senate adopting things in other resolutions, that do not amend the codified Rules, that also constitute a rule of the Senate. An example of that is S. Res. 75-29 (which was subsequently amended). That resolution created an Interim Committee of the Senate. It looks like a rule, smells like a rule, etc., but it is not included in the Rules of the Senate. Don't believe us? Do a search for "interim" in the codified rules.
Resolutions do not have permanence beyond a session of the Senate. What the 75th Session adopts has no effect in the 76th Session, unless the 76th Session readopts those provisions. Thus, that is why a proper resolution adopting rules includes the language "including applicable provisions of law or resolution that constituted rules of the Senate at the end of the Seventy-Sixth Senate." What that means is, the stuff that constitutes rules that we put elsewhere besides the codified Rules, that stuff is effective during the 77th Session.
Because the Senate did not readopt that stuff, there is no Interim Committee. And because this item is not on today's Senate agenda, they cannot pass a resolution recreating the committee, unless the senators want to violate the Open Meeting Law. Cause and effect: because the Senate did not adopt a proper resolution, the Interim Committee no longer exists.
When A Bill Amends Law, Have It Say That
Today the Senate is scheduled to consider a bill that putatively amends ASUN Public Law 75-7 to add a duty to the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations (PAPCR). Before mentioning the merit of such a change in duties, first the language of the bill.
A BillAside from the enacting clause not being in the proper form--"students" should be capitalized--(yes, that is in law), the bill does not amend the law. The bill must be drafted in the present tense (i.e. "the ABC Act is amended by..."). Thus, a properly drafted bill would say, after the enacting clause
Expanding the duties of the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations; Amending Public Law 75-7.
Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated students,
Amending Public Law 75-7 Sec.402 , by inserting line I after line h, “i.) To be a public and media relations advisor to the Speaker of the Senate and all Committee Chairpersons.”
Section 402 of ASUN Public Law 75-7 is amended by adding at the end the following:Instead of saying "inserting," the word "adding" is used, but only when something is being inserted at the end of something else. To insert implies putting it in between something; to add implies putting it at the end. And yes, that double period at the end of the sentence is proper. The period on the inside of the closing quotation mark indicates to include a period to the language that is being added by the amendment. The period mark on the outside of the quotation mark indicates that is the end of the sentence beginning with "Section 402...". Bills must be drafted in incredibly literal terms. No period within the quoted material, no period gets enacted into law.
"(i) To be a public and media relations advisor to the Speaker of the Senate and all Committee Chairpersons.".
The title should also be rephrased. Bill titles typically are phrased in infinitive form (e.g. to amend, to establish, to provide, etc.) Thus, the title of this bill should probably read "To amend ASUN Public Law 75-7 to expand the duties of the Presidential Assistant on Public and Campus Relations."
One more thing, is there is a reason the reports and bills aren't being numbered? Is it really that hard to assign a serial number (starting from #1) based on the order in which the various documents are filed? We know the 76th Session had that particular counting deficit, but you guys too?!
One last thing, there is a specific hierarchy to bills. This style was consistently used during the 75th Session. Section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clause, subclause, item, subitem--thus...
Sec. 402. THIS IS A SECTION.
(a) This is a subsection.
(1) This is a paragraph.
(A) This is a subparagraph.
(i) This is a clause.
(I) This is a subclause.
(aa) This is an item.
(AA) This is a subitem.
Notice that each level in the hierarchy is enumerated with a different style:
- Subsections are enumerated with lowercased alpha characters.
- Paragraphs are enumerated with Arabic numerals.
- Subparagraphs are enumerated with uppercased alpha characters.
- Clauses are enumerated with lowercased Roman numerals.
- Subclauses are enumerated with uppercased Roman numerals.
- Items are enumerated with doubled lowercased alpha characters.
- Subitems are enumerated with doubled uppercased alpha characters.
Separation of Powers and the PAPCR
Surprisingly, this is something the Government Operations Committee has already noticed in its report: this bill likely violates the separation of powers doctrine. The Committee states, "The Committee on Government Operations...questions the idea of giving an executive position additional duty which lies in the Legislative Branch."
Good job, Committee! So then why didn't you kill this bill in committee? Executive branch officers work for the executive branch. To be subject to two masters, the Senate and the President, would be a bad idea. For that reason alone, if this bill should pass, the President should veto it. His officers should work for him and the government (the executive branch), not for anybody else.
We also note that the Committee recommends an amendment. This is interesting because in original legislation reported from committee (meaning it came straight from committee without being introduced and read the first time in the Senate and referred), there cannot be any amendments. What the committee orders reported to the Senate gets sent to the Senate. Thus, if the Committee amended that language in the bill before reporting it, that language should be carried in the bill.
Of course the senators wouldn't know anything about this form and process stuff because nobody is teaching it to them, not to mention that their so-called advisers are not capable of teaching it.
So far, are senators does not seam to be learnings much. Of course, our expert bill drafters would be willing to assist the senators, but we can't force it upon them. All we can do is write about it here and hope it benefits someone.
Read more...
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: Phantom Amendment
As a follow-up to our IOSL post on simple resolutions, we find that the Senate tonight is going to be considering yet another "simple" resolution to make an amendment to a set of rules that does not legally exist.
Executive Summary
The resolution reads as follows:
We'll ignore the false designation as a binding resolution for a moment. The title of this resolution states that the amendment is to amend a Senate rule. The resolution, however, does not actually do anything except state something. See, a very important word is missing--a verb in fact. How about "amend", like this:
As is, the resolution doesn't do anything, a common problem early in this session, it seems. If the resolution is to amend something, have the resolution actually say that. The title of the resolution isn't a part of the resolution; it is used merely to help identify one from the next.
"Binding" Resolutions
Setting aside the issue of whether or not there are Senate rules, which is very much in doubt, even assuming that Rule XIV exists, the binding part of that rule provides only that
There is a second resolution on the Senate agenda tonight, a resolution "To express the condolences of the Associated Students concerning the death of Robert Weems, the founding dean of the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno." This is a good thing to do, to be sure, but it has problems, as well. The printed resolution, which is the official document under the Senate's rules, indicates that a former Senator has introduced it. Problem: only actual Senators can introduce legislation.
Second, the resolving clause "Resolved," isn't of the proper form.
Third, the resolutions' preamble (all the "Whereas" clauses) is supposed to come before the resolving clause, not after.
Fourth, the resolution doesn't actually resolve anything except that the Secretary transmit copies of it to several individuals and entities.
Compare the proposed resolution on Weems with this one that was adopted during the 74th Senate Session on Reynolds School of Journalism Dean Cole Campbell.
If you're going to pass a resolution mourning the loss of someone, the least you could do is make sure it follows good form.
Suggestion
Our suggestion is to send both resolutions to committee so two committees can learn about the nuances of resolutions.
Executive Summary
- The language used in resolutions needs to be exceedingly clear.
- If a resolution is to amend something, the resolution needs to use the word "amend", and not just in the title.
- There are only two types of legislation in the Senate, Bills and Resolutions.
- Resolutions that leave the inner sanctum of the Senate (i.e. are directed to the outside world) need to be polished to perfection. Outsiders will judge you when your resolutions don't look proper in form.
The resolution reads as follows:
A BINDING RESOLUTION
To amend Senate Rule XXII, relating to a senator’s absence during the ASUN Senate Transition and Rules Training.
Resolved, That Rule XXII b(3) “Absence will result in an immediate conduct hearing for disciplinary sanctions” from Attendance requirement of the Senate.
We'll ignore the false designation as a binding resolution for a moment. The title of this resolution states that the amendment is to amend a Senate rule. The resolution, however, does not actually do anything except state something. See, a very important word is missing--a verb in fact. How about "amend", like this:
Resolved, That Rule XXII(b)(3) of the Rules of the Senate is amended to read: "Absence will result in an immediate conduct hearing for disciplinary sanctions.".
As is, the resolution doesn't do anything, a common problem early in this session, it seems. If the resolution is to amend something, have the resolution actually say that. The title of the resolution isn't a part of the resolution; it is used merely to help identify one from the next.
"Binding" Resolutions
Setting aside the issue of whether or not there are Senate rules, which is very much in doubt, even assuming that Rule XIV exists, the binding part of that rule provides only that
Types of LegislationSo this "binding" resolution stuff is a designation that the Rules do not call for, even though the Rules go on to say that there are "binding" and "expressed" resolutions. Under the Rules and practice, there are only two types of legislation: "Bills and Resolutions." Calling them "binding" and "expressed" just confuses things.
(a) The Senate shall recognize two types of legislation, which shall be known as Bills and Resolutions.
There is a second resolution on the Senate agenda tonight, a resolution "To express the condolences of the Associated Students concerning the death of Robert Weems, the founding dean of the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno." This is a good thing to do, to be sure, but it has problems, as well. The printed resolution, which is the official document under the Senate's rules, indicates that a former Senator has introduced it. Problem: only actual Senators can introduce legislation.
Second, the resolving clause "Resolved," isn't of the proper form.
Third, the resolutions' preamble (all the "Whereas" clauses) is supposed to come before the resolving clause, not after.
Fourth, the resolution doesn't actually resolve anything except that the Secretary transmit copies of it to several individuals and entities.
Compare the proposed resolution on Weems with this one that was adopted during the 74th Senate Session on Reynolds School of Journalism Dean Cole Campbell.
If you're going to pass a resolution mourning the loss of someone, the least you could do is make sure it follows good form.
Suggestion
Our suggestion is to send both resolutions to committee so two committees can learn about the nuances of resolutions.
Read more...
Is Our Senators Learning: Simple Resolutions
When the Senators were asking questions of the three candidates for Speaker last week, they asked some really good questions. We were impressed with the quality of the questioning having listened to that meeting's recording. They were focused on the task at hand, stayed on topic, paid attention to detail. They did a singularly magnificent job.
In part four of our series (part 1 and part 2), "Is Our Senators Learning," we will start to examine some of the nuts and bolts of legislation.
Executive Summary
Our Reader's Digest, condensed version:
Legislation comes in two flavors in the Senate (despite what the Senators may think given their "maybe" Rules [turns out that the Senate may not have actually adopted rules at its first meeting]). There are bills and resolutions. Only bills create law.
Resolutions are far more varied. The dictionary tells us that a resolution is "A formal statement of a decision or expression of opinion put before or adopted by an assembly." The ASUN Senate is an assembly. Resolutions can adopt Senate rules, state the position of the Senate on some issue, evidence many Senate decisions, elect officers, memorialize the Senate granting consent to an presidential appointment, discipline members, impeach officers, petition other governing bodies to do something--if you can think it, it probably can be a resolution.
At its first Senate meeting, the Senate adopts several resolutions. What distinguishes one resolution from another is what is in that resolution. Each resolution begins the same way. It can have a title, many (but not all) have preambles (Whereas...), and all begin the meat of the resolution with the resolving clause ("Resolved").
First Three Resolutions of a Session
Some of the simplest resolutions the Senate will adopt are during its first meeting. In fact, a law governs what the Senate must do at its first meeting (ASUN Public Law 75-49). They adopt a resolution electing a Secretary, a resolution directing a committee to inform the President that the Senate is organized and ready to proceed to business, and a resolution directing the Secretary of the Senate to notify the President of the election of a Speaker and a Secretary. The Senate literally copies and pastes, with appropriate changes, what the last session did.
Below is the text of three specimen resolutions that were prepared for the 77th Session to use. All they had to do was literally fill in the blanks, so to speak (we've already done that with what the Senate apparently decided).
What the Senate Actually Adopted
Explanation
The first resolution is unnecessary. The Senate elects a Speaker by roll call vote under the precedents and law. They don't consider one by resolution. Nominations are taken and a vote is had. The candidate who is first to a majority wins.
The second resolution, the one electing a Senate Secretary, is not in proper form. It is titled "Electing the Secretary of the Senate" but doesn't actually elect a Secretary. It says that a Secretary "was elected". Again, "was" is not the same as "is" or "be".
The third resolution ignored the precedents and practice of the Senate as well. It also ignored the law. It was supposed to direct the Speaker to appoint a committee (like the second specimen above) to inform the President that the Senate is organized. Speaker Geremia still appointed the committee, but the resolution under which she imagined that power didn't say that at all.
We recognize this are all really picky points, but the point we are trying to impress upon the Senators is that the process and form of matters is just as important as what is being done.
What Makes This All Worse...
The whole first meeting was scripted. We obtained a copy of the script that was prepared for the first meeting. All they had to do was read the lines and fill in the blanks. Below are links to the specimen resolutions provided to accompany the script.
(S. Res. 77-1 specimen)
(S. Res. 77-2 specimen)
(S. Res. 77-3 specimen)
(S. Res. 77-4 specimen)
Basically, if they had followed what the last session did and the session before that did, everything would've been peachy and we wouldn't have had the opportunity to write these posts.
In part four of our series (part 1 and part 2), "Is Our Senators Learning," we will start to examine some of the nuts and bolts of legislation.
Executive Summary
Our Reader's Digest, condensed version:
- The resolutions adopted during the Senate's first meeting on April 15 all suffer from the same problem: they are not clear and specific
- The resolutions also don't do what they were supposed to.
- English verbs have many tenses; they are not equivalent.
- This wouldn't be so bad had the first meeting not been scripted.
Legislation comes in two flavors in the Senate (despite what the Senators may think given their "maybe" Rules [turns out that the Senate may not have actually adopted rules at its first meeting]). There are bills and resolutions. Only bills create law.
Resolutions are far more varied. The dictionary tells us that a resolution is "A formal statement of a decision or expression of opinion put before or adopted by an assembly." The ASUN Senate is an assembly. Resolutions can adopt Senate rules, state the position of the Senate on some issue, evidence many Senate decisions, elect officers, memorialize the Senate granting consent to an presidential appointment, discipline members, impeach officers, petition other governing bodies to do something--if you can think it, it probably can be a resolution.
At its first Senate meeting, the Senate adopts several resolutions. What distinguishes one resolution from another is what is in that resolution. Each resolution begins the same way. It can have a title, many (but not all) have preambles (Whereas...), and all begin the meat of the resolution with the resolving clause ("Resolved").
First Three Resolutions of a Session
Some of the simplest resolutions the Senate will adopt are during its first meeting. In fact, a law governs what the Senate must do at its first meeting (ASUN Public Law 75-49). They adopt a resolution electing a Secretary, a resolution directing a committee to inform the President that the Senate is organized and ready to proceed to business, and a resolution directing the Secretary of the Senate to notify the President of the election of a Speaker and a Secretary. The Senate literally copies and pastes, with appropriate changes, what the last session did.
Below is the text of three specimen resolutions that were prepared for the 77th Session to use. All they had to do was literally fill in the blanks, so to speak (we've already done that with what the Senate apparently decided).
RESOLUTION
Electing a Secretary of the Senate.
Resolved, That Alejandra Reyes be, and is hereby, chosen Secretary of the Senate.
RESOLUTION
Providing for a committee to notify the President the Senate is organized and ready to proceed to business.
Resolved, That a committee of two Members of the Senate be appointed by the Speaker to notify the President of the Associated Students that a quorum of the Senate has assembled and the Senate is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make.
RESOLUTION
Authorizing the Secretary to inform the President of the Election of the Speaker and the Secretary of the Senate.
Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to inform the President of the Associated Students that the Senate has elected Gracie Geremia, a Senator from the College of Liberal Arts, Speaker; and Alejandra Reyes, a student from the Reynolds School of Journalism, Secretary of the Senate of the Seventy-Seventh Senate.
What the Senate Actually Adopted
A Resolution
Electing the Speaker of the Senate
Resolved, that Gracie Geremia was elected and will serve as the 77th Session Speaker of the Senate.
Short Title
This Resolution may be cited as the "Election of the Speaker of the Senate"
A Resolution Electing the Secretary of the Senate
Resolved, that Alejandra Reyes was elected and will serve as the 77th Session Secretary of the Senate.
Short Title
This Resolution may be cited as the "Appointment of the Secretary of the Senate"
A Resolution
Announcing readiness of the Senate
Resolved, that the 77th Session of Senate is now organized and ready for business
Explanation
The first resolution is unnecessary. The Senate elects a Speaker by roll call vote under the precedents and law. They don't consider one by resolution. Nominations are taken and a vote is had. The candidate who is first to a majority wins.
The second resolution, the one electing a Senate Secretary, is not in proper form. It is titled "Electing the Secretary of the Senate" but doesn't actually elect a Secretary. It says that a Secretary "was elected". Again, "was" is not the same as "is" or "be".
The third resolution ignored the precedents and practice of the Senate as well. It also ignored the law. It was supposed to direct the Speaker to appoint a committee (like the second specimen above) to inform the President that the Senate is organized. Speaker Geremia still appointed the committee, but the resolution under which she imagined that power didn't say that at all.
We recognize this are all really picky points, but the point we are trying to impress upon the Senators is that the process and form of matters is just as important as what is being done.
What Makes This All Worse...
The whole first meeting was scripted. We obtained a copy of the script that was prepared for the first meeting. All they had to do was read the lines and fill in the blanks. Below are links to the specimen resolutions provided to accompany the script.
(S. Res. 77-1 specimen)
(S. Res. 77-2 specimen)
(S. Res. 77-3 specimen)
(S. Res. 77-4 specimen)
Basically, if they had followed what the last session did and the session before that did, everything would've been peachy and we wouldn't have had the opportunity to write these posts.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
