Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
I'm Just A Bill Redux
We've all seen the Schoolhouse Rock animation "I'm Just A Bill," an elementary explanation of how a bill becomes a law. This post will provide a collegiate-level explanation of how a bill becomes a law within the context of the ASUN.
The basic steps are pretty much the same in any legislative body. A bill starts as an idea. The idea is put to paper--the bill. The bill gets introduced and referred to committee. The committee considers the bill and, if it agrees with the bill, reports it favorably back to the full house. If the full house agrees with the bill, the bill is passed. Then, in a bicameral (two house) legislature, the process starts again, with the bill as it passed the first house. In ASUN, this step is omitted, as there is no second house. When the bill has passed the legislature, it is sent on up to the chief executive, be it the president or the governor. If he agrees, it becomes law. If not, it is sent back to the house of origin together with his objections. If the legislature decides to override the veto, the bill becomes law; if not, the bill does not become law, and it continues to sit up on capitol hill. Simple, right? Well, let's add some detail. (Fair warning, this is a beast of a post.)
A Bill is an Idea
The Schoolhouse Rock song tells us that a bill starts as an idea. This post will use a prototypical bill that addresses a policy issue the Senate should take up. In April 2009, the Board of Regents changed its policy regarding the approval of student government constitutions. The new policy delegates the power of approval to the Chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education. Previously, amendments to a student government's constitution required Board of Regents approval. This policy change makes an act of the ASUN Senate obsolete as written. The draft bill below proposes to change the ASUN policy to conform to the System policy. Desiring to do that, a draft bill might be put together, such as the one below.
Sample Discussion Draft Bill
Read more...
Thursday, September 10, 2009
A Quorum Was Not Present
Contrary to popular belief, this blog has not died (yet). There just really hasn't been much of note to discuss. (The less the ASUN is doing or screwing up, the less we have to write about.) We do have a quick note about a meeting today that sort of happened.
The Senate's Academics Committee was scheduled to meet this morning. Setting aside the legislation they were supposed to hear, it is noted that the meeting was canceled because a quorum--the minimum number of members to be present to conduct business--didn't bother to show. For committees, that number is a majority of the membership. That means at least half of the members couldn't be bothered with doing their duty.
Procedurally, a meeting isn't canceled because a quorum is not present; it just doesn't go anywhere. The proper thing to do would have been for the chair of the committee to call the meeting to order at the scheduled time, take attendance, note the absence of a quorum, take public comment, if any, and adjourn. Here's why the "meeting" still should happen. If the meeting is canceled, the meeting never took place for the purposes of recording attendance. Thus, while several members may have been absent, since the meeting was "canceled," the absence could never have occurred in the first place. You can't be absent from something that didn't happen.
To recap, the absence of a quorum only prevents deliberation and action from being taken at a meeting. It doesn't prevent the meeting from being called to order, attendance noted, and a determination as to whether a quorum is present from happening. The record (the minutes) must show the absence of a quorum, and that only happens when the meeting is held. You cancel a meeting, and you just give your derelict colleagues a free pass.
The Senate's Academics Committee was scheduled to meet this morning. Setting aside the legislation they were supposed to hear, it is noted that the meeting was canceled because a quorum--the minimum number of members to be present to conduct business--didn't bother to show. For committees, that number is a majority of the membership. That means at least half of the members couldn't be bothered with doing their duty.
Procedurally, a meeting isn't canceled because a quorum is not present; it just doesn't go anywhere. The proper thing to do would have been for the chair of the committee to call the meeting to order at the scheduled time, take attendance, note the absence of a quorum, take public comment, if any, and adjourn. Here's why the "meeting" still should happen. If the meeting is canceled, the meeting never took place for the purposes of recording attendance. Thus, while several members may have been absent, since the meeting was "canceled," the absence could never have occurred in the first place. You can't be absent from something that didn't happen.
To recap, the absence of a quorum only prevents deliberation and action from being taken at a meeting. It doesn't prevent the meeting from being called to order, attendance noted, and a determination as to whether a quorum is present from happening. The record (the minutes) must show the absence of a quorum, and that only happens when the meeting is held. You cancel a meeting, and you just give your derelict colleagues a free pass.
Read more...
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: Committee Jurisdiction
This will be a short installment of IOSL. Before I begin, a bit of a disclaimer. There appears to be some dispute what the present form of Rule X is. In November 2008, the Government Operations Committee considered an amendment to the rule to change the descriptions of the committee's jurisdiction. We previously believed that amendment to have been agreed to by the Senate. However, the (one would assume) official listing of legislation on the ASUN Web site does not show said piece of legislation. Without ample proof, we are unable to state with any level of confidence what Rule X should say. So for the purposes of this piece, we will use the unamended text of Rule X which, as it would be, is the same text that is supposedly the "official" rule.
Rule X of the Rules of the Senate defines the jurisdictions of the standing committees. A standing committee is one that is permanently established under the Senate's Rules. Clause (d) of that rule informs us that the Committee on Government Operations has the jurisdiction to consider, among other things, "amendments to the Rules of the Senate."
So imagine my surprise to read today'sConduct and Appointments Oversight Committee agenda. Item 6(b) reads:
I'm sure that Speaker Geremia, who is chair of the committee, won't let this pesky little rule stand in her way. After all, she didn't do anything to keep the Phantom Committee from meeting. These aren't hard things to fix, but this demonstrable lack of respect for rules and the written word is disturbing, considering all the senators took an oath to uphold them.
Rule X of the Rules of the Senate defines the jurisdictions of the standing committees. A standing committee is one that is permanently established under the Senate's Rules. Clause (d) of that rule informs us that the Committee on Government Operations has the jurisdiction to consider, among other things, "amendments to the Rules of the Senate."
So imagine my surprise to read today's
b. ABSENCE POLICYThis is a problem. The Oversight Committee does not have legislative jurisdiction. Even under its amended description (here), there is no mention of the committee having jurisdiction beyond investigations of personnel issues, disciplinary hearings, confirmation hearings, reviewing senators' absences, and conducting impeachment hearings. Thus, it would appear that this committee is without the jurisdiction to consider legislation. They can talk all they want about what the rules should be, any one of the senators on the committee is free to draft a resolution to amend the rules, but it is the Government Operations Committee that has the jurisdiction to consider it.
The committee may discuss implementing an absence policy prior to the conduct hearing for senators who have exceeded 3 absences, pertinent to Senate Rule I (e) Attendance Policy. The committee may discuss the absence policy related to office hours. The committee may discuss or draft legislation regarding the Senate absence policy.
I'm sure that Speaker Geremia, who is chair of the committee, won't let this pesky little rule stand in her way. After all, she didn't do anything to keep the Phantom Committee from meeting. These aren't hard things to fix, but this demonstrable lack of respect for rules and the written word is disturbing, considering all the senators took an oath to uphold them.
Read more...
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...
Thursday, April 30, 2009
ASUN: Now violating plaintiffs' petitioners' rights
During the last session of the Senate, the distinguished and learned senators, at the urging of one very pushy ASUN Judicial Council justice, amended gutted the Judicial Rules of Procedure as were enacted during the 75th Senate Session (link to original rules).
Among the many dumb things that were changed (not that there were any reasonable, good changes) was the names of the parties to a case from plaintiff and defendant to petitioner and respondent. Thanks to the power of public records requests, we discovered a little boo boo in the enactment.
S. B. 76-14 Enrolled With Signatures
See it, it's right there. Oh, too hard to see, well I'll quote it.
Under the original, not-nearly-as-messed-up document, the clause read
That's just one more gem from the 76th Session of the Senate, ladies and gentlemen. It's the gift that keeps on giving--that no one wanted in the first place.
Among the many dumb things that were changed (not that there were any reasonable, good changes) was the names of the parties to a case from plaintiff and defendant to petitioner and respondent. Thanks to the power of public records requests, we discovered a little boo boo in the enactment.
S. B. 76-14 Enrolled With Signatures
See it, it's right there. Oh, too hard to see, well I'll quote it.
"Evidence that violates a petitioner's rights may not be submitted unless the respondent waives such rights."(Rule 4(l)(4)).
Under the original, not-nearly-as-messed-up document, the clause read
"Evidence that violates a defendant's rights may not be submitted unless the defendant waives such rights."Aside from, um, getting it wrong, a respondent can now waive the rights of a petitioner.
That's just one more gem from the 76th Session of the Senate, ladies and gentlemen. It's the gift that keeps on giving--that no one wanted in the first place.
Read more...
Friday, April 17, 2009
See, the President Can Ignore the Rules, Too!
President Reilly has submitted a proposed budget for ASUN for the next fiscal year, 2010. Not wanting anyone to get the wrong impression that it's only the Senate that ignores the laws, Reilly seems to be neglecting giving the laws due attention as well.
The Senate, a whopping one year ago, enacted a law governing budget and finance matters, the Association Budget and Finance Act of 2008 (ASUN Pub. L. 75-52). A couple of things are of particular note.
First, section 104 creates a reserve account and requires that 5 percent of the fee revenues anticipated for the fiscal year be set aside. This is ASUN law. It cannot be ignored. It turns out President Reilly disagrees. In his proposed budget, he has determined that it only needs to be 2.5 percent, after consulting with the University budget office. This unilateral change saves $30,100 but also violates the law.
Reilly is probably right that 5 percent of the fee revenues--or about $65,000 next fiscal year--is excessive, considering that more than $100,000 is unspent from the prior fiscal year and ASUN has never had to dip into its contingency reserve for as long as anyone can remember. Unfortunately, it is this budgetary sleight of hand that probably allowed Reilly to "save" Insight Magazine from the chopping block and keep his new initiatives on the table.
Second, subtitle A of Title II, of the same Act, particularly section 205, governs what must be in the budget. This budget is far and away from complying with the law. But these laws aren't actually binding or anything, right? Not like an oath was taken to uphold them, right?*
*Note: The President's oath of office reads as follows: "I, [Eli Reilly], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve and protect the Constitution of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada." The President has a constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution and to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Don't believe us, look it up: ASUN Constitution. The laws the Senate enacts are an inherent part of the constitutional process.
If Senator Sean Hostmeyer, who is the newly-elected chairman of the Senate Budget and Finance Committee, has any balls and respect for the law and process, he'll send the Budget back and refuse to hold hearings on it until it complies with the law.
The Senate, a whopping one year ago, enacted a law governing budget and finance matters, the Association Budget and Finance Act of 2008 (ASUN Pub. L. 75-52). A couple of things are of particular note.
First, section 104 creates a reserve account and requires that 5 percent of the fee revenues anticipated for the fiscal year be set aside. This is ASUN law. It cannot be ignored. It turns out President Reilly disagrees. In his proposed budget, he has determined that it only needs to be 2.5 percent, after consulting with the University budget office. This unilateral change saves $30,100 but also violates the law.
Reilly is probably right that 5 percent of the fee revenues--or about $65,000 next fiscal year--is excessive, considering that more than $100,000 is unspent from the prior fiscal year and ASUN has never had to dip into its contingency reserve for as long as anyone can remember. Unfortunately, it is this budgetary sleight of hand that probably allowed Reilly to "save" Insight Magazine from the chopping block and keep his new initiatives on the table.
Second, subtitle A of Title II, of the same Act, particularly section 205, governs what must be in the budget. This budget is far and away from complying with the law. But these laws aren't actually binding or anything, right? Not like an oath was taken to uphold them, right?*
*Note: The President's oath of office reads as follows: "I, [Eli Reilly], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve and protect the Constitution of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada." The President has a constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution and to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Don't believe us, look it up: ASUN Constitution. The laws the Senate enacts are an inherent part of the constitutional process.
If Senator Sean Hostmeyer, who is the newly-elected chairman of the Senate Budget and Finance Committee, has any balls and respect for the law and process, he'll send the Budget back and refuse to hold hearings on it until it complies with the law.
Read more...
Is Our Senators Learning: First learning opportunity--Agendas, Deadlines, and Appointments
Being elected to ASUN office is something like being handed a scalpel and told to perform emergency surgery. Stuff must be done quickly and done reasonably well or the patient will be injured or worse. The Speaker has it 10 times worse, easily. Little more than one day after being elected as Speaker, she must draft an agenda for the next meeting, make sure it complies with the Nevada Open Meeting Law, Senate rules, and ASUN law, and be sure it is posted before Friday at 9 a.m., all with hardly any support or guidance. Mistakes are bound to be made, and that's okay. But mistakes are only okay when we learn from them, grow, and don't repeat them.
That is the state of affairs Gracie Geremia was thrown into shortly before 7 p.m. Wednesday when she was elected to be the Senate's leader. It's hard work and you don't really realize how hard it is until you have to do it. As a sign of her dedication to her new job, she was in the office past 11 p.m. last night, as the ASUN website entry for the next Senate meeting demonstrates.
At first glance, the Senate agenda for April 22 looks pretty good. But when you dig a little bit deeper, some opportunities for growth are apparent. Now, please stick with us through the entirety of these posts. These things are complicated and require deliberate exposition. I know it's frustrating, but if you stick with us, you might learn something and become better Senators because of it.
Senate Rule XX and ASUN Public Law 75-37 govern the process of handing presidential appointments to office. (We cite to the 75th Session's rules because the 77th Session's rules are not published yet, but the rule is the same. There is also some doubt about whether the Senate actually adopted rules at its meeting on Wednesday--a problem of form and specificity--but we'll withhold commenting further until we've gathered the documentary evidence to be sure.)
ASUN Pub. L. 75-37 requires that an appointing authority, that's President Reilly for all of the nominations submitted Wednesday, must submit nominations in writing in a specific manner. It must follow a specific form, be transmitted to the Secretary, and sent in a sealed envelope. Our guess is the form was not followed. But that's a fault of the President, not of the Senate.
Senate Rule XX states
Problem: nominations should not yet appear on the Oversight Committee's agenda. Remember that Senate rule? It says that "the appointing authority [President Reilly] shall file written notice with the Secretary of the intention to present an appointee to the Senate [in the form prescribed by ASUN Pub. L. 75-37] no later than 9 a.m. on the Wednesday prior to the Wednesday for which the meeting is scheduled."
The rule goes on to say "the Speaker shall place the appointee, with name and position of appointment, on the agenda for referral to the appropriate committee at the aforementioned Wednesday meeting." The meeting referred to above can only be the Senate because only the Senate can refer things to committee.
So, the rule states that nominations transmitted by the President must appear on the Senate agenda, listing the person and office of the appointment, so that it can be referred to the Oversight Committee. The flaw with the Senate and Oversight agendas is that it appears the the proper order was skipped.
The process says that the nomination is received by the Secretary and it gets placed on the next possible Senate agenda for reading and referral to committee. So, in the proper order:
Now, a couple questions the process should raise: Why cannot the President submit nominations by one week prior to the first Senate meeting so they can be read and referred the night he takes office? Why can't the deadline be ignored?
The Deadline and Its Implications
Rule XX(a) of the Senate Rules sets a deadline for nominations to be received in order to be read at the next Senate meeting. So, why can't the nominations be submitted before the first Senate meeting of a Session? There are several reasons why.
First, the 77th Session did not exist until it convened and was organized on April 15. In order to be organized, the Senate needed to elect a Speaker and inform the President that a quorum was assembled, they had elected officers, and were ready to receive any communication he may be pleased to make (See Item 6(a) on the April 15 Senate agenda--.doc). Constitutionally, the Senate cannot proceed to business unless it has organized. Also, the President needs to be given formal notice that the Senate has convened so he knows he can send them business. I know it seems strange because everybody knew what was going to happen and what needed to happen, but this is a legal process, and it must play out in a very particular order in a very particular way.
Second, the President did not take office until 6 p.m. on April 15 and did not qualify to enter on his office until he was sworn in (ASUN Const., Art. III, sec. 1(f)). Thus, he cannot submit nominations until the executive power to make nominations has been conferred on to him by virtue of entering office by taking the oath. Thus, the soonest he can transmit nominations is April 15, 2009, right after he's been sworn in. The fact that it was an incumbent president being reelected is immaterial because the first point set out in the paragraph above prevents him from sending the nominations to the right Senate. (Remember, the 76th Session ended on April 8 and the 77th Session had not yet been formed.)
Why the Deadline Matters
The deadline is certainly inconvenient when viewed from the perspective that the Senate should move with incredible speed in considering the President's nominations to office. But that's not what the rule is designed to do. It is designed to slow the process down. "Why?" you may ask. Several reasons:
Besides, there really is no rush to confirm nominations. In most of the high executive offices, ASUN Law provides that the terms of office do not end until "Dead Day" in May. Further, even if a successor has not been confirmed and sworn into office by then, the person currently holding the office, in may cases, stays in office until a successor has been appointed and qualifies (ASUN Pub. L. 75-50).
Pressure to act quickly is unwarranted
Put simply, the President wants things to be considered quickly because quick decisions will benefit him (this applies to any president, not only Reilly). Instead, if the Senate has time to really think about whether a person is qualified for office, that could lead to undesirable results for the President.
The Senators will feel compelled to act. The President will pressure them to act quickly. The fact of the matter is the purpose of the Senate is to put a huge damper on moving quickly. The Senate is a deliberative body. Deliberation takes time. The Senate is designed to move slowly on purpose. The President can act quickly, and that makes sense since he is in the branch that executes policy. The legislative branch, however, creates policy, and policy needs to be fully considered before actions are taken.
Yes, the rules can be inconvenient, but only depending on your perspective. Senators, you are elected to be a check on the President. You get to consider and determine the wisdom of the President's acts on behalf of your constituents. Nobody else gets to do it in the same way you do.
Learning the rules also requires thinking about what things would be like if the rule did not exist, or was not followed. Imagine if the Senate was allowed to make a decision on the appointments as soon as they were submitted. Some of the Senators might feel compelled to act because they were being asked for a decision that night. But do you think that would have led to a good result? Hardly hours into their offices, could they really have made a reasonable decision on nominations without taking time to think about it? Important decisions require time to fully consider.
The learning opportunity
The error on the agendas has already been made. The beauty is the error can be contained and corrected in the future. This will take the Speaker acknowledging the error herself and holding off on improper consideration or it will take a Senator to point out the error and object to considering an item in a manner contrary to the rules. The rules are not self-enforcing. It takes a senator to raise an objection, call out an activity as being contrary to the rules, and demand that it be enforced.
A nitpicky, but important, point
The language used by the Senate must be specific, sometimes to the point of absurdity. One such example is on the Agendas posted. The reasons specificity to the point of anal-retentiveness is required is so matters are very clear. Again, this is a legal process ASUN exists in, and legal processes require precise language. The agendas drafted by Speaker Geremia all have one common error: it's not the "IGT Knowledge Center" but rather the "Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center." Big deal? Probably not, but it matters.
That is the state of affairs Gracie Geremia was thrown into shortly before 7 p.m. Wednesday when she was elected to be the Senate's leader. It's hard work and you don't really realize how hard it is until you have to do it. As a sign of her dedication to her new job, she was in the office past 11 p.m. last night, as the ASUN website entry for the next Senate meeting demonstrates.
At first glance, the Senate agenda for April 22 looks pretty good. But when you dig a little bit deeper, some opportunities for growth are apparent. Now, please stick with us through the entirety of these posts. These things are complicated and require deliberate exposition. I know it's frustrating, but if you stick with us, you might learn something and become better Senators because of it.
Senate Rule XX and ASUN Public Law 75-37 govern the process of handing presidential appointments to office. (We cite to the 75th Session's rules because the 77th Session's rules are not published yet, but the rule is the same. There is also some doubt about whether the Senate actually adopted rules at its meeting on Wednesday--a problem of form and specificity--but we'll withhold commenting further until we've gathered the documentary evidence to be sure.)
ASUN Pub. L. 75-37 requires that an appointing authority, that's President Reilly for all of the nominations submitted Wednesday, must submit nominations in writing in a specific manner. It must follow a specific form, be transmitted to the Secretary, and sent in a sealed envelope. Our guess is the form was not followed. But that's a fault of the President, not of the Senate.
Senate Rule XX states
(a) (1) The appointing authority shall file written notice with the Secretary of the intention to present an appointee to the Senate no later than 9 a.m. on the Wednesday prior to the Wednesday for which the meeting is scheduled.Let's break down the rule and tie it together with the ASUN law. We'll use a specific example. The Committee on Oversight, which has jurisdiction over appointments to office, is scheduled to hold a meeting on April 22 to consider several presidential appointments (agenda--.doc). One of the items on the agenda is the consideration of Patrick Delaplain to be Director of Clubs and Organizations. Section 202(a) of the Executive Branch Act of 2008 (ASUN Pub. L. 75-7) creates that office.
(2) The Speaker shall place the appointee, with name and position of appointment, on the agenda for referral to the appropriate committee at the aforementioned Wednesday meeting.
Problem: nominations should not yet appear on the Oversight Committee's agenda. Remember that Senate rule? It says that "the appointing authority [President Reilly] shall file written notice with the Secretary of the intention to present an appointee to the Senate [in the form prescribed by ASUN Pub. L. 75-37] no later than 9 a.m. on the Wednesday prior to the Wednesday for which the meeting is scheduled."
The rule goes on to say "the Speaker shall place the appointee, with name and position of appointment, on the agenda for referral to the appropriate committee at the aforementioned Wednesday meeting." The meeting referred to above can only be the Senate because only the Senate can refer things to committee.
So, the rule states that nominations transmitted by the President must appear on the Senate agenda, listing the person and office of the appointment, so that it can be referred to the Oversight Committee. The flaw with the Senate and Oversight agendas is that it appears the the proper order was skipped.
The process says that the nomination is received by the Secretary and it gets placed on the next possible Senate agenda for reading and referral to committee. So, in the proper order:
- President submits to Senate Secretary nomination: "I nominate Patrick Delaplain to be Director of Clubs and Organizations, vice Jason Entsminger, term expiring."
- The Secretary receives the nomination.
- The Speaker places the nomination on the next Senate agenda if it was submitted before 9 a.m.; otherwise another week must elapse.
- The item is on the agenda. During the meeting, the nomination is read, and it is referred to the Oversight Committee.
- Once it has been formally referred, then the item can appear on the Oversight agenda.
- Nomination submitted on April 15, after the Senate was organized--that was after 7 p.m. on that day.
- Secretary receives nomination same day.
- Speaker schedules nomination to be read for the April 29 Senate meeting because it was not submitted before 9 a.m. on April 15.
- Nomination gets read and referred to Oversight on April 29.
- After the formal nomination is referred to the committee, only then may it be scheduled for consideration in committee and placed on the committee agenda.
Now, a couple questions the process should raise: Why cannot the President submit nominations by one week prior to the first Senate meeting so they can be read and referred the night he takes office? Why can't the deadline be ignored?
The Deadline and Its Implications
Rule XX(a) of the Senate Rules sets a deadline for nominations to be received in order to be read at the next Senate meeting. So, why can't the nominations be submitted before the first Senate meeting of a Session? There are several reasons why.
First, the 77th Session did not exist until it convened and was organized on April 15. In order to be organized, the Senate needed to elect a Speaker and inform the President that a quorum was assembled, they had elected officers, and were ready to receive any communication he may be pleased to make (See Item 6(a) on the April 15 Senate agenda--.doc). Constitutionally, the Senate cannot proceed to business unless it has organized. Also, the President needs to be given formal notice that the Senate has convened so he knows he can send them business. I know it seems strange because everybody knew what was going to happen and what needed to happen, but this is a legal process, and it must play out in a very particular order in a very particular way.
Second, the President did not take office until 6 p.m. on April 15 and did not qualify to enter on his office until he was sworn in (ASUN Const., Art. III, sec. 1(f)). Thus, he cannot submit nominations until the executive power to make nominations has been conferred on to him by virtue of entering office by taking the oath. Thus, the soonest he can transmit nominations is April 15, 2009, right after he's been sworn in. The fact that it was an incumbent president being reelected is immaterial because the first point set out in the paragraph above prevents him from sending the nominations to the right Senate. (Remember, the 76th Session ended on April 8 and the 77th Session had not yet been formed.)
Why the Deadline Matters
The deadline is certainly inconvenient when viewed from the perspective that the Senate should move with incredible speed in considering the President's nominations to office. But that's not what the rule is designed to do. It is designed to slow the process down. "Why?" you may ask. Several reasons:
- to prevent quick, rash decisions;
- to allow the Oversight Committee to properly vet nominees;
- to allow Senators enough time to gather outside information and perspective to weigh the merits of the nominations;
- to allow members of the Association at large to weigh in and persuade their representatives to vote to conform or not to confirm; and
- to slow things down, etc.
Besides, there really is no rush to confirm nominations. In most of the high executive offices, ASUN Law provides that the terms of office do not end until "Dead Day" in May. Further, even if a successor has not been confirmed and sworn into office by then, the person currently holding the office, in may cases, stays in office until a successor has been appointed and qualifies (ASUN Pub. L. 75-50).
Pressure to act quickly is unwarranted
Put simply, the President wants things to be considered quickly because quick decisions will benefit him (this applies to any president, not only Reilly). Instead, if the Senate has time to really think about whether a person is qualified for office, that could lead to undesirable results for the President.
The Senators will feel compelled to act. The President will pressure them to act quickly. The fact of the matter is the purpose of the Senate is to put a huge damper on moving quickly. The Senate is a deliberative body. Deliberation takes time. The Senate is designed to move slowly on purpose. The President can act quickly, and that makes sense since he is in the branch that executes policy. The legislative branch, however, creates policy, and policy needs to be fully considered before actions are taken.
Yes, the rules can be inconvenient, but only depending on your perspective. Senators, you are elected to be a check on the President. You get to consider and determine the wisdom of the President's acts on behalf of your constituents. Nobody else gets to do it in the same way you do.
Learning the rules also requires thinking about what things would be like if the rule did not exist, or was not followed. Imagine if the Senate was allowed to make a decision on the appointments as soon as they were submitted. Some of the Senators might feel compelled to act because they were being asked for a decision that night. But do you think that would have led to a good result? Hardly hours into their offices, could they really have made a reasonable decision on nominations without taking time to think about it? Important decisions require time to fully consider.
The learning opportunity
The error on the agendas has already been made. The beauty is the error can be contained and corrected in the future. This will take the Speaker acknowledging the error herself and holding off on improper consideration or it will take a Senator to point out the error and object to considering an item in a manner contrary to the rules. The rules are not self-enforcing. It takes a senator to raise an objection, call out an activity as being contrary to the rules, and demand that it be enforced.
A nitpicky, but important, point
The language used by the Senate must be specific, sometimes to the point of absurdity. One such example is on the Agendas posted. The reasons specificity to the point of anal-retentiveness is required is so matters are very clear. Again, this is a legal process ASUN exists in, and legal processes require precise language. The agendas drafted by Speaker Geremia all have one common error: it's not the "IGT Knowledge Center" but rather the "Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center." Big deal? Probably not, but it matters.
Read more...
Learning How to Swim
As the Sagebrush pointed out in its last staff editorial, "The new session is a glimmer of hope for improving the reputation of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada Senate – all they have to do is avoid repeating the mistakes of the past." The chief mistake: not learning, and becoming proficient with, the rules.
Each of the three candidates for Speaker of the 77th Senate lamented the fact that they felt like they had nobody to teach them the rules. Senator Patrick Kealy said "We weren't trained very well as 76th session senators." But now-Speaker Gracie Geremia perhaps said it best: it was like being thrown overboard without any support. "Nobody taught us how to swim, nobody gave us floaties," Geremia said. We hope to provide some floaties.
Before I continue, let me be abundantly clear about my motives behind this post, and future ones like it: it is to help the 77th Senate, full of promise, to avoid the mistakes of the past. The best way of doing that is by pointing out specific examples of the failures of the past so growth can occur. It is unavoidable to focus on specific failures of the past. It isn't done to criticize the people involved. The fact of the matter is the Senators are not experts on their rules. It would be unfair to except them to be. Even the incumbents, who have a year of experience under their belts, still have much to learn.
In short, the Senators need to become comfortable with the water before they can swim and before they can swim well.
Principles are sacred
President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood the big picture on rules. In a speech to young Democrats, he said, "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." The principle underlying the ASUN Constitution and the Senate Rules is the rule of law--the idea that people are best governed by rules implemented by a deliberative process rather than by the whims of people, even when well-intentioned in nature.
Are there specific rules that are perhaps unfair in certain circumstances? Absolutely. There are exceptions to nearly everything in life. But if we cannot agree that the rule of law is a noble, just principle which deserves to be promoted, we cannot agree on much that follows. You either believe in the principle of the rule of law or you don't. There really isn't any middle ground.
Principles and rules as a framework
So why do we have rules? Well, let's look at a simple example first: checkers. We all have played checkers at one point or another. But imagine being exposed to the game for the very first time. It's a very simple game, but it has rules. Simplified, the rules are:
Just think about what it's like playing with a child who hasn't quite grasped how a game works. When the child is losing, the game will likely end abruptly with the child declaring, "I don't like this game." Why the child doesn't like the game is readily apparently to the people who know the rules and how to play: he doesn't like the game because he doesn't understand it, and because he doesn't understand it, he's no good at it. But, when both players know the rules and know how to apply them--to know how to play the game--it will be a pleasant experience for both players.
ASUN is sort of like checkers
The Senate Rules and the ASUN Constitution are no different, just much, much larger in scope, scale, and complexity. To draw the comparison, the 76th Session was like a bunch of novices playing a game of checkers: they thought they were playing the game well; in reality, they were flailing about because they didn't have an experienced player around to teach them the game. And when outsiders, who had a demonstrated understanding of the rules, criticized them for not knowing the game, they interpreted it as contempt for them as individuals and rejected it. (Although it may seem to trivialize ASUN and the people involved, I use the term "game" to explain ASUN as a process that has rules that must be used to achieve an objective. The best comparison on a very simple level is to call it a game.)
I hesitate to make the comparison because of the animosity that the observation was met with from the 76th Session Senators, but one only need to look closely at the record of the 75th Session compared with what the 76th Session did to see the difference between players who understood the game and those who did not. The form, the content, the nuances, all of it is demonstrably and objectively better than even the "best" items of the 76th Session.
When posts are published here pointing out errors and failures in what the Senate is doing with respect to its process, it is intended only to be a teaching moment so the Senators can grow to be more experienced with the process. This will take time, it will require a concerted effort on the part of the Senators, and it will only work if the criticisms are embraced by them.
I don't think there are any bad people in the Senate. They all only want to try their hardest and do what's best for the students. With that out of the way, the next post will explore some of the flaws with the first agenda prepared by the Senate's new Speaker.
Let's hope the incumbents, including Speaker Geremia, have the presence of mind, the introspection, and wherewithal to back up their complaints about not being taught the process with embracing those who did, people from whom the Senators could learn much.
Each of the three candidates for Speaker of the 77th Senate lamented the fact that they felt like they had nobody to teach them the rules. Senator Patrick Kealy said "We weren't trained very well as 76th session senators." But now-Speaker Gracie Geremia perhaps said it best: it was like being thrown overboard without any support. "Nobody taught us how to swim, nobody gave us floaties," Geremia said. We hope to provide some floaties.
Before I continue, let me be abundantly clear about my motives behind this post, and future ones like it: it is to help the 77th Senate, full of promise, to avoid the mistakes of the past. The best way of doing that is by pointing out specific examples of the failures of the past so growth can occur. It is unavoidable to focus on specific failures of the past. It isn't done to criticize the people involved. The fact of the matter is the Senators are not experts on their rules. It would be unfair to except them to be. Even the incumbents, who have a year of experience under their belts, still have much to learn.
In short, the Senators need to become comfortable with the water before they can swim and before they can swim well.
Principles are sacred
President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood the big picture on rules. In a speech to young Democrats, he said, "Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." The principle underlying the ASUN Constitution and the Senate Rules is the rule of law--the idea that people are best governed by rules implemented by a deliberative process rather than by the whims of people, even when well-intentioned in nature.
Are there specific rules that are perhaps unfair in certain circumstances? Absolutely. There are exceptions to nearly everything in life. But if we cannot agree that the rule of law is a noble, just principle which deserves to be promoted, we cannot agree on much that follows. You either believe in the principle of the rule of law or you don't. There really isn't any middle ground.
Principles and rules as a framework
So why do we have rules? Well, let's look at a simple example first: checkers. We all have played checkers at one point or another. But imagine being exposed to the game for the very first time. It's a very simple game, but it has rules. Simplified, the rules are:
- The game board is an 8×8 grid, with alternating black and red squares.
- Two sets of pieces of different color, one dark and one light.
- Each player starts with 12 pieces on opposite ends of the board, with one piece placed in the dark grid space in the three rows closest to the player. The player with the dark-colored pieces moves first.
- Players can move in two ways: move and jump. In a move, pieces slide one space forward diagonally (or backwards if the piece is a king). A jump, quoting the linked Wikipedia article:
- A jump is a move from a square diagonally adjacent to one of the opponent's pieces to an empty square immediately and directly on the opposite side of the opponent's square, thus "jumping directly over" the square containing the opponent's piece. An uncrowned piece can only jump diagonally forwards, but a king can also jump diagonally backwards. A piece that is jumped is captured and removed from the board. Multiple-jump moves are possible if, when the jumping piece lands, there is another immediate piece that can be jumped, even if the jump is in a different direction. When multiple-option jumping moves are available, whether with the one piece in different directions or multiple pieces that can make various jumping moves, the player may choose which piece to jump with and which jumping option or sequence of jumps to make. The jumping sequence chosen does not necessarily have to be the one that would have resulted in the most captures. If a player does not take their jump because either they (1.) did not see it or (2.) refuse, the piece that could have made the jump is "blown" or "huffed," (which eliminates it from the game) and the opponent continues their turn as normal. Any piece, whether it is a king or not, can jump a king.
- Pieces are "kinged" when a player's piece moves into the kings row on the opposing player's side of the board. A king piece can move forwards and backwards on the board.
- The game ends when an all of an opponent's pieces or captured or no legal moves remain, ending in a stalemate.
Just think about what it's like playing with a child who hasn't quite grasped how a game works. When the child is losing, the game will likely end abruptly with the child declaring, "I don't like this game." Why the child doesn't like the game is readily apparently to the people who know the rules and how to play: he doesn't like the game because he doesn't understand it, and because he doesn't understand it, he's no good at it. But, when both players know the rules and know how to apply them--to know how to play the game--it will be a pleasant experience for both players.
ASUN is sort of like checkers
The Senate Rules and the ASUN Constitution are no different, just much, much larger in scope, scale, and complexity. To draw the comparison, the 76th Session was like a bunch of novices playing a game of checkers: they thought they were playing the game well; in reality, they were flailing about because they didn't have an experienced player around to teach them the game. And when outsiders, who had a demonstrated understanding of the rules, criticized them for not knowing the game, they interpreted it as contempt for them as individuals and rejected it. (Although it may seem to trivialize ASUN and the people involved, I use the term "game" to explain ASUN as a process that has rules that must be used to achieve an objective. The best comparison on a very simple level is to call it a game.)
I hesitate to make the comparison because of the animosity that the observation was met with from the 76th Session Senators, but one only need to look closely at the record of the 75th Session compared with what the 76th Session did to see the difference between players who understood the game and those who did not. The form, the content, the nuances, all of it is demonstrably and objectively better than even the "best" items of the 76th Session.
When posts are published here pointing out errors and failures in what the Senate is doing with respect to its process, it is intended only to be a teaching moment so the Senators can grow to be more experienced with the process. This will take time, it will require a concerted effort on the part of the Senators, and it will only work if the criticisms are embraced by them.
I don't think there are any bad people in the Senate. They all only want to try their hardest and do what's best for the students. With that out of the way, the next post will explore some of the flaws with the first agenda prepared by the Senate's new Speaker.
Let's hope the incumbents, including Speaker Geremia, have the presence of mind, the introspection, and wherewithal to back up their complaints about not being taught the process with embracing those who did, people from whom the Senators could learn much.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
