UPDATED: Where's Waldo???

UPDATED: 10:25AM 5/7/2009

According to sources at the meeting, Yvonne Peña and Sandy Rodriguez were at the meeting (splitting the shift) and watched as Senators asked questions regarding the age of the applicants.  I'm not sure what's worse, not going to the meetings, or going and sitting idly by as people who you are responsible for break the law.  It's not like they aren't aware of this provision in FEDERAL law, they've given notice to past Senates, Publications boards, and other student bodies, that it is ILLEGAL to ask someone their age during a job interview.  I would think Sandy would have learned her lesson about breaking FEDERAL LAW when she disclosed student SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS in 2007.  

_______________________________________________

Another Senate meeting, another no-show by Yvonne Peña. As a couple of commenters and contributors have pointed out recently, maybe the Senate wouldn't have so many problems if their advisors did their job.

For example, yesterday the Senate violated a number of fair employment, and equal access laws, on top of a number of University policies, and even ASUN laws, when they tried to rationalize not appointing an applicant based on age.

Newbies, that's discrimination. It's the same as if you said "she's a girl so we can't appoint her," or "his wheelchair might get in the way at the table," or any other type of discrimination. As one of our contributors points out in her analysis of groupthink, there are hundreds of students on campus who are over the age or 25. There are even people as old as 70 or 80 (omg) who go to classes. These people deserve representation, and you have no right to discriminate against candidates because "they're too old." Grow up.

But back to the subject at hand: if they had a proper and qualified advisor present, the arguably illegal acts might not have happened. In the past when the Senate started to consider illegal things, the advisor usually stood up and bitches at them. Yvonne, your job isn't to watch; your job is to ADVISE. In case no one has mentioned it, you're the Senate's advisor. Let me give you a definition of what an advisor is:

Advisor - noun

1. one who gives advice.

That means you're supposed to speak up. You shouldn't be leading the discussion, but you shouldn't just sit there looking stupid (there are 22 senators for that). We know you're not a lawyer (that's pretty obvious) nor qualified in governmental systems, but you should still know University policy and proper hiring practices. Selecting a new Senator is an EMPLOYMENT matter. That means it falls under labor law. That means they can't engage in prohibited discrimination.

My hope (maybe unfounded) is that over the summer Ms. Peña reads some books (I'm sure Lupus could recommend a few) and get to know the body that you're advising. We know you were thrown in the deep end last year. Tough shit. Get over it. You have three months over the summer break to get yourself aquatinted with the rules, laws, constitution, etc. When the Senate comes back from its summer recess, you need to bring your A game. As I'm sure Sandy has told you numerous times, this is a learning experience, FOR THEM, not you (well, for you, too, but mainly for them). You're supposed to be their teacher. You're supposed to GUIDE them, ADVISE them, HELP them, MOLD them (dare I say do what student development professionals are supposed to do and DEVELOP them). From what I can tell, all you did last session was sit on your ass and get paid. And look how that turned out.

Future present tense?

I want you to imagine that those Senators from the 76th Senate who evidenced little respect for law or democracy managed to get elected to local government. I think it would look a lot like this.

Only YOU can prevent groupthink

After viewing the ASUN notebook covering the candidate selection for the open COLA seat, I'm very concerned that groupthink is starting to form, even though the group has only been together for a month. I urge, in the strongest terms possible, all the members of the Senate (particularly Gracie Geremia) to read the wikipedia article on groupthink and consider each of the elements of what contributes to groupthink and how to avoid succumbing to it.

Assuming the Sagebrush reporting was accurate, I saw evidence groupthink may be starting to form. Here is some evidence:

2:01	Delaplain said accusations from anonymous sources, such as the blog Vis Lupi Est Grex, cannot be allowed to drive ASUN policy.

2:01	"We can't let people who lack the courage to stand up for what they're saying tear down everything we're trying to do," Delaplain said.

2:02 Speaker Geremia, as part of her report, echoed Delaplain's statements and said the senate would no longer allow anonymous statements to be read into the record.

From the Wikipedia page:

Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

• Directive leadership.


• Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.


• Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

So here we have someone of directive leadership (Geremia) reinforcing the member's ideology (outsiders attacking us), and setting policy prohibiting "outside sources of information and analysis". I'll point out that she has warned the Senate away from Vis Lupi Est Grex on a couple of other occasions as well--this is how groupthink starts. The following is a list of questions and comments possibly indicative of the group attempting to identify outsiders and exclude them from participation (some of these may also be violations of law as well):

2:25	Sen. Geramye Teeter asked Day if he had any affiliations with political groups on campus like START. Day answere that he did not.

What in the world does one's political affiliations have to do with the ability to serve as a Senator? This question should NOT have been asked, but it would have been okay for the candidate to volunteer it in his application.

3:38	Purney said that Day did not have any specific goals.

3:38	Kealy said that may be a positve point more than a negative one.

Kealy thinks it's a positive that the candidate not have specific goals. From a groupthink analysis, it is because that candidate does not present a threat to the group dynamic. Think about it.

3:48	Purney said Thornley "tends to pick fights on the Internet," and that could be his downfall.

Gracie Geremia picks more fights on the internet than any other public official I have met in four years of school at UNR, and she is Speaker of the Senate. Senator Purney also has a bit of a reputation for scrapping online. I think the subtext is actually that Thornley tends to argue positions threatening to the group's ideology and cohesion.

3:53	Hernandez said that Thornley's negative comments on the Sagebrush message boards might reflect poorly on the senate as a whole. "From a P.R. standpoint, it would not be a good decision for us," she said.

Does this need a comment?

4:21	Sen. Shirley Diaz said the senate should keep in mind that the students did not vote Sadykova into the senate.

As if 90% of the voters actually understood who they were voting for in COLA. This criticism is hard to take seriously.

4:23	Sen. Lea Moser said Gelmsted's age should be kept into account. "She's old enough to be a grad student," she said.

This is the original comment that got me thinking there was a groupthink problem. First of all, this is illegal as hell, and if I were Ms. Gelmsted, I'd find it worth my time to stop in and talk to ASUN Legal Services about filing a complaint or suit. Second, the campus is composed of all sorts of students and it's rare for non-traditional students to be represented. I can only think of a couple Senators in the past four years older than 25. Ms. Moser seems to believe that older students should not be on the Senate. I pray that Ms. Moser stays way the hell away from any diversity initiatives. I have to give half a point to Senator Kealy for saying her age could be a strength, but I have to dock half a point for not reminding the Senate that considering the candidate's age is ILLEGAL.

4:54	The fact that Gelmstead lives in Fernley has been raised as an issue. Some senators feel that the distance might affect her ability to get to meetings.

I don't know who said that, but I don't see why Ms. Gelmstead's distance from campus should be a factor in her ability to serve. Whoever said this is grasping at straws for reasons not to appoint this candidate.

I hope there are a few Senators able to recognize the signs of groupthink, and who push for the Senate's leaders to take steps to counter the effects. Otherwise, we could be looking at a repeat of last year.

UPDATED: Undistinguished omission

Updated on May 6, 2009 at 3:35 p.m.
The Sagebrush published the corrected list on their website. Our compliments to the Sagebrush for correcting this error.

---

This isn't exactly relevant to anything ASUN, but it deserves attention.

In today's print edition of the Nevada Sagebrush is the list graduates for the spring commencement. There's just one, slightly embarrassing omission: apparently no one from the College of Business Administration is graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree. Well, at least according to the Sagebrush.

Sagebrush Grad 09

Publish at Scribd

This is the same "newspaper" that incorrectly reported today that the Nevada Legislature must adjourn by June 4. That comes as news to everybody working at the Legislature who know sine die must come on June 1. Of course, had the reporter, who in this case was the paper's editor in chief, Nick Coltrain, committed the journalistic sin of fact checking his story by looking at the Legislature's Web site, he would've learned his reporting was in error.

Just another fine example of the kind of "journalism" that the Sagebrush practices. Good thing the Coltrain era is coming to a close and the Fryman era is just beginning. Come on Sagebrush, these types of mistakes are supposed to be left to the ASUN Senate...you're making them look good.

Driving ASUN Policy

This is just too great to pass up:

Nevada Sagebrush ASUN Blog 5/6/2009

2:01:
Delaplain said accusations from anonymous sources, such as the blog Vis Lupi Est Grex, cannot be allowed to drive ASUN policy.

2:01:
"We can't let people who lack the courage to stand up for what they're saying tear down everything we're trying to do," Delaplain said.

2:02:
Speaker Geremia, as part of her report, echoed Delaplain's statements and said the senate would no longer allow anonymous statements to be read into the record.

2:03:
Geremia cited her authority to recognize speakers as giving her the ability to make such a restriction.

Thanks Director Delaplain! :-) We'll have further comments later.

Some insight for Insight

Apparently Insight Magazine is hiring...

Want to get published in a magazine? Have experience with Flash, InDesign and/or Photoshop and want to put your skills to the test? Apply for a staff position at Insight Magazine, the only student-run magazine at the University of Nevada, Reno. Visit Insight's Web site and download the application PDF. All applications are due to the editor no later than May 14th at 5 p.m. Any questions can be directed to Dana Kudelka at editor@unrinsight.com."

If you remember this is the publication that tried to pass off poor editing, poor writing, poor research, and poor judgment as simply a "typo."

The Senate even had to write a resolution recognizing the error and urging them to apologize to their victims. (Still hasn't happen) So if you lack journalistic integrity, don't know the difference between Pi Kappa Phi and Pi Kappa Alpha, we encourage you to apply! But just watch out, you might not have any funding.

PS: The Sagebrush still hasn't put ANYTHING on their website about missing an entire college's graduates... We're waiting.

Update: The Sagebrush has published a corrected list. See our update here.

Liberal Arts Job Interview: Procedure and Stuff

We sent this e-mail to the candidates for the open Senate seat. We're republishing it here so everything is on the up-and-up.

Dear Candidates:

I thought it would be a good idea to inform you of your rights tomorrow under the Senate's Rules and the Nevada Open Meeting Law, since it is doubtful anyone else would do so. Also, I'll briefly explain what you can expect. I provide you with this information so you are properly armed with the tools necessary to stand up for your own interests, because no one else will.

Under the Rules of the Senate and the Senate's parliamentary authority, it takes a majority of the votes cast to be appointed to the vacant seat. That is the only relevant provision in the rules and parliamentary practice governing the appointment to a vacant seat.

Because there are multiple candidates, the Senate will likely proceed by ballot, much in the same way they did for selecting a Speaker. (This is opposed to considering a resolution making an appointment when there is only one applicant, because only an up or down vote is required on one candidate. The person is either in or not.) The candidate with a majority of the votes wins. If no candidate has a majority after the first round of balloting, the Senate continues balloting until it either makes a selection or decides to keep the seat vacant so as to receive more applicants for the seat, but either must be by majority vote. The rules do not authorize dropping the candidate with the fewest votes in each round of balloting, but a may voluntarily withdraw his or her name from consideration, but the Senate is not obligated to acknowledge the request for withdrawl. It would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law for the Senate to change the rules or adopt different rules at the meeting.

The Senate is bound by the terms of the Nevada Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of NRS). In fact, if the Senate violates that law, senators found guilty of knowingly violating the law can be removed from office and have a disciplinary note placed in their transcripts.

Among the many provisions of the law is the requirement that the Senate must provide, and you are entitled to receive, written notice of tomorrow's meeting by either 21 days' notice by certified mail or 5 days' notice by personal service (NRS 241.033(2)). In fact, if you have not received notice by either method, the Senate cannot proceed with the selection tomorrow, unless you voluntarily waive your right to such notice. You are under no obligation to waive your right to this notice, and it would be improper for the Senate to condition consideration on your waiver of notice.

If you are unable to attend the meeting for any reason, have not received notice of the meeting as is required by law, and have not waived your right to such notice, we strongly suggest you contact the Speaker of the Senate to object to the Senate proceeding with selecting a candidate. If they do anyway, you would have grounds to file a complaint against the Senate for violating your rights under the Open Meeting Law.

Further, under NRS 241.030(4)(e), the Senate may not close the meeting. That means they cannot exclude you from the meeting. Typically, the Senate will request candidates to leave the room during the consideration of the other candidates, but you are under no legal obligation to do so.

The candidate who is duly selected will then be administered the oath of office, as is required by the Constitution and the ASUN law. After taking the oath, you will be a member of the 77th Session of the ASUN Senate.

Those are your rights under the Senate's Rules and the Open Meeting Law and what you can expect tomorrow as far as procedure goes. If you have any questions that I can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact me through this e-mail address.

I wish you the best of luck tomorrow!

Best regards,

Lupus (The Wolf)


~Vis Lupi Est Grex~
The Strength of the Wolf is the Pack
http://vislupiestgrex.blogspot.com
vislupiestgrex@gmail.com

One thing that needs to be clarified, when I stated by ballot, I really meant to say by roll call vote. The roll of Senators would be called, and the Senators would respond by giving the name of the candidate of their choice. It should be handled the same way as the election for Speaker was handled.

First One Hundredth Post!

A little more than three months (three months and 3 days, to be exact) after our first post on February 4, 2009, this post celebrates our 100th post. In celebration of our 100th post, we wanted to share with you some statistics about our humble little blog which we believe has become the most read blog for all things ASUN.

Since we created this blog (excluding its authors):

• 7,720 page views
• 84 average per day
• 3,992 unique visitors
• 43 average per day
• 1,972 returning visitors
• 21 average per day

Our highest traffic day was March 11, 2009, the first day of the 2009 ASUN elections.



Considering our subject matter is quite specialized and localized, we think it's tremendous the number of readers we do get.

We average about 1 post per day.

We have readers from all over the country, including Bismark, Boston, New York City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Portland, many of whom we assume are former ASUN officers or others interested in ASUN.

The vast majority of our readers use Firefox. Those of you still using IE, time to switch.




The plurality (not majority) of our readers stay for more than one hour.




So here's to our first 100 posts and to our next 100!

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

• 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.

Come on over across the jump for the full post.

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 Bill
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.”

Aside 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

Section 402 of ASUN Public Law 75-7 is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(i) To be a public and media relations advisor to the Speaker of the Senate and all Committee Chairpersons.".

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.

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.

All enumerations are within parentheses: (##). They are not done like this "##)." or "##)"

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.

Liberal Arts Job Interview: Some Comments

Update: Be sure to check out the photos of the candidates here, courtesy of the Interwebs and the Google.

Tomorrow the Senate will pick someone to fill the vacancy that exists in the Senate. Last week we blogged about the dynamics of filling a vacant seat. Tonight we blog about our impressions of the candidates. We take the candidates in the order of their materials (here and here)


Eric Thornley
Mr. Thornley is a freshman Rebel loving thorn in people's side, making him a traitor to the University of Nevada. Sorry man, it's nothing personal, but the fact you bleed Rebel red instead of true Nevada Blue colors your chances, which is a shame because you obviously put some time and effort into your application. He does seem to have his head in the right place, that college is about getting an education first, and partying second.

He seems very clear about what he wants to do as a senator and has already given thought to which committees he wants to sit on (the only candidate who appears to have done so), and that demonstrates he has done his homework. The fact that he sought out letters of recommendation further demonstrates his seriousness in wanting the seat. He did not run in the election, and that's a point that could use some explanation.

One weakness is his apparent lack of connection to the campus. Is he involved in any clubs, organizations, etc., or is his only hobby trolling the Sagebrush website, upsetting the readers who are incapable of conceiving that Nevada isn't everything? It's noble that you want to get involved, but elected office usually isn't the best starting point.

Just a friendly tip, it's pronounced A-S-U-N (not A-SUN).


Alejandra Melgarejo
Ms. Melgarejo is also a freshman but seems able to keep her Rebel lovin' (if she is a Rebel fan, that is) to herself. Just teasing. Although she was a part of student council in high school, we do not believe that should carry much weight. Being a member of the ASUN Senate carries with it real responsibilities and real consequences if you mess up. In high school, the worst thing you'll do is have a lousy assembly.

One odd thing in her application material is the letter of recommendation dated "10 March 2009." Before the election even happened. We assume no improper motives, but it was a little strange considering the letter is not signed, either.

One weakness of her application is her lack of explaining what she would like to do if appointed. She does seem to be involved on campus in several clubs.


Jacob Neely
Mr. Neely is a freshman who is very well connected to the campus, being a res hall student. He holds a leadership position in his residence hall (in fact, he claims to be the first person in 4 years to commit to the full year of service as Whipple Hall president). He is also currently the RHA secretary.

His leadership qualifications appear quite strong, aside from his college leadership experience. In high school, he was JROTC commanding officer and was his school's salutatorian. One thing of particular note is he was a participant in Boys' State, which could be of some value to the Senate--he's already been exposed to the legislative process. He also has a black belt in Kempo Karate, which could be good for fending off troublemakers (or intimidating senators into voting for him).

Like Thorn-in-the-Side, Mr. Neely has given a great deal of thought to his application. He gives a good explanation for why he did not run in the election and even points out that he would not have applied had Daniel Clark decided to go for what arguably was his seat. (He is the only candidate to offer an explanation for why he did not run during the election.) His platform is clear and concise, with several actionable points.

One concern his his membership in a fraternity, as Greek senators tend not to be the hardest of workers. Also, he is going to be an RA next year. Finding enough time to devote to the Senate could be a problem.

He says he wants to be a civil servant in his career, and being a senator would be good experience for that--after all, this is a student government, so why shouldn't it be a proving ground of sorts.


Erin Gelmstedt
Ms. Gelmstedt has the highest class standing of the candidates, a junior. Right off the top we notice in her letter of interest that she has worked full time jobs during college. This could be a liability. Being a good senator practically is a full time job, but the pay is shit. She, too, was involved in student government in high school and has remained involved on campus.

Other than a resume, Ms. Gelmstedt makes little mention of what she would like to accomplish as a senator. She takes a paragraph in her letter to discuss the diversity of the College of Liberal Arts but makes nary mention of what she would specifically like to do if appointed. For that reason, we feel her application is among the weakest in the pool.


Leissan Sadykova
Ms. Sadykova is another freshman, but she ran during the election. She is well involved on campus and has good community service credentials. She shares the same Greek liability that Mr. Neely does. She speaks fluent Russian, which will come in quite handy if ASUN and the United States turns into communist governments, as the crazy libertarians are convinced is going to happen.

One weakness is she doesn't really mention what she wants to do as a senator. She, too, has sought out letters of recommendation, but one in particular needs special note. She sought out the recommendation of fellow Kappa Alpha Theta sister and former 76th Session senator Jennifer Richards. A questionable move considering the notorious reputation of the 76th Senate.


Christopher Day
Mr. Day also ran during the election, failing to be elected by only 5 votes. Unfortunately, the tone his application conveys is one of entitlement. He makes no mention of his goals, sets out only 4 empty bullet points about having a voice and making the University better. His resume reveals he has no connection to the campus other than this is where he goes to school. Of all of the applications, this one is the most lacking, and therefore should be placed in the reject pile.

---

Advice to the Hiring Committee (aka the Senate)
Some of these candidates may be very charismatic in their pitch to the Senate tomorrow. We hope the Senate isn't unduly influenced by a Hollywood presentation. The written material should be foundation on which to base a decision.

If I was a senator, I'd want to find out which candidates did their homework. Having read the ASUN Constitution should be considered an informal prerequisite for holding the job. Whoever gets the job will, immediately after being appointed, take an oath to support it. The least that could be done in advance is to have read it. A qualified candidate should demonstrate a basic understanding of ASUN--its structure, its successes, its problems, etc. Not having done your homework demonstrates a lack of interest in the job.

I'd also want to know, from the candidates who did not run in the election, why they did not run.

Examining a candidate's priorities and time commitments is also important. Being a good senator requires at least 20 hours a week of dedication. Last session of the Senate didn't get this, but being a senator is pretty much like having a job. Overextended individuals will just become dead weight.

Finally, I'd want to know what they plan to do to remain involved in ASUN if they do not receive the seat. Those who show a willingness to stay involved show a respect and interest for the organization that should be considered.

We wish the candidates luck and may the best candidate be appointed.

Liberal Arts Job Interview: Meet the Candidates

Christopher Day

Jacob Neely

Alejandra Melgarejo

Leissan Sadykova

Erin Gelmstedt

Eric Thornley (pictured on the left)

Updated: [TITLE REDACTED]

Updated at 7:15 p.m.
We didn't notice this from before but apparently Chris Day's application material was omitted from the supporting material. It is available here.

---

Updated at 6:13 p.m.

We are happy to report that Speaker Geremia has complied with the law and made available the unredacted version of the supporting material for the applicants to the vacant COLA Senate seat, which will be selected on Wednesday. (By tomorrow, we hope to have our thoughts of the candidates posted on the blog.)

We wish to publicly praise Ms. Geremia for responding to this issue with the utmost professionalism and speed.

Because the matter is now closed, we publish our original communications with the Speaker, and her response, so the record is clear.

From: Gracie L Geremia
Date: Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Supporting material for May 6 Senate meeting
To: Vis Lupi Est Grex

The applications with the information have been updated on pdf. The orginal documents were not redacted or altered.


Gracie Geremia
77th Session Speaker of the Senate
Associated Students of the University of Nevada

________________________________
From: Vis Lupi Est Grex [vislupiestgrex@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 3:33 PM
To: Gracie L Geremia
Cc: Yvonne Pena; Sandra Rodriguez
Subject: Re: Supporting material for May 6 Senate meeting


Dear Madam Speaker,

Now that we have had a chance to inspect the documents, we have a concern. Could you explain the legal authority for redacting the contact information of the applicants? We are aware of no legal authority authorizing the redaction of the contact info of the candidates. We will acknowledge that the GPA and the Student ID number of the candidates is properly redacted under federal law (namely the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, as amended), but we dispute the authority for redacting the other information, as it was voluntarily supplied by the candidates.

NRS 239.010 makes these records public. NRS 239.0105 states that certain records are not public records, but the situation as laid out in that statute does not apply to this circumstance. Under NRS 239.0107(1)(d), the governmental entity must make "[a] citation to the specific statute or other legal authority that makes the public book or record, or a part thereof, confidential."

In addition, we are not aware of it ever being the practice of the Senate to redact personal contact information from applications for office. See, for instance, the application carried in the agenda packet for the March 12, 2008, Senate meeting (link). Public records may only be redacted when they are "declared by law to be confidential."

Furthermore, under NRS 241.020(5)(c), supporting material can only be withheld if it is submitted "pursuant to a nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement which relates to proprietary information," which is not the case in this instance as no proprietary information is at issue, or is "[d]eclared confidential by law," which we do not believe to be true in this case.

Also, under the University's policy, in accordance with FERPA, certain information, called directory information, is not confidential. That information includes address, telephone number, email address, etc., of the student involved, which is exactly the information redacted from the applications and supporting material.

Finally, although we dispute that any such privacy interest exists, considering that each applicant voluntarily submitted contact information, many of whom did so on resumes in addition to the form, it is evidence that each candidate intended to waive any confidentiality or privacy interest he had in those items.

We should also note that it is a category C felony under state law (NRS 239.300) to alter or deface a public record. Improper redaction would qualify as an illegal alteration or defacement of a public record. Category C felonies are punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison and/or a fine of not more than $10,000.

Please send to us immediately unredacted copies of the material, as is required both under the Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Act. If the Senate maintains that the information is properly withheld, please cite to the specific law authorizing the redaction.

Sincerely,

The Ladies and Gentlemen of
Vis Lupi Est Grex

---

Speaker of the Senate [REDACTED] decided to withhold certain information from the [REDACTED] for the vacant Senate seat, namely [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED]. We have obtained the records at issue, below.

ASUN Senate Vacant COLA Seat Applications, May 6, 2009

Publish at Scribd

[REDACTED], we hear the W. Bush Presidential Library could use your redaction services.

Sincerely,

The Ladies and Gentlemen of
[REDACTED]

The Internets Never Forget

The self-deleted comments of Mr. Eric Thornley:

12:23pm:

You missed my point entirely. Democracy isn't a silly idea. 

What I am saying is some frat kid could put their name on the ballot and win just because he is extremely popular without ever presenting his agenda or platform seriously like real politicians do. 

12:55pm:

1) Ok, can you tell me who seriously presented their platform and won based on ideas? I saw no one do that, this is probably one of the reasons why the 76th session failed, no one really had the drive.

2) I didn't make an idiot of myself. At least I had the courage to put my name out there and defend myself. While you are posting under "Anonymous"....good stuff.

3) Again...Obviously I am willing to put my self in harm's way.

4) What do sporting affiliations have to do with what I want to do for this University? Those things are personal opinions and should not be what the Senators ask, but whatever.

Thanks Jordan Connell/ThornySucks :) 

1:05pm:

They shouldn't be talking about how much money ASUN spends in relation to this because the budget allows over 50% of the budget go to non-undergrads.

Anonymous, let me ask you this, would me being a AC Milan fan prevent me from going to a University in Florence? No. 

Should you be appointed by the Senate, Mr. Thornley, you should always remember there is always a record, and you will be held to that record.

Reading can be a good thing

Dear Mr. President:

After reading next week's Senate Oversight Committee agenda, it became abundantly clear that you have not read any of the laws to which you are sworn to faithfully execute.

See, if you had bothered to actually read any of the laws, you would have learned that you need not seek Senate approval for your Chief of Staff, since he was already confirmed to that office by the previous Senate session. Section 3 of ASUN Public Law 75-50 provides, "The Chief of Staff shall continue in office during the tenure and at pleasure of the President."

That means once confirmed, so long as an administration does not change (which it didn't since you were re-elected), the Chief of Staff gets to remain in office until you fire him. Senate approval of this appointment is not required.

But, since you obviously have not read the laws, you wouldn't have known that. We suggest that you read the laws that you are constitutionally charged, and you swore an oath, to uphold. Or is your word (oath) meaningless?

Sincerely,

The Ladies and Gentlemen of
Vis Lupi Est Grex

Liberal Arts Job Interview

According to the Senate agenda for May 6, these are the people who turned in applications for the open Liberal Arts seat vacated by Matt 'Douchebag' Maggy. 

• Christopher Day - Freshman - Ran in the election


• Eric Thornley - Freshman - Did not run


• Jacob Neely - Freshman - Did not run


• Alejandra Melgarejo - Freshman - Did not run


• Leissan Sadykova - Freshman - Ran in the election


• Erin Gelmstedt - Junior - Did not run

In general, there are a number of factors that come into play when the Senate selects one to be part of the exclusive club. The process is, some would argue, more difficult than campaigning. When you're campaigning, it's all about name recognition and knowing lots of people. Getting appointed by the Senate is about four things: 1) friends on the Senate, 2) Greek affiliation, 3) gender, and 4) class standing. I know some might think #3 is sexist, but it's a reality. The difference between this process and the election is that the people making the decision have a lot more information at their disposal. Not that we don't think popular elections are fair, or that voters are not well-informed, but these voters (the senators) will have way more information than any regular voter. Not only do they know what it was like to run, but they are accepting someone into their little club. They can ask questions, debate qualifications, personality, whatever they want.

We would encourage all the senators to closely examine all of these candidates, their resumes, their experience, their plan if they become a senator, and their drive.

But this is a political blog, so let's look at the politics of this.

• We have 5 freshman (soon to be sophomores) and one junior.


• Three men and three women


• One member of Kappa Alpha Theta


• At least 3 Political Science majors


• Two people from McQueen High School


• Two people from Vegas


• Two who actually put their names on the ballot this last election

Now let's look at the makeup of the Senate:

• 11 women, 10 men


• Three members of Kappa Alpha Theta


• Student Ambassadors / SOS

At this point it could go to anyone: since the candidates don't post anything online, there isn't much information about what they would do, so we only have biographical and demographical information.

The Senate is likely to pick one of the two people who ran in this last election. There are many reasons but mainly they know them and they might have some pity because they didn't win but tried. It says a lot about a person when they don't put their name on the ballot but would like to represent people. We aren't making an endorsement, and the Senate can pick whoever they want, for whatever reason they want--they are the judge of their own members, but...

We invite our readers to give us their predictions in the comments, and any more information that you think should be made public.

Putting the cart before the horse

Does anybody in ASUN follow the law? An e-mail from the newly-confirmed (we hope sworn, too) Director of Programming:

From: Casey Stiteler <directorprogramming@asun.unr.edu>
Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Subject: [clubs] 2009-2010 Flipside Productions Applications
To: "flipside@lists.asun.unr.edu" <flipside@lists.asun.unr.edu>, "senate@lists.asun.unr.edu" <senate@lists.asun.unr.edu>, "clubs@lists.asun.unr.edu" <clubs@lists.asun.unr.edu>, "flipside_volunteers@lists.asun.unr.edu" <flipside_volunteers@lists.asun.unr.edu>

To Whom It May Concern:

Attached is the 2009-2010 Flipside Productions application. Please feel free to distribute these applications to anyone in your organizations that may be interested in applying.

Flipside Productions Program Chairpersons are paid $3,000 a year and Co-Chairpersons are paid $1,500 a year.

Respectfully,

Casey Stiteler
Associated Students of The University of Nevada
Director of Programming
directorprogramming@asun.unr.edu
775.722.3216

"Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value. " -Albert Einstein

ASUN Clubs & Orgs | clubs@lists.asun.unr.edu | 775-784-6589 | www.asun.unr.edu

Hmm. "Chairpersons" and "Co-Chairpersons," with those "Co-Chairpersons" being paid $1,500 per year. Hmm. I wonder if that's been authorized in law.

Nope.

SEC. 303. NOMINATION OF PROGRAMMERS; NOMINATION OF ASSISTANT PROGRAMMERS.
(a) There is to be nominated by the Director not more than 8 Programmers to assist the Director with the proper execution of his or her office.
(b) Each Programmer may nominate a number of Assistant Programmers as he or she may deem necessary to carry out the functions and duties of the Programmer’s office.

(Section 303 of ASUN Public Law 75-07)

So calling them "chairs" and "co-chairs" seems to be just made up. Totally out of thin air. So what about the pay? Turns out that's not authorized either.

ASUN Public Law 75-48 sets out the compensation for most executive officers of ASUN. Nowhere do I find "co-chairs" or "Assistant Programmers."

As it turns out, just kidding.

From: Casey Stiteler
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:17:06 -0700
To: sentate@lists.asun.unr.edu<sentate@lists.asun.unr.edu>; clubs@lists.asun.unr.edu<clubs@lists.asun.unr.edu>; flipside@lists.asun.unr.edu<flipside@lists.asun.unr.edu>; flipside_volunteers@lists.asun.unr.edu<flipside_volunteers@lists.asun.unr.edu>
Subject: [clubs] 2009-2010 Flipside Application

I apologize for not attaching the application to the last email. Please note that the creation of the Flipside Productions Co-Chairperson position will be created pending ASUN senate approval and the number of applicants.

Respectfully,

Casey Stiteler
Associated Students of The University of Nevada
Director of Programming
directorprogramming@asun.unr.edu
775.722.3216

"Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value. " -Albert Einstein

ASUN Clubs & Orgs | clubs@lists.asun.unr.edu | 775-784-6589 | www.asun.unr.edu

Oh, real nice of you to include the Senate as an afterthought. Typically, the executive branch goes to the Senate to get permission in law first before executing it, but maybe you didn't get that memo yet.

This isn't real hard folks. Until there is authorization in law, you cannot act like there is. Thus, these "co-chair" positions don't have compensation. It's more legally questionable where there is authority for "chair" or "co-chair" designations to be made in the first plcae, given ASUN Pub. L. 75-7.

Budget Hearings, Round 1

Today the Senate's Budget and Finance Committee begins hearings on President Reilly's budget proposal. Before the Committee spends too much valuable time considering the budget, we believe they should be working from a budget that actually complies with the law. The Committee members should also become familiar with what the law provides before they waste their time considering a noncompliant budget.

ASUN Public Law 75-52, commonly known as the Association Budget and Finance Act of 2008, contains provisions which govern what the President must include in his budget proposal. Primarily, those provisions are in section 205 of that law. That section is excerpted below (warning, it's a long section).

SEC. 205. BUDGET CONTENTS AND SUBMISSION TO SENATE.
  (a) On or after the date of the convening of a regular session of the Senate but not later than the first Wednesday thereafter of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the Associated Students Government for the following fiscal year. Each budget shall include a budget message and summary and supporting information. The President shall include in each budget the following:
    (1) Information on activities and functions of the Government.
    (2) When practicable, information on costs and achievements of Government programs.
    (3) Other desirable classifications of information.
    (4) A reconciliation of the summary information on expenditures with proposed appropriations.
    (5) Except as provided in subsection (b), estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations the President decides are necessary to support the Government in the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and the 2 fiscal years after that year.
    (6) Estimated receipts of the Government in the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and the 2 fiscal years after that year under—
      (A) laws in effect when the budget is submitted; and
      (B) proposals in the budget to increase revenues.
    (7) Appropriations, expenditures, and receipts of the Government in the prior fiscal year.
    (8) Estimated expenditures and receipts, and appropriations and proposed appropriations, of the Government for the current fiscal year.
    (9) Balanced statements of the—
      (A) condition of the Treasury at the end of the prior fiscal year;
      (B) estimated condition of the Treasury at the end of the current fiscal year; and
      (C) estimated condition of the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted if financial proposals in the budget are adopted.
    (10) Essential information about the debt of the Government, if any.
    (11) Other financial information the President decides is desirable to explain in practicable detail the financial condition of the Government.
    (12) For each proposal in the budget for legislation that would establish or expand a Government activity or function, a table showing—
      (A) the amount proposed in the budget for appropriation and for expenditure because of the proposal in the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted; and
      (B) the estimated appropriation required because of the proposal for each of the 2 fiscal years after that year that the proposal will be in effect.
    (13) An allowance for additional estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted.
    (14) An allowance for unanticipated uncontrollable expenditures for that year.
    (15) Information on estimates of appropriations for the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted for grants, contracts, and other payments under each program for which there is an authorization of appropriations for that following fiscal year when the appropriations are authorized to be included in an appropriation law for the fiscal year before the fiscal year in which the appropriation is to be available for obligation.
    (16) A comparison of the total amount of budget outlays for the prior fiscal year, estimated in the budget submitted for that year, for each major program having relatively uncontrollable outlays with the total amount of outlays for that program in that year.
    (17) A comparison of the total amount of receipts for the prior fiscal year, estimated in the budget submitted for that year, with receipts received in that year, and for each major source of receipts, a comparison of the amount of receipts estimated in that budget with the amount of receipts from that source in that year.
    (18) An analysis and explanation of the differences between each amount compared under paragraphs (16) and (17).
    (19) A statement of budget authority, proposed budget authority, budget outlays, and proposed budget outlays, and descriptive information in terms of—
      (A) a detailed structure of needs that refers to the missions and programs of departments; and
      (B) the missions and basic programs.
  (b) Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the legislative branch and the judicial branch to be included in each budget under subsection (a)(5) of this section shall be submitted to the President before March 15 of each year and included in the budget by the President without change.
  (c) The President shall recommend in the budget appropriate action to meet an estimated deficiency when the estimated receipts for the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted (under laws in effect when the budget is submitted) and the estimated amounts in the Treasury at the end of the current fiscal year available for expenditure in the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted, are less than the estimated expenditures for that year. The President shall make recommendations required by the public interest when the estimated receipts and estimated amounts in the Treasury are more than the estimated expenditures.
  (d) When the President submits a budget or supporting information about a budget, the President shall include a statement on all changes about the current fiscal year that were made before the budget or information was submitted.

Mr. President Reilly's budget, hardly surprisingly, does not come close to complying with the law. Breaking down just section 205 into its component parts and requirements, 55 categories of information (by our count, which could be argued) must be supplied in a proper budget. These are not the exclusive items that must be in a budget, but it does constitute the vast bulk of what must appear. By our review of the budget, 9 categories have been submitted.

In short, the chairman of the committee, Sean Hostmeyer, should have a short meeting this afternoon: no budget consideration until it is presented in a manner that substantially complies with the law.

Word Cloud

To see the cool animation click here.

Staying Involved?

It occurs to me that yesterday was the third meeting of the new session, and I wonder how many of the candidates who ran for Senate and lost attended the meetings, or at least voiced their opinions to their elected leaders. This is specifically directed at the S.T.A.R.T candidates. I'll use them as an example. 10 (9 without Maggy) decided that ASUN was so corrupt and over bloated that they needed to be elected to office to fix the problem. As we have said in earlier posts, none were elected (not counting Mr. Maggy who won, then dropped). Have these 10 people done anything yet to fix their perceived problems in ASUN?

Just because you don't have a title doesn't mean you can't make a difference. There is a perception in ASUN elections that the person who lost shouldn't speak out anymore. The idea is that if you didn't get enough votes, you suck and therefore should shut up. I disagree.

I know it's only the third meeting of the 77th session, but I hope candidates who didn't win, especially those a part of the S.T.A.R.T group, go to the meetings in the future. There is public comment period every meeting, and they should voice their concerns. If there is a bill they don't like, or even if they just want to go and bitch about budget cuts, name plates, etc., they should go.

Democracy requires participation. It's a long standing saying that, "the world is run by those who show up."

Throughout the year many Senators will inevitably become lazy or complacent and will get used to being called Senator without earning the title. I implore all who give a damn to go to the meetings, and keep these people on their toes. If you don't think you'll be listened to, or mocked, just look at the resolution the 76th Session did about a random student who showed up to almost every meeting.

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

Publish at Scribd

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.

More books

An update to our previous post...

A senator who served during the 74th Session reminded us that legislation was passed during the 74th Session of the Senate that directed the ASUN President to develop a book swap system for the website. We did some digging, and sure enough, the senator was right. Thanks to the senator for sending us a copy of the legislation, which is reproduced below for your reading pleasure.

Bookswap Directive, 74th Senate Session

Publish at Scribd

As it turns out, the Senate (under the previous ASUN constitution) required then ASUN President Jeff Champagne to develop this system. I'm sure there were many good reasons for not implementing this system, but, as they say, the law is the law.

So, 3 presidents later and almost 3 years later, we're still waiting for a textbook swap function. Seriously folks, does everybody in ASUN treat the law and the people's branch of government with such disdain?

Polls End Today!

The two polls that we are running on the blog end at midnight TONIGHT. If you haven't had a chance to put in your two cents, please do.

The results currently are:

Books, books, books

Books are an expensive, albeit necessary, evil of college. I can't remember a semester I didn't shell out over $500 for textbooks that I hardly ever cracked open until the week before finals. The Sagebrush editorialized yesterday about the high cost of books and the importance of professors to turn in orders early to keep costs as low as possible.

What the Sagebrush didn't talk about is ASUN's complete neglect of a law the Senate passed a year ago to help mitigate the outrageous cost of textbooks.

Associated Students Statutes at Large Volume 75--Unofficial

Publish at Scribd

The Textbook Swap Program Act of 2008, which the Senate enacted over the President's veto, requires ASUN to create a textbook swap system on its website to allow individual parties to find one another so they may make private arrangements for the swapping of books.

I just searched the ASUN website and I can't find a single thing about textbook swapping.

It's a program that could save students some serious dough, made more important in these down economic times, yet all the students get is more contempt for the law as legitimately passed by the students' representatives.

-30-