Two for two

The Commission on Association Elections, under the dazzling leadership of censured former Sen. Jeremiah Todd, is two for two this year--that's two for two in canceled meetings. Sure have been a lot of canceled meetings in ASUN this term. At least he hasn't violated the Open Meeting Law, the basis for his censure as a senator.

Blatant hypocrisy

Come on guys, when even Coffin and Keys is pointing out your hypocrisy, you should probably take it down a notch or two.

UNR Students for Liberty have some legitimate beefs with ASUN, but you can't assert you do not acknowledge the legitimacy of government while at the same time suckling from the government's tit.

You've already shown that you don't quite buy into this "government is not legitimate" notion by accepting public funds, so why don't you guys abandon it in favor of encouraging real change in ASUN. You guys have a student judiciary available to you that would be more than willing to be used once and a while.

Can anyone explain this to me?

I don't want to spend too much time on this since most probably do not care, but I'd like those who read this to mull this over and give some feedback.

It is indisputable that the Open Meeting Law applies to the ASUN Senate and its committees. The law provides that public bodies can take action on items only when the public is noticed through an agenda that contains "[a] clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting" and "[a] list describing the items on which action may be taken." NRS 241.020(2)(c)(1)-(2).

The idea here is that the public should know what it is their representatives will be doing. When a public body takes action beyond the scope of its notice, it violates the law. (More on the clear and complete standard and scope provisions available here.)

The Committee on Government Operations had an item on its agenda, and the Senate has the same item on its agenda for its meeting this week, which reads as follows

Senate Bill 77-__ To Establish the ASUN Revised Statutes.

On its face, the item appears to be quite vague. However, using the commonly understood legal meeting of "revised statutes," it would appear that the Committee was considering creating a codification of ASUN law. Codifications themselves are never used to make substantive changes to law.

In addition to considering whether to create a codification of ASUN law, the Committee did the following:

• Made substantive changes to existing law regarding compensation of ASUN officials, senators, and employees
• Created new law governing the Speaker of the Senate
• Created new law governing the Secretary of the Senate and that officer's compensation
• Changed the title of an official publication of the Association
• Made substantial changes to existing law governing the Vice President of ASUN and the Unity Commission
• Changed the number of programmers and assistant programmers in the Programming Department
• Changed the number and name of assistant directors in the Homecoming Department
• Made a change in the name of the Executive Schedule for officer compensation ("level" to "tier")
• Changed the terms of office of clubs commissioners
• Changed the terms of office of programmers
• Changed the compensation scheme of elections officers
• Changed spending limits on election campaigns
• Changed removal procedures when Student Union is closed due to catastrophic emergency
• Changed funding obligations ASUN scholarships
• Changed requirements on ASUN Archives to keep digital copy of the archives
• Created brand new law on the following programs and services, including compensation and discussion of Federal labor laws and minimum wage laws
• Legal Services
• Sound and Lights
• Inkblot
• Advertising Department
• Campus Escort
• Administrative support
• Created new law governing the relationship of ASUN to student publications

So where exactly in "Senate Bill 77-__ To Establish the ASUN Revised Statutes" does it say that the Committee and Senate would discuss and take action on all of that? Never mind the fact that the committee made substantive changes to law it has no jurisdiction over. If someone can answer that for me, I'd much appreciate it. I'm particularly interested in obtaining the view of Sen. Brandon Bishop, the Senate's parliamentarian and member of the Committee.

Oh, by the way, there wasn't a single ASUN member, other thnt the senators on the committee, who was present to offer testimony on this bill.

GSA is receiving ASUN funds

My suspicions that GSA was receiving money from the ASUN Bookstore, even though an agreement to provide for that revenue sharing was not renewed in 2008 (first reported here), is now confirmed with official sources.

According to the annual financial statements of student governments prepared for the Regents, GSA received over $24,000 from the bookstore in fiscal year 2009. Why GSA received this money, given the fact that the revenue sharing agreement was never renewed, is beyond me. Any enterprising ASUN senator want to look into this, perhaps a member of the Budget and Finance Committee?

UC Regents raise fees 32 percent; NSHE next?

University of California system regents raised fees by 32 percent today (link). It's only a matter of time before Nevada students see similar fee hikes. Nevada is still plunging deeper into recession (when do we start calling it a depression?) and we rank among California, Arizona, and Michigan as the states most in fiscal peril, according to the Pew Center (link).

As the ASUN senators are considering what to do with ASUN President Eli Reilly's $75 per semester fee package, they might want to start thinking of the tuition and fees battle that is on the horizon. Some have called Nevada's budget crisis worse than California's. If that's so, similar double-digit fee increases are not out of the question. Now that to me sounds like something students care about.

Senate tables JV2017 plan

Thus spake Balathustra

This is the smart thing to do. The plan as written was half-baked and seemed to have been drafted by a certain someone with a real hard-on for ‘leadership development’. I wonder who that was.

I hope the plan will become more student-focussed with, you know, students working on it. Good on the Senate for taking the initiative to exercise their power in a responsible and useful way.

Overappropriation of funds or overtaxation? Take your pick.

Just a quick note about some figures that Shane put together (here). The total balance forward of all accounts in ASUN realized this fiscal year was $204,801.56 (I'll call this $205,000). The balance forward is basically any money left in an account at the end of the previous fiscal year.

Last fiscal year, ASUN collected about $1,326,000 in student fees (taxes). About 15.5 percent of what was collected was unspent. The table Shane put together demonstrates the balance forward as a percent of this fiscal year's allocations. I don't know what an appropriate figure is under governmental accounting theory, but the idea of government spending is to go from all of the money (all that is taken) and to go to none of the money; basically, be good stewards of the public's money and to not overtax and hoard the public's money. Now, since ASUN is not allowed to run a deficit, some underspending is natural, but 15 percent seemed awfully high to me. Turns out, it probably is.

According to the Nevada Governor's Executive Budget, for this biennium the balance forward statewide was 5.7 percent. The Washoe County School District's balance forward was 3.7 percent of revenues. The University of Nevada, Reno's balance forward last biennium was 0.2 percent--infinitesimally small in comparison to ASUN. Given these three examples that use the same accounting principles that ASUN does, fund accounting, 15 percent is a very large number.

Even when making a more relevant direct comparison to the student governments in the state, 15 percent is high. In FY08, the largest was 24 percent at Nevada State College; however, that is explained by the fact they were created in 2007 and were still building a reserve. TMCC was next at 17 percent. Most, however, were below 10 percent. Some governments overspent their fee revenues: UNR GSA, at 14 percent overspending, was the largest. ASUN's reported figure in that fiscal year was 5 percent. CSUN's figure (UNLV's undergrads) was 13 percent. The average for the NSHE as a whole was 6 percent.

Given the ideas behind governmental accounting, an increase from 4 to 15 percent is alarming.

[Updated historical figures to apply to only student fee revenues.]

It's not a [g]reek conspiracy

In response to our friends and fellow bloggers over at UNR For Liberty, I thought I'd respond to this post about how it is the campus's social elites and special interests who control the ASUN Senate. Those elites and special interests? The Greek community. My response in a nutshell: so what?

To me it seems natural that a constituency that votes in higher numbers than the rest of the population (I don't have hard data readily available) would elect more people to the Senate. Wait, I do have data. In 2006, a survey was conducted to determine who votes and what determines whether they do (link). I'll round to 1,000 for simplicity of calculation. 1,000 students voted in that election, out of an undergraduate population of 12,000 (again, rounded). So like 8 percent of the eligible voting population voted. Of those who did vote, nearly 30 percent were self-identified as Greek members. Using John Russell's figure of how large Greek life is on this campus (7 percent), and assuming the proportion was the same in 2006 as it is now, then it's pretty apparent that Greeks outvote non-Greeks by more than three times their actual proportion.

Now, Russell is right that the Senate is composed of a disproportionate number of Greeks, but is that really a problem? What was the proportion of Greeks to non-Greeks who were in the election? I'd be willing to bet a similar proportion exists in both the Senate and in the candidate pool at election time. If more Greeks run, isn't it natural that more will get elected?

Russell's data also indicates the strength of a voting block. Greeks vote for other Greeks. Hardly a news flash there. While they aren't large enough in numbers to fix the outcome of an election, they certainly will have a measurable sway on the result. UNR START? Nice idea, but it didn't work out as a voting block. Why that's the case is anyone's guess. Could've been a message that didn't resonate with enough people, ineffective campaigning, lack of numbers. Whatever it was, the idea of an organized political party in ASUN was fascinating, and in fact anticipated among those who drafted the new constitution and election code. Common platforms are nice because they let people easily distinguish many disparate candidates. But back to the subject at hand.

All of this indicates that Greeks are more involved in campus affairs than your average, non-Greek undergrad. Big whoop. Same is probably true for those who live on campus versus off campus (I didn't examine the data for that correlation, but it's all right there). There's probably the same kind of correlation when looking at club members, too. Now, true, it is a problem that more non-Greeks aren't running and getting elected, but that reflects on ASUN's outreach efforts and the interests of less connected students to become involved, not on the Greek community. Can you really fault them for being more civicly minded and connnected to their campus than most other students? I wasn't Greek and I managed to get elected and re-elected. Being Greek definitely helps, but it's not the be all and end all to getting elected. Campaigning and getting your name out there more than anything else is what matters.

This would be a story if the senators disproportionately disbursed money to Greeks because of their Greek affiliations, but I suspect John Russell and his peers would have a hard time trying to prove that. To me, the Greek issue is a non-issue. Besides, where would this argument be if START had been successful in electing 10 people to the Senate, a near majority in that body? Sounds like an awful powerful voting block to me.

Back to square one on JV 2017?

After yesterday's University Affairs Committee meeting, it's time for the senators to step back, assess the situation, and pick up the pieces. Oh, and figure out just exactly what it is they did last night. I know procedure like the back of my hand, and I'm still not certain about what it is they did last night, and it certainly doesn't help when there are n ideas of what happened, where n equals the number of committee members.

First of all, I congratulate the senators on their resolute stand to take all the time they need to come to a reasoned judgment on this plan. As Sen. Mitch Bottoset said yesterday on The Voicebox on Wolf Pack Radio, this is an 8 year plan, so if it doesn't take effect for another year or two, it'll still be a success. This is a responsible attitude. So kudos to the senators. You made me proud. Also kudos to ASUN President Eli Reilly for realizing that his tact to try to shove this down the senators' throats was probably not the best.

From my notes and watching the meeting (I'll have to wait for the audio recording or video to be posted online for me to double check), my interpretation is one of two things "happened":

1. The Committee indefinitely postponed (killed) further consideration of the JV 2017 plan.
2. The Committee indefinitely postponed a draft resolution regarding JV 2017.

Option two probably was not proper, as the question of approving and reporting to the Senate the draft resolution was never before the committee. (This is why legislation is supposed to be introduced in the Senate first, not originate in committee.) Option one was probably not proper for the same reason. This is all complicated by the fact that Robert's Rules doesn't mesh well with a legislative body such as the Senate (and its committees). (Sorry for all the parentheticals, but I'm trying not to overly complicate this, which is hard because parliamentary procedure is complicated.)

UPDATE: After further review, based on Sen. Brandon Bishop's (erroneous) advice, and perhaps Chairman Teeter's poor planning, the Committee killed a draft resolution believing it was the only thing in front of it. More procedure, but enough. If the senators are interested in figuring out the procedure, they know where to find me.



The problem is committees are often dealing with original measures (stuff originating in committee) and not a tangible, written, already-introduced measure. These original measures haven't been written yet, so the committees deal with something in concept. The practical reality is committees often vote on concepts and direct its chair to draft the legislative language of the actual legislation. It just takes too much time for committees to write the legal text of legislation.

Another thing to keep in mind is parliamentary procedure is relaxed considerably in committees. Motions do not require seconds. Debate is unlimited (limiting debate or moving the previous question is not in order) and chairs can debate and make motions and often do because they drive the committee's business.

Procedurally, a few errors need correcting, and luckily the Senate now seems to be in a position to do just that. When the executive communicates to the legislature, it is typically in writing so that a record of the communication can be preserved in an accessible medium. JV 2017 is such a communication. The executive addresses the item to the legislature, the legislature takes notice of the communication by receiving it and reading it in open meeting (reading usually dispensed with by unanimous consent), and typically refers the communication to the appropriate committee(s) for any further action the committee(s) may deem desirable. This process seems to be misunderstood and is not applied.

The fix: have Eli transmit the plan under a cover letter to the Senate. Under the agenda item for receipt of correspondence, the Speaker notes the receipt of the communication and refers it. The documents referred then become the property of the committee(s). (UPDATE: This is further evidenced by the committee not knowing if it had jurisdiction and custody over the entire document. Not knowing, the committee did the best it could, which was to wait for the Senate to start over and try again.)

When a matter properly falls within the jurisdiction of several committees, the Senate has a couple of options of proceeding. First, it can concurrently refer the matter to the committees of jurisdiction. Each committee would consider the parts of the matter that it has the authority to consider. Budget and Finance would consider budgetary implications of the plan. Government Operations would consider the implementing legislation the plan may require. So on and so forth. Second, referral could be sequential, meaning that it goes to one committee first and if reported back to the Senate, then referred to the next, and so on. Third, the Senate (or the Speaker acting under Rule XI of the Senate's Rules) could create a select committee to consider all matters connected with the proposal. Each method has pros and cons. In any case, the Senate gets to decide this if it wants to; the Senate has only delegated some powers to the Speaker to increase efficiency.

Personally, I really don't know which option is best, and this could be a matter of much debate among the senators. (UPDATE: Given that this took up much of the debate in the committee meeting, the Senate should probably decide this matter.) Some senators may be worried about confusing the public with concurrent or sequential referral. Others may be worried about not getting a diversity of committee views if they create a select committee. Just whatever they do, the Speaker needs to remain mindful of how the Open Meeting Law constrains what they can do based on how their agenda is drafted.

In the meantime, if there is a senator willing to introduce measures (whether the senator agrees or not) to approve of and implement the JV 2017 plan, that would give committees some legislative vehicles to consider and to amend. I've mentioned it before (here), but simply approving of the plan is not enough. The Senate will have to legislate the changes should the Regents approve of the fees.

Sen. Patrick Kealy, in an interview with The Voicebox after the committee meeting, said something very wise: "We need to focus on doing things right instead of doing things fast." Doing things right includes both the substance and the procedure. Botch the procedure, and it won't matter what the substance is. When senators who sit on the committee, literally moments after the committee adjourned, are confused about what they did, that indicates the need to follow the rules and procedure, not to cast them aside.

This proposal might finally give the Senate the opportunity to learn a thing or two about how it was designed to operate. Exciting! Don't be afraid to learn the rules. Once you do, this will become much more palatable experience.

[Updated at 5:01 p.m. to reflect review of video of meeting.]

We're now on Twitter

Since it seems to be the latest and greatest Internet fad, follow us on Twitter, @VLEG_NV

http://twitter.com/VLEG_NV

Power, authority and JV 2017

The ASUN Constitution establishes an executive branch with limited powers. The executive power is vested in the ASUN President and his subordinates that the Senate may create by law. The President's power, while absolute (in the sense that no other branch holds the executive power), does have limits. Expressly, the Constitution states the President's power extends to enforcing the laws as the Senate writes them ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"). This is a limited view of executive power. It is what we had in mind when crafting the current ASUN Constitution. The President does have some constitutionally inherent powers that the Senate can't intrude upon, but most of what the President can do must be prescribed in the laws the Senate passes.

This structure has implications for ASUN President Eli Reilly's Joint Vision 2017 document. Under what authority did the ASUN President create this plan, attach ASUN's name to it (and thus imply institutional support where none exists), and lobby others (the Regents) as if ASUN was behind it? If you view presidential power as George W. Bush does, then you don't need a law authorizing executive activities. Unfortunately, that does not comport with the constitutional realities in ASUN.

Under the correct, limited view of presidential power, a law must authorize the plan's creation. Last I checked, no law authorized the ASUN President to create a plan, much less then attach ASUN's name to it without first consulting with the Senate. JV 2017 represents a lapse in lawful authority.

Now enter Senator Haley Anderton's bill to prohibit individuals from doing what President Reilly did. The bill would do two things: (1) require Senate approval before proposals are presented to the Regents on behalf of "any member of [ASUN] [1]; and (2) require a direct student vote on any proposal presented to the Regents that "could potentially increase student fees." This bill represents the first formal reaction from the Senate. But the mere existence of the bill, much less its passage, presents some problems.

If this bill were to become law, it would imply that, before the bill became law, the activities the bill prohibits were legal. Why write a law to prohibit something if it was never legal in the first place? This could have the effect of giving retroactive approval to Reilly's conduct here. That clearly doesn't seem to be what Sen. Anderton and others have in mind. Also, this bill probably can't apply to JV 2017 because the plan existed before this law was passed.

Current ASUN law provides adequate remedies to this situation, without necessitating the passage of a new law. There's the inherent constitutional limitation I discussed above. You could argue illegal spending in creating JV 2017 under sections 221 and 224 of the Association Budget and Finance Act. You could ask the President to point to which law authorized these activities, likely a difficult task. New law should be created only when existing law is inadequate. An example is when one can properly attach ASUN's name to something. But it isn't the case here; this case deals with views of executive power vis-a-vis the Senate.

I'm glad to see the Senate has sprung into action, but this bill has unintended consequences, and the senators should consider other reasonable options that won't compromise the Senate's position on this issue.

Footnotes.

[1] This language doesn't proscribe the conduct Sen. Anderton probably thinks it does. Do you really want to require Senate approval of any plan presented to the Regents on behalf of any ASUN member (i.e., any undergraduate student)?

Proper Process

In a recent post, I asked the following in a rhetorical manner:

"Can the President of the Association present to the Board of Regents on behalf of ASUN, a proposal to add a $10 fee for a writing center and on-campus performing arts without any apparent authority granted by the senate (see the Sagebrush report)?"

President Reilly admitted he did as much last night during an ASUN committee meeting.

This is a slap in the face to pretty much every student and senator on campus. The senate is doing a good job enforcing it's prerogative despite the president's insistence that this be reviewed quickly, and his apparent presumption.

I hope the senate will do its due diligence on this one. Speaker Geremia should (too late for next week) direct more than one committee to look at the bill. Each committee should do its best to engage students. Academics should be looking at the proposal for the tutoring fee. Campus Community and/or University Affairs could be looking at the fine arts fee. Budget and Finance could be analyzing President Reilly's figures to try and understand why what today costs $1.6 million will next year cost $1.8 million. Public Affairs has an obvious role in analyzing any fee increase.

The committees should also get administrators from student services to opine, in public, on the creation of a new, expensive and fairly large department.

Why is Director Rodriguez not being up front with her opinion? Where do Doctors Marczynski and Ellis stand on this question?

There are so many questions that need to be asked for the students to be able to analyze this proposal in its entirety.

Do not allow a false timeline to goad you into making a hasty decision. This proposal does have the potential to help our campus maintain many services students seem to want (e.g., free/subsidized tutoring, the math and writing centers). It also has the potential to double expenditures on programming and open new opportunities for campus publication and dialogue. But in no way does the handful of people one man spoke to constitute grounds for implementing this proposal.

Take your time, take a month if you need to. If this really does have the potential to change the face of this campus as President Reilly claims, whether it is implemented in 2010 or 2011 is of secondary concern.

Tell me which law....

Before the Senate invests too much energy on Joint Vision 2017, it might want to take notice of all of ASUN's structure and operational realities that--ahem--are not enacted into ASUN law. Inkblot? Nope. Legal Services? Barely. ASUN Advertising? Nah ah. The beast that is the "administrative operation" of ASUN? Not a word. Campus Escort? Sorry. ASUN's relationship with publications? No. Not important.

The fact of the matter is very little of what ASUN is and does is codified into statute law passed by the Senate. The consequences? Well, the Senate has pretty much no control over what a unit does once the Senate hands out money to the unit. The best example is Inkblot. Over the years it has been a chameleon, constantly changing its color to suit the needs of one ASUN presidential administration after another. When I began taking notice of ASUN in 2004, Inkblot was fully open for use by clubs. By 2007, it was practically an exclusive publicity arm of ASUN. And not a single word from the Senate dictated that policy shift. And the consequences are even more grave than just the Senate not having control.

Continuing our example, since no law explicitly establishes Inkblot, arguably spending money on it is not legal, as framed under ASUN's Constitution and budget laws. A student literally could file a complaint with the Judicial Council citing this fact, and the Council would probably rule that Inkblot has no basis in law, and therefore it is not legal to spend money on that program. See where I am going with this? Extrapolate that ruling out to every other ASUN program and service that was never established by the Senate, or at least never had the current establishments and practices codified into current law, and you've got one hell of a disaster. We started placing the current structures into law right after the new constitution took effect in 2007, but it never got finished (sorry, guys, but the senators of the 75th Session and I are not gods). There just wasn't enough time and other things took priority. Of course, there's nothing preventing the Senate from picking up where we left off.

The implications in light of Joint Vision 2017

ASUN President Eli Reilly's Joint Vision document (narrative and fees proposal) will necessitate many structural changes in ASUN. Ideally, these changes would be accompanied with implementing legislation so it is absolutely clear what the Senate intends to change and how. One example: programming. Under JV 2017, the programming for the major university weeks (Welcome Week, Homecoming, and Mackay Week) would no longer be within the purview of the elected student government. That's right, it's handed over completely to unelected, unaccountable employees of Student Activities. But wait? We have this fantastic homecoming department just for homecoming and a programming department for everything else that already exists in ASUN. It's in the ASUN law. The Senate has spoken, and the law is the law. Well, until the Senate fixes that conflict, should the plan come to pass, there'd be two groups on campus responsible for programming the exact same event. Problem? Just a little.

But the administrators like having little in law. Less accountability when no written document states what the expectations and limitations are. If you can't point to a written standard of conduct, it's hard to argue someone isn't doing his or her job. Also, each time the Senate writes a law defining how the business of ASUN is to be run, the administrators throw up their hands in protest, arguing that the Senate is infringing on their abilities to conduct business. I call bullshit. That's exactly what a legislature should be doing. This is the table of contents for the Nevada Revised Statutes. All of that law comes from the legislature. Almost all of the law defines how the government and persons and entities within Nevada should do things. The ASUN Senate should endeavor to do the exact same thing, on a much smaller scale, of course.

Joint Vision 2017 may have merit, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking the Senate's work is done when it disposes of this plan by non-binding resolution, which I might add is very vague and poorly written.

The debate is widespread

This debate has sparked widespread discontent among the student body, and even the graduates for the portion of the fee they would be subject to. Below are some links to some of the more interesting sources.

• The Nevada Sagebrush, Senate and University Affairs Committee meeting live blog, October 28, 2009
  
• Get Informed on JV 2017 facebook group
• Graduate Student Association Blog, "New Student Fee Proposal & Activities for Grads"

Be Informed? We couldn't agree more.

"Be Informed on Joint Vision 2017," is the word making its way around facebook. Mostly it's people affiliated with ASUN who are spreading the word. For as important as they think it is for the public of ASUN to be informed, it doesn't matter nearly as much as those who will actually have a vote: the senators on University Affairs first, then perhaps the full Senate, should the proposal not die in committee. But we couldn't agree more. The senators need to be informed, but not just about this plan.

Also, let's be fully honest here. Saying that the Joint Vision 2017 document is "a proposal for what the Association would like to see happen by the year 2017" is just a flatout falsehood. More accurately, it's a proposal that ASUN President Eli Reilly has signed on to that reflects what the University administration, particularly those under Shannon Ellis in Student Services, wants to see happen. Does this plan really serve the students' interests? $1.125 million for a "Student Activities department," which is essentially a bureaucratic duplication of ASUN in the first place? Yeah, sounds like tons of value to the average student just trying to get through college to meet that oh-so-awesome job market that waits beyond.

This plan is wide, complicated, and has many implications, most of which I would guess the senators haven't even begun to conceive. Being informed is great. But being afraid at this point is probably far more useful. The senators are no doubt smarter than the average person (they are in a university, aren't they?), but right now they need to be humbled by the fact that what they don't know, and not knowing it (to borrow from the poetry of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld), is dangerous for not only themselves, but for those they represent.

I like it better how Thoreau put it in Walden: "To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." Those who have vested interests in this plan being adopted will stop at nothing to make sure the senators who have the votes never come to know what it is they don't know. We hope to provide a healthy dose of enlightenment and perspective. We don't know everything, but we do know enough to know this plan is another power grab from what is rightfully ASUN's. Okay, enough being philosophical. It gives me a headache.

GSA and the ASUN Bookstore (Or, who'd you say is getting ASUN's money?)

The Associated Students of the University of Nevada, through several complicated relationships, owns the ASUN Bookstore housed in the Joe Crowley Student Union. Memos of understanding and practice indicate that this is the case. ASUN purchased the bookstore in 1951.

The ASUN and the GSA did not always used to exist as separate entitites. In 1952, the graduate students split, establishing the Graduate Student Association (GSA). Unfortunately, the graduate students negelected to realize at the time that they never retained any say over the bookstore when they left. A bad move when you consider how much revenue the bookstore now generates.

Finally realizing their mistake, in 1997 GSA and ASUN entered into a profit sharing agreement regarding the bookstore. The agreement provided that a certain share of the revenue from the bookstore would be provided to GSA based on a formula. The agreement provided that it was up for renewal in five years, and it took the affirmative votes of both the ASUN and GSA legislative branches to effectuate renewal. The agreement was renewed for five years in 2003.

Another five years passed, and during the 75th Session of the ASUN Senate (2007-2008), the agreement was up again for renewal. On April 2, 2008, I introduced a bill to direct the President of ASUN to take any and all action necessary to terminate the agreement. As far as I know, the agreement was never renewed prior to the deadline imposed by the agreement itself. It would have had to come to my committee (Budget and Finance) for a vote, and it never did. Thus, I feel confident in assuming the agreement no longer is legally binding. Therefore, the agreement is void due to its its failure to be renewed.

Knowing that, now I read the Sagebrush, making the astonishing claim in its editorial this week that the GSA still receives money from the ASUN Bookstore. Huh-ba-wha? If that's the case, then I'd like to know how and why GSA has still been receiving money from ASUN's bookstore. This should be the perfect thing for the Budget and Finance Committee to look into while everyone else is worrying about Joint Vision 2017 (and until a couple of the other committees figure out that they have concurrent jurisdiction over Joint Vision, but that might be a little too complicated for right now).

JV 2017 Timeline

I'm going to address a couple of issues President Reilly may be taking license with.

1) “Even when the new student union was built, we didn’t bring that to a student vote,” [Reilly] said.

While true, the proposal for the Union went through two (maybe three) senates where it was a serious issue . There were several surveys over two years engaging several thousand students (sadly I was here to participate in some of those surveys). There were numerous advisory committees on nearly every issue conceivable involving students from across campus. I don't think anything like that has been done this time around.

2) The fee is urgent, Reilly said, because it will bring back tutoring services needed by students on campus and “keep (ASUN) relevant to students.”

Regardless of when the fee is approved (December 2009 or April 2010), if it is approved, it will not be implemented until Fall 2010. Perhaps President Reilly is concerned that the administration and ASUN will need more than three months to do the footwork necessary to implement the changes promised by the fee. I wouldn't be too concerned about the administration, but ASUN might have some problems transitioning over summer. But worry not, ASUN could write up the laws, proposals and ideas necessary to implement the transition before the fee is approved by students, and be prepared if the Regents approve the plan.

Might it be nice to be able to be sure where the fee stands by years end? Yes. Is it necessary? No.

There are few questions I think are a little more important to have answers to. It would be nice to have an understanding of where the student body stands on subsidizing tutoring (predominantly for math, science and engineering lower level classes). It would be nice to know where the student body stands on effectively doubling the budget of ASUN given the nearly 100% increase in fees the student government enjoyed over the past three years. It would be nice to know where the student body stands on creating a new department with a million dollar budget.

See the fee proposal here.

See the narrative proposal here.

The Democratic Process

Can the President of the Association present to the Board of Regents on behalf of ASUN, a proposal to add a $10 fee for a writing center and on-campus performing arts without any apparent authority granted by the senate (see the Sagebrush report)?

The ASUN constitution promises a representative democratic process to the undergraduate populace of the University of Nevada. This democratic process was designed with checks and balances between the branches. The ASUN constitution promises an educational experience for its officers unmatched by almost all other opportunities on our campus. The educational design of ASUN imagines this democratic process, but promises more.

The senate must be more timely and relevant in engaging this president. He has spent his entire college career working on improving this campus (do not read here that you must support him at all times). JV 2017 was in the works for a considerable period of time. The senate had ample opportunity to make an effort to be part of the process. And even when the proposal was finally made public, it has taken the senate nearly a month to get into a committee for review.

At the same time, President Reilly needs to realize his experience lends him a body of knowledge that very few students ever obtain. The ideas he has are the culmination of years of examination. The senators might need to be engaged a little more arduously than in the past to be able to adequately engage in the process. An acceptance of the educational nature of ASUN means a president with Reilly's experience must slow down a little bit to help educate and engage less experienced senators.

The ASUN political and educational process is a dynamical one, requiring both sides. Sometimes that means not doing things as fast as you want. And sometimes it means stepping a little outside of your comfort zone on ideas and issues. For too many years now, I've watched senators play in their own little sandbox and presidents work in theirs. That helps neither group and is antithetical and destructive to all the leaning processes ASUN envisions.

To Fee is to Tax?

A very quick note on the new theory on taxation and the Nevada Open Meeting Law (NOML) floated by Senator Patrick Kealy and the Government Operations committee.

The law in itself is not where ASUN should be looking for provisions regarding application of the law, and I think you're getting tripped up over semantics.

Here's my two cents:

One, the NOML is not directly applicable to ASUN. The only provision of the NOML that concerns the implementation of the law as it regards student governments is:

NRS 241.038 Board of Regents to establish requirements for student governments. The Board of Regents of the University of Nevada shall establish for the student governments within the Nevada System of Higher Education requirements equivalent to those of this chapter and shall provide for their enforcement.

So, we go to Regents Policy (Title 4, Chapter 20(B)(3)). Items 2 and 3 are the clauses of interest:

2. "Student government" means each association of students within the Nevada System of Higher Education whose constitution has been approved by the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education. (B/R 10/91)

3. The meetings of any multi-member executive or legislative body, committee, subcommittee, commission or subsidiary thereof of a student government shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Nevada Open Meeting Law, Chapter 241 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, as amended. (B/R 10/91)

Hopefully this is self-explanatory. It is the Regents Policy that is the relevant policy to look at when determining if ASUN is subject to the provisions of the NOML.

Two,

• ASUN is a (student) government.
• Governments can both tax and charge fees for services rendered.
• A tax is levied to support the general operations of the government.
• A fee is charged in regards to a specific function or service (generally not understood to be the general operation of a government.

Therefore, the "fee" is in fact a tax levied on behalf of the student government by the Board of Regents. So, if the line of reasoning was even applicable to the situation ASUN is in, the logic is flawed.

Executive Branch and the Open Meeting Law

The government operations committee, am I told, is considering a bill to require (a reiteration of the effort made earlier this year, which was previously written on here) the Executive branch to follow the Nevada Open Meeting Law (NOML) [the law; NOML Handbook; Regent's Policy on the NOML as it applies to student governments].

A little under three years ago I sat a table with a handful of senators for three weeks over winter break. During that time, we wrote the constitution now being used by ASUN. One of the issues we spent considerable time debating was how to construct an executive branch in such a way as to obviate the executive branch from having to follow the NOML. This was done for numerous reasons. However, for the sake of brevity, the most important thing to note is that it was done deliberately and with great consideration--as a review of the 74th sessions records would reveal.

What has transpired to transcend or negate the wisdom and consideration of that deliberate change?

Why is the Senate, or members of the Senate, attempting to recreate the meaning of the law? The record is very clear on the intentions of the drafters of the constitution. The record is very clear on the support granted by the 74th Session and by the students of the University that year to the changes . If we can assume the Regents were aware of the changes and the implications of the changes (not an assumption I would make), they and System legal counsel apparently felt the constitution created a government consistent with Regents' policy.

My impression of the debate that is being crafted is the senators are going to law and policy to win their argument. While the law, when combined with Regent's policy, is sufficiently ambiguous to allow them to win, if this contest is to occur, I hope the sponsoring senators have a clear and honest reason for pursuing this change. Especially given the fact that the opposite move was made only three years ago after nearly a year of consideration.

As a side note, the recent expenditure of over $11,000 was accomplished--in concluding a deal outside of the legislative process given untenable time constraints imposed by the NOML--in a manner consistent with the structural changes of the Executive.

Objective Assessment of All Programs...

I would like to applaud President Reilly for striving to create a vision for the future of our campus and then trying to figure out how to bring it about. His administration's JV2007 provides a considered foundation from which to proceed.

Quoting from the report, "Decisions and the implementation of the
model should be based on: The development of metrics for all of our programs, services, and academic departments; Objective assessment of all programs using the determined metrics".

This idea of objective review and assessment is something I believe is missing from the student oversight of ASUN programs. The amalgamation of programs that is ASUN is a complex entity. Each unit of ASUN has merits and is designed in a way to attempt to serve the student body. How many ASUN leaders know who is being served, and how well?

For the elected members of ASUN, the review process comes up every year during elections. But for almost every other aspect of ASUN, be it Campus Escort, InkBlot, the bookstore, etc, little is done to objectively measure the benefits of the programs.

A simple example is campus escort. The program is, without question, tremendously popular. But does anybody know, with objective certainty, who's using it? Is it 25% residence hall students? Maybe the Residence Hall Association (RHA) or Residential Life (RHLHFS) should be contributing to the program. How many Greeks use it? Maybe they should help secure funding for the program through their alumni networks. But these questions cannot be responsibly raised without information on the constituency and the efficacy of the program. I am aware that pick up and drop off locations are recorded, and perhaps some other data is as well. I would wonder if any Senator has ever asked for a report on the program?

It is only from understanding who is served by a program and why it is used that ASUN leaders can hope to improve and expand existing programs, create new and successful ones, and justify the existence of others.

My proposal in broad terms, is for ASUN to take President Reilly's advice and begin to construct an apparatus within the student government, in partnership with the Student Activities staff, to allow for the review of existing and new programs.

Footnote: During the 75th Session, a law was passed providing a framework to do just this for new programs. I do not believe it has ever been used.