Along with the new look of the blog, there will be a shift in focus and tone. Instead of examining and critiquing the minutiae of what ASUN does, instead of examining the personal lives of the leaders of the Association, instead of delving into the often dreary pedantry of parliamentary procedure, we will be endeavoring to engage in high level analysis and discussion of campus issues and the role we see ASUN being able to play in such issues.
We will not write legislation, we will suggest possibilities. We will not attack inane ideas, we will propose new ones. And in doing so, perhaps we will be able to contribute to the conversations that occur within ASUN. Perhaps we will be able to help make a difference on the University of Nevada campus.
In an effort to encourage open debate and discussion within the confines of this forum, comment moderation will be turned off. If you choose to make an ass of yourself, anonymously or not, that is your decision. We will be striving to avoid making asses of ourselves.
We hope that you will have the conviction of character to attach your name to your comments. Everyone who contributes to this blog, from now on, will be required to use their real name.
It is our simple hope to contribute in some way to the discussions that help shape our campus.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
I'm Just A Bill Redux
We've all seen the Schoolhouse Rock animation "I'm Just A Bill," an elementary explanation of how a bill becomes a law. This post will provide a collegiate-level explanation of how a bill becomes a law within the context of the ASUN.
The basic steps are pretty much the same in any legislative body. A bill starts as an idea. The idea is put to paper--the bill. The bill gets introduced and referred to committee. The committee considers the bill and, if it agrees with the bill, reports it favorably back to the full house. If the full house agrees with the bill, the bill is passed. Then, in a bicameral (two house) legislature, the process starts again, with the bill as it passed the first house. In ASUN, this step is omitted, as there is no second house. When the bill has passed the legislature, it is sent on up to the chief executive, be it the president or the governor. If he agrees, it becomes law. If not, it is sent back to the house of origin together with his objections. If the legislature decides to override the veto, the bill becomes law; if not, the bill does not become law, and it continues to sit up on capitol hill. Simple, right? Well, let's add some detail. (Fair warning, this is a beast of a post.)
A Bill is an Idea
The Schoolhouse Rock song tells us that a bill starts as an idea. This post will use a prototypical bill that addresses a policy issue the Senate should take up. In April 2009, the Board of Regents changed its policy regarding the approval of student government constitutions. The new policy delegates the power of approval to the Chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education. Previously, amendments to a student government's constitution required Board of Regents approval. This policy change makes an act of the ASUN Senate obsolete as written. The draft bill below proposes to change the ASUN policy to conform to the System policy. Desiring to do that, a draft bill might be put together, such as the one below.
Sample Discussion Draft Bill
Read more...
Thursday, September 10, 2009
A Quorum Was Not Present
Contrary to popular belief, this blog has not died (yet). There just really hasn't been much of note to discuss. (The less the ASUN is doing or screwing up, the less we have to write about.) We do have a quick note about a meeting today that sort of happened.
The Senate's Academics Committee was scheduled to meet this morning. Setting aside the legislation they were supposed to hear, it is noted that the meeting was canceled because a quorum--the minimum number of members to be present to conduct business--didn't bother to show. For committees, that number is a majority of the membership. That means at least half of the members couldn't be bothered with doing their duty.
Procedurally, a meeting isn't canceled because a quorum is not present; it just doesn't go anywhere. The proper thing to do would have been for the chair of the committee to call the meeting to order at the scheduled time, take attendance, note the absence of a quorum, take public comment, if any, and adjourn. Here's why the "meeting" still should happen. If the meeting is canceled, the meeting never took place for the purposes of recording attendance. Thus, while several members may have been absent, since the meeting was "canceled," the absence could never have occurred in the first place. You can't be absent from something that didn't happen.
To recap, the absence of a quorum only prevents deliberation and action from being taken at a meeting. It doesn't prevent the meeting from being called to order, attendance noted, and a determination as to whether a quorum is present from happening. The record (the minutes) must show the absence of a quorum, and that only happens when the meeting is held. You cancel a meeting, and you just give your derelict colleagues a free pass.
The Senate's Academics Committee was scheduled to meet this morning. Setting aside the legislation they were supposed to hear, it is noted that the meeting was canceled because a quorum--the minimum number of members to be present to conduct business--didn't bother to show. For committees, that number is a majority of the membership. That means at least half of the members couldn't be bothered with doing their duty.
Procedurally, a meeting isn't canceled because a quorum is not present; it just doesn't go anywhere. The proper thing to do would have been for the chair of the committee to call the meeting to order at the scheduled time, take attendance, note the absence of a quorum, take public comment, if any, and adjourn. Here's why the "meeting" still should happen. If the meeting is canceled, the meeting never took place for the purposes of recording attendance. Thus, while several members may have been absent, since the meeting was "canceled," the absence could never have occurred in the first place. You can't be absent from something that didn't happen.
To recap, the absence of a quorum only prevents deliberation and action from being taken at a meeting. It doesn't prevent the meeting from being called to order, attendance noted, and a determination as to whether a quorum is present from happening. The record (the minutes) must show the absence of a quorum, and that only happens when the meeting is held. You cancel a meeting, and you just give your derelict colleagues a free pass.
Read more...
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: The Reach of the Open Meeting Law
It's been some time since our last post, which must mean the Senate has not been doing much lately. We did notice one item of interest on the next Phantom Committee agenda, however: "a resolution reiterating the requirement of the ASUN Executive Board to comply with [the] Nevada Open Meeting Law." This got our attention because there is no requirement for the Executive Board to comply with the Open Meeting Law. Hell, there isn't even an "Executive Board."
We need to begin by dealing with two unfounded assumptions on which this agenda item is based. First, there is no Executive Board. There used to be one, but that was under ASUN's previous constitution. There is something called the President's Advisory Cabinet, established under Title VII of the Executive Branch Act of 2007 (ASUN Public Law 75-7; 75 ASUN Stat. 13). Second, there is nothing in ASUN law to require this group to abide by the Open Meeting Law.
With those two assumptions out of the way, we can now look to the Open Meeting Law for guidance. The Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of NRS) requires public bodies to conduct their business openly, in view of the public. The OML applies to student governments because the Nevada Legislature has required the Board of Regents to adopt regulations equivalent to the OML for student governments and to provide for their enforcement (NRS 241.038). The Regents have done that, and the policy is codified in the Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 20, Part B, section 3 (link). The Board of Regents policy essentially says that student governments must comply with the OML.
The Open Meeting Law applies only to public bodies. The law defines a public body as "any administrative, advisory, executive or legislative body of the State or a local government which expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue or which advises or makes recommendations to any entity which expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, including, but not limited to, any board, commission, committee, subcommittee or other subsidiary thereof" (NRS 241.015(3)).
The Nevada Attorney General advises us that in order for a body to be a public body, it "administrative, advisory, executive or legislative body of the State or a local government," meaning that it "must (1) owe its existence to and have some relationship with a state or local government, (2) be organized to act in an administrative, advisory, executive or legislative capacity, and (3) must perform a government function" (Open Meeting Law Handbook, link). If any one of the elements are missing, the body is not a public body. Applying these elements to the President's Cabinet, condition 1 is only partly satisfied. Although the Cabinet does owe its existence to the Senate (only because it enacted a law establishing the Cabinet), it does not have any relationship with the Senate. Condition 2 is satisfied because it acts in an advisory capacity. Condition 3 is not satisfied because it is only advising the President, who himself is not a a public body.
The law also requires that the body be collegial in nature, meaning that the members share equal power through their votes. The members of the Cabinet have no collective power; the ASUN President is not bound by its advice. Therefore, under the OML, the President's Cabinet is not required to obey the OML.
However, the language the Regents used in applying the OML to student governments is a little grayer. It says that the OML applies to "[t]he meetings of any multi-member executive or legislative body, committee, subcommittee, commission or subsidiary thereof" (Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 20, Part B, section 3(3)). Even under this broader application, the OML does not seem to apply. The President's Advisory Cabinet is not an executive body. It has no collective decision-making power of its own, it has no collective ability to execute policy, etc. Its members each possess decision-making and executive powers in their own departments, but it is the President in this case who possesses all the power.
This language also suffers from circular reasoning. Assume it says the Cabinet must follow the OML according to the OML's provisions, but the OML, according to its provisions, says it does not. Even if you assume the Cabinet is covered within the term "multi-member executive body," the OML says that it doesn't apply to a body such as the Cabinet.
For those reasons, we believe the Cabinet is not required to obey the OML. Now, that's not to say that the Senate could not pass a law requiring the Cabinet to abide by the OML's provisions, but it would be subject to constitutional challenge in the Judicial Council on the grounds that it violates the separation of powers doctrine, that it prevents the President from receiving candid advice from his department chiefs, and that it abuses the deliberative process privilege enjoyed by executives.
Now, there may be more to this story than we are aware. Perhaps a university attorney has disagreed with our interpretation of the OML and Regents policy. Even if that were the case, it would take a disciplinary action to test that interpretation. Unfortunately, under federal law disciplinary actions cannot be disclosed by the university, so we'd likely never know about it, unless a subject of such an action were to speak out.
But given the fact that this is a nonbinding resolution the Phantom Committee is deliberating, and given the phrasing that it would "reiterate" a requirement that is presumed to already exist, we think this is coming from some senators who are misinformed on the reach of the OML, and whose motivation is probably that they don't like that President Eli Reilly and his cronies are allegedly meeting behind closed doors to share their mutual disdain for Gracie Geremia and discussing how to undermine her every move, starting with elevating Sen. Brandon Bishop's status.
We need to begin by dealing with two unfounded assumptions on which this agenda item is based. First, there is no Executive Board. There used to be one, but that was under ASUN's previous constitution. There is something called the President's Advisory Cabinet, established under Title VII of the Executive Branch Act of 2007 (ASUN Public Law 75-7; 75 ASUN Stat. 13). Second, there is nothing in ASUN law to require this group to abide by the Open Meeting Law.
With those two assumptions out of the way, we can now look to the Open Meeting Law for guidance. The Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of NRS) requires public bodies to conduct their business openly, in view of the public. The OML applies to student governments because the Nevada Legislature has required the Board of Regents to adopt regulations equivalent to the OML for student governments and to provide for their enforcement (NRS 241.038). The Regents have done that, and the policy is codified in the Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 20, Part B, section 3 (link). The Board of Regents policy essentially says that student governments must comply with the OML.
The Open Meeting Law applies only to public bodies. The law defines a public body as "any administrative, advisory, executive or legislative body of the State or a local government which expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue or which advises or makes recommendations to any entity which expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, including, but not limited to, any board, commission, committee, subcommittee or other subsidiary thereof" (NRS 241.015(3)).
The Nevada Attorney General advises us that in order for a body to be a public body, it "administrative, advisory, executive or legislative body of the State or a local government," meaning that it "must (1) owe its existence to and have some relationship with a state or local government, (2) be organized to act in an administrative, advisory, executive or legislative capacity, and (3) must perform a government function" (Open Meeting Law Handbook, link). If any one of the elements are missing, the body is not a public body. Applying these elements to the President's Cabinet, condition 1 is only partly satisfied. Although the Cabinet does owe its existence to the Senate (only because it enacted a law establishing the Cabinet), it does not have any relationship with the Senate. Condition 2 is satisfied because it acts in an advisory capacity. Condition 3 is not satisfied because it is only advising the President, who himself is not a a public body.
The law also requires that the body be collegial in nature, meaning that the members share equal power through their votes. The members of the Cabinet have no collective power; the ASUN President is not bound by its advice. Therefore, under the OML, the President's Cabinet is not required to obey the OML.
However, the language the Regents used in applying the OML to student governments is a little grayer. It says that the OML applies to "[t]he meetings of any multi-member executive or legislative body, committee, subcommittee, commission or subsidiary thereof" (Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 20, Part B, section 3(3)). Even under this broader application, the OML does not seem to apply. The President's Advisory Cabinet is not an executive body. It has no collective decision-making power of its own, it has no collective ability to execute policy, etc. Its members each possess decision-making and executive powers in their own departments, but it is the President in this case who possesses all the power.
This language also suffers from circular reasoning. Assume it says the Cabinet must follow the OML according to the OML's provisions, but the OML, according to its provisions, says it does not. Even if you assume the Cabinet is covered within the term "multi-member executive body," the OML says that it doesn't apply to a body such as the Cabinet.
For those reasons, we believe the Cabinet is not required to obey the OML. Now, that's not to say that the Senate could not pass a law requiring the Cabinet to abide by the OML's provisions, but it would be subject to constitutional challenge in the Judicial Council on the grounds that it violates the separation of powers doctrine, that it prevents the President from receiving candid advice from his department chiefs, and that it abuses the deliberative process privilege enjoyed by executives.
Now, there may be more to this story than we are aware. Perhaps a university attorney has disagreed with our interpretation of the OML and Regents policy. Even if that were the case, it would take a disciplinary action to test that interpretation. Unfortunately, under federal law disciplinary actions cannot be disclosed by the university, so we'd likely never know about it, unless a subject of such an action were to speak out.
But given the fact that this is a nonbinding resolution the Phantom Committee is deliberating, and given the phrasing that it would "reiterate" a requirement that is presumed to already exist, we think this is coming from some senators who are misinformed on the reach of the OML, and whose motivation is probably that they don't like that President Eli Reilly and his cronies are allegedly meeting behind closed doors to share their mutual disdain for Gracie Geremia and discussing how to undermine her every move, starting with elevating Sen. Brandon Bishop's status.
Read more...
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Who Speaks for the Senate?
Short answer: In general, the Senate does.
In our last post, we briefly mentioned how the ASUN's statement regarding alleged workers' rights violations by a manufacturer of Russell Athletic apparel, of which the ASUN Bookstore is a customer, raised some interesting issues because of who signed onto the message. Sen. Brandon Bishop (Liberal Arts), who is the Senate's parliamentarian and chairman of the Phantom Committee (Interim Operations Committee), signed on to the statement with ASUN President Eli Reilly.
The statement said that "members of the Associated Student (sic) Senate have conducted thorough research and analysis" of several reports alleging Russell Athletics' misconduct. The statement went on to say that "the Associated Students of the University have instructed the ASUN Bookstore to cease all orders of Russell Athletic merchandise. Furthermore, Marie Stewart[,] the Manager of the Associated Student (sic) Bookstore has been instructed by the Association to search for a new supplier of Wolf Pack Merchandise." The message also relays that "[a]t the instruction of the Association, the Bookstore will cease ordering from Russell, all reserves of merchandise from Russell Athletic will continue to be sold by the Bookstore as to not impact scholarship funding for the Association."
The message concludes that "[u]pon the conclusion of the Senate of the Associated Students investigation into the actions of Russell Corporation a final recommendation will be released," presumably to follow up on a recommendation request from the President of the University (a recommendation regarding what specifically is unknown).
The statement raises a few issues. First, the statement, in several places, mentions that the ASUN has directed its bookstore manager to stop ordering from Russell Athletic, to search for a new supplier of apparel, but to sell off all of the inventory in stock, and that once all Russell stock has been sold, the purchase or sale of Russell gear is banned. Under what authority, explicit or implicit, did President Reilly have to unilaterally direct to the bookstore these policies? Very little statutory law enacted by the Senate discusses the formal relationship between the bookstore and the government of the Association. What little law does exist defines reporting and budget requirements. So the question remains, does the President have authority over the bookstore?
If you're of the view that the bookstore is part of the executive branch of ASUN, and that the bookstore manager reports to the ASUN President, then it would be reasonable to assume that the ASUN President has authority to direct the manager what to do, who to use as suppliers, what to buy and sell, etc. However, the relationship isn't that simple.
In reality, the bookstore manager is just another University administrator. She reports to the Associate Vice President of Student Life services, Gerald Marczynski, the same person to whom the director of the Associated Students/Student Activities, Sandy Rodriguez, reports to. The Associated Students "owns" the bookstore, true, but more formally the relationship is closer to how the student body of the University "owns" the student union: the Board of Regents hold it in trust for the ASUN. With that understanding, the relationship between ASUN and its bookstore, and the President and the bookstore's manager, gets a little fuzzy.
Let's compare it to a similar relationship: ASUN to its director, Sandy Rodriguez. The director of ASUN is also the director of the University unit known as Student Activities. It's a fine distinction, one that even we don't have a firm grasp on--it's hard to tell where ASUN ends and Student Activities begins. We do know that ASUN foots the bill for all of it. Rodriguez reports to Marczynski in the same way that Stewart (the bookstore manager) does. However, there is an implicit understanding that the ASUN director's job is to carry out the day-to-day functions of the Association, under the direction of the Association's leadership (i.e. the elected and appointed student officers). It shouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that the relationship should work the same way with the bookstore and its manager.
More reality: historically, ASUN has left the management, operation, and policy choices regarding the bookstore to its management. Think of it like this: ASUN is the owner but leaves the management up to someone else. Thus, it should be rare for the owner to intervene in the management of the operation.
It's pretty clear that ASUN owns the bookstore. It's less clear to what extent ASUN has authority over its operation. It's not inherently unreasonable to state that the ASUN President has the authority to direct the bookstore to do certain things. However, given that the ASUN Senate has never defined the relationship, or put into law the current relationship, the ASUN President is acting in a gray area.
Now, as far as the Senate is concerned, this should be a big clue to wake up and legislate. The Senate is the policy making branch of the Association, and it should make some policy defining the relationships, especially respecting the ASUN President's authority over the bookstore.
This finally brings us to Sen. Bishop. The statement talks about how the Senate has "conducted thorough research and analysis" of the issues surrounding Russell. The message seems to imply that the Senate had some say in directing the bookstore to take the aforementioned actions regarding Russell Athletic merchandise. Notice that the statement doesn't say that "I (President Reilly)" or "we (Reilly and Bishop)" have directed the actions. It says "the Association" has.
The fact that Bishop signed off on the statement would seem to imply that the Senate was behind it, yet (as far as we can tell) the Senate has taken no action on this item. The Phantom (Interim) Committee has only discussed the matter. Keep in mind, the Interim Committee has no authority to do things on its own. It's just like any other Senate committee: it takes the Senate's action to give effect to a committee's recommendations. Since the Senate has not acted on this, it seems clear that the Senate is not behind this statement.
Thus, it would appear that Sen. Bishop was a little overzealous in attaching the Senate to it. If Bishop was merely signing onto the parts of the statement indicating that the Senate was investigating, that would be fine, but he signed onto the whole statement. In that case, it might have been better to release two statements: one defining the Senate's role and the other discussing the actions Reilly took.
Another aspect is that the Interim Committee doesn't have any inherent authority to initiate actions. Under the original authorizing resolution adopted during the 75th Senate Session (S. Res. 75-29, page 221 here), the Interim Committee has "the authority specifically to consider legislation from any Standing Committee or discharge any legislation from any Standing Committee with the consent of the Standing Committee chairperson." It appears that the Interim Committee only has authority to consider stuff the other standing committees were handling at the time the Interim Committee existed. Notice the consent of the committee chair involved is required for the Interim Committee to handle a matter. Even under a more expansive view, the Committee can only do things that other committees can do with the consent of the appropriate chair. This is to prevent the Interim Committee from unilaterally depriving a committee of its jurisdiction. Remember, the purpose of the Interim Committee, according to the original resolution, is "to conduct specific business of the Senate Committees during times of break."
Now, as we previously covered here, the Interim Committee right now has no real legal authority because it was never properly constituted. So all of this discussion is pretty much academic.
One last thing to consider, as an aside. The role of the ASUN Bookstore is to serve the university community. It isn't a profit making enterprise, at least not in the traditional sense. The revenue the bookstore generates above and beyond the cost of doing business is reinvested at the University, through scholarships and funding for campus improvements, as directed by ASUN. There used to be a profit sharing agreement with the Graduate Student Association, but it lapsed without being renewed. (Interesting question: any bets as to whether GSA is still getting its cut even though the profit sharing agreement lapsed more than a year ago?)
In our last post, we briefly mentioned how the ASUN's statement regarding alleged workers' rights violations by a manufacturer of Russell Athletic apparel, of which the ASUN Bookstore is a customer, raised some interesting issues because of who signed onto the message. Sen. Brandon Bishop (Liberal Arts), who is the Senate's parliamentarian and chairman of the Phantom Committee (Interim Operations Committee), signed on to the statement with ASUN President Eli Reilly.
The statement said that "members of the Associated Student (sic) Senate have conducted thorough research and analysis" of several reports alleging Russell Athletics' misconduct. The statement went on to say that "the Associated Students of the University have instructed the ASUN Bookstore to cease all orders of Russell Athletic merchandise. Furthermore, Marie Stewart[,] the Manager of the Associated Student (sic) Bookstore has been instructed by the Association to search for a new supplier of Wolf Pack Merchandise." The message also relays that "[a]t the instruction of the Association, the Bookstore will cease ordering from Russell, all reserves of merchandise from Russell Athletic will continue to be sold by the Bookstore as to not impact scholarship funding for the Association."
The message concludes that "[u]pon the conclusion of the Senate of the Associated Students investigation into the actions of Russell Corporation a final recommendation will be released," presumably to follow up on a recommendation request from the President of the University (a recommendation regarding what specifically is unknown).
The statement raises a few issues. First, the statement, in several places, mentions that the ASUN has directed its bookstore manager to stop ordering from Russell Athletic, to search for a new supplier of apparel, but to sell off all of the inventory in stock, and that once all Russell stock has been sold, the purchase or sale of Russell gear is banned. Under what authority, explicit or implicit, did President Reilly have to unilaterally direct to the bookstore these policies? Very little statutory law enacted by the Senate discusses the formal relationship between the bookstore and the government of the Association. What little law does exist defines reporting and budget requirements. So the question remains, does the President have authority over the bookstore?
If you're of the view that the bookstore is part of the executive branch of ASUN, and that the bookstore manager reports to the ASUN President, then it would be reasonable to assume that the ASUN President has authority to direct the manager what to do, who to use as suppliers, what to buy and sell, etc. However, the relationship isn't that simple.
In reality, the bookstore manager is just another University administrator. She reports to the Associate Vice President of Student Life services, Gerald Marczynski, the same person to whom the director of the Associated Students/Student Activities, Sandy Rodriguez, reports to. The Associated Students "owns" the bookstore, true, but more formally the relationship is closer to how the student body of the University "owns" the student union: the Board of Regents hold it in trust for the ASUN. With that understanding, the relationship between ASUN and its bookstore, and the President and the bookstore's manager, gets a little fuzzy.
Let's compare it to a similar relationship: ASUN to its director, Sandy Rodriguez. The director of ASUN is also the director of the University unit known as Student Activities. It's a fine distinction, one that even we don't have a firm grasp on--it's hard to tell where ASUN ends and Student Activities begins. We do know that ASUN foots the bill for all of it. Rodriguez reports to Marczynski in the same way that Stewart (the bookstore manager) does. However, there is an implicit understanding that the ASUN director's job is to carry out the day-to-day functions of the Association, under the direction of the Association's leadership (i.e. the elected and appointed student officers). It shouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that the relationship should work the same way with the bookstore and its manager.
More reality: historically, ASUN has left the management, operation, and policy choices regarding the bookstore to its management. Think of it like this: ASUN is the owner but leaves the management up to someone else. Thus, it should be rare for the owner to intervene in the management of the operation.
It's pretty clear that ASUN owns the bookstore. It's less clear to what extent ASUN has authority over its operation. It's not inherently unreasonable to state that the ASUN President has the authority to direct the bookstore to do certain things. However, given that the ASUN Senate has never defined the relationship, or put into law the current relationship, the ASUN President is acting in a gray area.
Now, as far as the Senate is concerned, this should be a big clue to wake up and legislate. The Senate is the policy making branch of the Association, and it should make some policy defining the relationships, especially respecting the ASUN President's authority over the bookstore.
This finally brings us to Sen. Bishop. The statement talks about how the Senate has "conducted thorough research and analysis" of the issues surrounding Russell. The message seems to imply that the Senate had some say in directing the bookstore to take the aforementioned actions regarding Russell Athletic merchandise. Notice that the statement doesn't say that "I (President Reilly)" or "we (Reilly and Bishop)" have directed the actions. It says "the Association" has.
The fact that Bishop signed off on the statement would seem to imply that the Senate was behind it, yet (as far as we can tell) the Senate has taken no action on this item. The Phantom (Interim) Committee has only discussed the matter. Keep in mind, the Interim Committee has no authority to do things on its own. It's just like any other Senate committee: it takes the Senate's action to give effect to a committee's recommendations. Since the Senate has not acted on this, it seems clear that the Senate is not behind this statement.
Thus, it would appear that Sen. Bishop was a little overzealous in attaching the Senate to it. If Bishop was merely signing onto the parts of the statement indicating that the Senate was investigating, that would be fine, but he signed onto the whole statement. In that case, it might have been better to release two statements: one defining the Senate's role and the other discussing the actions Reilly took.
Another aspect is that the Interim Committee doesn't have any inherent authority to initiate actions. Under the original authorizing resolution adopted during the 75th Senate Session (S. Res. 75-29, page 221 here), the Interim Committee has "the authority specifically to consider legislation from any Standing Committee or discharge any legislation from any Standing Committee with the consent of the Standing Committee chairperson." It appears that the Interim Committee only has authority to consider stuff the other standing committees were handling at the time the Interim Committee existed. Notice the consent of the committee chair involved is required for the Interim Committee to handle a matter. Even under a more expansive view, the Committee can only do things that other committees can do with the consent of the appropriate chair. This is to prevent the Interim Committee from unilaterally depriving a committee of its jurisdiction. Remember, the purpose of the Interim Committee, according to the original resolution, is "to conduct specific business of the Senate Committees during times of break."
Now, as we previously covered here, the Interim Committee right now has no real legal authority because it was never properly constituted. So all of this discussion is pretty much academic.
One last thing to consider, as an aside. The role of the ASUN Bookstore is to serve the university community. It isn't a profit making enterprise, at least not in the traditional sense. The revenue the bookstore generates above and beyond the cost of doing business is reinvested at the University, through scholarships and funding for campus improvements, as directed by ASUN. There used to be a profit sharing agreement with the Graduate Student Association, but it lapsed without being renewed. (Interesting question: any bets as to whether GSA is still getting its cut even though the profit sharing agreement lapsed more than a year ago?)
Read more...
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
It's what it doesn't say that matters
Recently, the Associated Students released a statement by ASUN President Eli Reilly denouncing Russell Athletic for its alleged workers' rights violations at its recently closed Jerzees de Honduras plant. ASUN, through its bookstore, is a licensee and customer of Russell Athletic merchandise. Apparently, the ASUN Senate has been conducting an investigation into these matters, although it must've been a big secret since it never appeared on an agenda (which is interesting because Reilly's statement says that "members of the Associated Student (sic) Senate have conducted thorough research and analysis" of this issue.
The matter of the workers' rights violations isn't what is interesting to us, although it is good that the ASUN will be denouncing Russell Athletic's behavior by taking their business elsewhere. What's interesting is the fact that this joint statement between ASUN's executive and legislative branches wasn't signed on to by the Senate's leader, Gracie Geremia. Instead it was Phantom Committee chairman Brandon Bishop who joined Reilly in the statement. What, Gracie not good enough?
What's even more interesting is that the statement implies that the Senate stands behind the message, yet there's been no action by the Senate on this subject.
The matter of the workers' rights violations isn't what is interesting to us, although it is good that the ASUN will be denouncing Russell Athletic's behavior by taking their business elsewhere. What's interesting is the fact that this joint statement between ASUN's executive and legislative branches wasn't signed on to by the Senate's leader, Gracie Geremia. Instead it was Phantom Committee chairman Brandon Bishop who joined Reilly in the statement. What, Gracie not good enough?
What's even more interesting is that the statement implies that the Senate stands behind the message, yet there's been no action by the Senate on this subject.
Read more...
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: Committee Jurisdiction
This will be a short installment of IOSL. Before I begin, a bit of a disclaimer. There appears to be some dispute what the present form of Rule X is. In November 2008, the Government Operations Committee considered an amendment to the rule to change the descriptions of the committee's jurisdiction. We previously believed that amendment to have been agreed to by the Senate. However, the (one would assume) official listing of legislation on the ASUN Web site does not show said piece of legislation. Without ample proof, we are unable to state with any level of confidence what Rule X should say. So for the purposes of this piece, we will use the unamended text of Rule X which, as it would be, is the same text that is supposedly the "official" rule.
Rule X of the Rules of the Senate defines the jurisdictions of the standing committees. A standing committee is one that is permanently established under the Senate's Rules. Clause (d) of that rule informs us that the Committee on Government Operations has the jurisdiction to consider, among other things, "amendments to the Rules of the Senate."
So imagine my surprise to read today'sConduct and Appointments Oversight Committee agenda. Item 6(b) reads:
I'm sure that Speaker Geremia, who is chair of the committee, won't let this pesky little rule stand in her way. After all, she didn't do anything to keep the Phantom Committee from meeting. These aren't hard things to fix, but this demonstrable lack of respect for rules and the written word is disturbing, considering all the senators took an oath to uphold them.
Rule X of the Rules of the Senate defines the jurisdictions of the standing committees. A standing committee is one that is permanently established under the Senate's Rules. Clause (d) of that rule informs us that the Committee on Government Operations has the jurisdiction to consider, among other things, "amendments to the Rules of the Senate."
So imagine my surprise to read today's
b. ABSENCE POLICYThis is a problem. The Oversight Committee does not have legislative jurisdiction. Even under its amended description (here), there is no mention of the committee having jurisdiction beyond investigations of personnel issues, disciplinary hearings, confirmation hearings, reviewing senators' absences, and conducting impeachment hearings. Thus, it would appear that this committee is without the jurisdiction to consider legislation. They can talk all they want about what the rules should be, any one of the senators on the committee is free to draft a resolution to amend the rules, but it is the Government Operations Committee that has the jurisdiction to consider it.
The committee may discuss implementing an absence policy prior to the conduct hearing for senators who have exceeded 3 absences, pertinent to Senate Rule I (e) Attendance Policy. The committee may discuss the absence policy related to office hours. The committee may discuss or draft legislation regarding the Senate absence policy.
I'm sure that Speaker Geremia, who is chair of the committee, won't let this pesky little rule stand in her way. After all, she didn't do anything to keep the Phantom Committee from meeting. These aren't hard things to fix, but this demonstrable lack of respect for rules and the written word is disturbing, considering all the senators took an oath to uphold them.
Read more...
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: It's Hard to Legislate Without Reading
It's been a while since our last post, and now seemed like as good a time as any for a revival of sorts. In this edition of Is Our Senators Learning, we explore why it might be more appropriate for us to call this series "Is Our Senators Reading" instead.
First, however, I'd like to commend Senator Shirley Diaz for doing what senators should be doing, and that is writing legislation. While she still has much to learn about bill drafting, she is proving herself to be both thoughtful and willing to learn, both traits invaluable for a senator to possess. However, we are not without our criticism.
Executive Summary
Today the Phantom Committee is taking up three bills, all drafted by Sen. Diaz. (meeting info). The first bill relates to the Department of Homecoming Programming and the terms of office of its officers. The second bill relates to the Diversity Commission. The third bill (which really isn't a bill at all--it's a resolution) makes amendments relating to the Senate's parliamentarian.
Bill No. 1: Homecoming Programming Department
The first bill up for consideration changes the term of office of the Director of Homecoming from expiring on November 30 to expire instead on the dead day in the spring semester. The bill further provides that the terms of office of the subordinates in the department will expire on dead day in the spring as well.
First to the merits of the bill. It is uncertain why Sen. Diaz, at the urging of the the Director of Homecoming, Molly Fronapfel, proposes to change the term of office for the Director. As originally conceived, the Director would be in office for a full year, beginning soon after the end of the previous homecoming. This would allow the Association to have people in place to give homecoming the attention it deserves, much like the Alumni Association does now. In fact, it was then Director of Programming Eli Reilly who proposed the November 30 date.
One reason that comes to mind why this change is proposed is so a new president will have complete control over who is in office at the change of an administration. But this goes against the philosophy that experience and competence should outweigh patronage in ASUN, especially in the less political offices.
The bill also defines the terms of the subordinates in the department. No complaints as to that provision.
From a drafting standpoint, this bill needs some tweaking. First of all, the bill moves the term of office provisions from the law creating the Homecoming Director (ASUN Public Law 75-29) and moves it into a law that defines the terms of office of several other executive officers (ASUN Public Law 75-50). There are differing philosophies on how to group similar provisions of law, but it is generally more acceptable to put the term of office for an officer in the same law that created the office. (That's right, the 75th Session of the Senate that normally receives this blog's highest praises got lazy. Instead of amending the various laws that created the offices, they merely created another law and listed the offices and their terms. This would be a good thing for some senator to fix.)
So rather than have provisions relating to one officer scattered throughout the statutory law, it makes better sense to keep it all together. In that light, we have drafted a substitute to the bill under consideration. It is below.
A BILL
To amend the term of office of the Director of Homecoming, to provide for the terms of office of the Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming Programming, and for other purposes.
If, however, Sen. Diaz is partial to her original bill's organization, it's been redrafted to adhere to ASUN's bill drafting style below.
Bill No. 2: Diversity Commission
The second bill up for consideration changes the name of all things related to the Diversity Commission to the Unity Commission. This is a minor bill and doesn't seem to do much other than change some names.
On drafting style, we'd prefer the language to read as follows:
Notice the change to the second part of the bill. You cannot amend amendatory bills like you can standalone bills. The reason why is once the bill has been enacted, its amendatory provisions are considered to be "executed" and are no longer permanent law. It's like telling someone to write down "The sky is red," later giving that person an instruction to change "red" to "blue," and then later changing your mind on the amendatory instruction by changing the instruction (if that makes any sense). You can't do things that way. You have to amend the underlying language, as amended.
Up to this point, it appears that Sen. Diaz has been doing her homework. Aside from mainly stylistic and legalistic points, she's doing as well as can be expected for senators who receive no (real) training on the mechanics of legislating.
Resolution regarding the Senate's Parliamentarian
This is the resolution that gave rise to the lament at the beginning of this post that we should call the IOSL series "Is Our Senators Reading."
I'm going to ignore the matters of style for this piece of leigslation in favor of focusing on the merits. This resolution would make significant changes to the parliamentarian's role in the Senate.
First, the resolution creates an Office of the Parliamentarian. It would authorize the parliamentarian to appoint a deputy. The resolution also expands the scope of the parliamentarian in an expansive way. It authorizes the parliamentarian to represent the Senate or senators in suits before the Judicial Council. The resolution also authorizes the parliamentarian to render opinions on the constitutionality of legislation. This could be dangerous. As a general proposition, when a legislative body acts, it does not question the constitutionality of its acts. However, we do see value in having someone, acting in the capacity of a legislative counsel, providing such opinions. But the Speaker should never rule on such matters from the Chair.
There are two clauses (c)(7) in the resolution, but one of them provides that the Parliamentarian "shall assist the Secretary on the Publication of the Statues at Large of the Association." Why "Publication" is capitalized is beyond me, but this is the specific section that gives us doubt that the senators are reading the laws. The Secretary of the Senate does not publish the Statutes at Large; the Archivist does (ASUN Public Law 75-39, section 15).
Finally, a point that matters: precedence vs. precedents. There is a difference. (See also here.) And for those readers old enough to remember, this reminded me of the time the Judicial Council, back in 2004 or 2005, didn't understand the difference between "precident" and "president."
The resolution is good in that it provides a deputy for the parliamentarian and that it defines that someone is authorized to represent the Senate in cases before the Judicial Council. However, this resolution needs more work before it is ready to be reported out of committee.
All in all, kudos to Sen. Diaz for putting forth the effort to do what a senator should do. Now, to all the other senators: Get crackin'!
First, however, I'd like to commend Senator Shirley Diaz for doing what senators should be doing, and that is writing legislation. While she still has much to learn about bill drafting, she is proving herself to be both thoughtful and willing to learn, both traits invaluable for a senator to possess. However, we are not without our criticism.
Executive Summary
- Senator Diaz is turning out to be quite the legislator. She already holds the record for most bills drafted by a senator in this session.
- The Senate cannot change the terms of office for officers when such change affects contractual obligations.
- You cannot amend amendatory bills directly; you have to amend the underlying language.
- These words are not equivalent: precedence / precedent / president
Today the Phantom Committee is taking up three bills, all drafted by Sen. Diaz. (meeting info). The first bill relates to the Department of Homecoming Programming and the terms of office of its officers. The second bill relates to the Diversity Commission. The third bill (which really isn't a bill at all--it's a resolution) makes amendments relating to the Senate's parliamentarian.
Bill No. 1: Homecoming Programming Department
The first bill up for consideration changes the term of office of the Director of Homecoming from expiring on November 30 to expire instead on the dead day in the spring semester. The bill further provides that the terms of office of the subordinates in the department will expire on dead day in the spring as well.
First to the merits of the bill. It is uncertain why Sen. Diaz, at the urging of the the Director of Homecoming, Molly Fronapfel, proposes to change the term of office for the Director. As originally conceived, the Director would be in office for a full year, beginning soon after the end of the previous homecoming. This would allow the Association to have people in place to give homecoming the attention it deserves, much like the Alumni Association does now. In fact, it was then Director of Programming Eli Reilly who proposed the November 30 date.
One reason that comes to mind why this change is proposed is so a new president will have complete control over who is in office at the change of an administration. But this goes against the philosophy that experience and competence should outweigh patronage in ASUN, especially in the less political offices.
The bill also defines the terms of the subordinates in the department. No complaints as to that provision.
From a drafting standpoint, this bill needs some tweaking. First of all, the bill moves the term of office provisions from the law creating the Homecoming Director (ASUN Public Law 75-29) and moves it into a law that defines the terms of office of several other executive officers (ASUN Public Law 75-50). There are differing philosophies on how to group similar provisions of law, but it is generally more acceptable to put the term of office for an officer in the same law that created the office. (That's right, the 75th Session of the Senate that normally receives this blog's highest praises got lazy. Instead of amending the various laws that created the offices, they merely created another law and listed the offices and their terms. This would be a good thing for some senator to fix.)
So rather than have provisions relating to one officer scattered throughout the statutory law, it makes better sense to keep it all together. In that light, we have drafted a substitute to the bill under consideration. It is below.
A BILL
To amend the term of office of the Director of Homecoming, to provide for the terms of office of the Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming Programming, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated Students,You'll also notice that I added a section 4 regarding the application of the changes made by the bill. The Senate cannot constitutionally change the term of office if it will affect a contractual obligation. Appointing someone to an office with a fixed date of termination, and then moving the date forward, would deprive that person of the wages she would otherwise be entitled to. Therefore, this sort of change should not apply until the successor takes office.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Department of Homecoming Amendments Act of 2009”.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TERM OF DIRECTOR OF HOMECOMING.
Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended to read as follows:
“(A) The Director of Homecoming shall serve for a term of one year beginning on Dead Day in the spring semester. On the expiration of the term, the Director shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subparagraph, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 3. TERM OF ASSISTANT DIRECTORS AND PROGRAMMERS.
(a) Section 4 of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended by adding to the end the following new subsection:
“(e) TERMS OF OFFICE.—Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming shall hold office for a term of one year. On the expiration of the term, a Programmer shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subsection, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not apply to any person holding an office covered by the provisions of this Act as of the date of enactment of this Act.
If, however, Sen. Diaz is partial to her original bill's organization, it's been redrafted to adhere to ASUN's bill drafting style below.
A BILLWe've discussed other points of bill drafting convention in other posts.
To amend the term of office of the Director of Homecoming, to provide for the terms of office of the Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming Programming, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated Students,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Department of Homecoming Amendments Act of 2009”.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TERM OF DIRECTOR OF HOMECOMING.
Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended to read as follows:
“(A) The Director of Homecoming shall serve for a term of one year beginning on Dead Day in the spring semester. On the expiration of the term, the Director shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subparagraph, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 3. TERM OF ASSISTANT DIRECTORS AND PROGRAMMERS.
(a) Section 4 of the Homecoming Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–29; 75 ASUN Stat. 94) is amended by adding to the end the following new subsection:
“(e) TERMS OF OFFICE.—Assistant Directors and Programmers in the Department of Homecoming shall hold office for a term of one year. On the expiration of the term, a Programmer shall continue to perform the duties of the office until a successor is appointed and qualifies. As used in this subsection, “Dead Day” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2 of the Executive Officer Term Limits Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–50; 75 ASUN Stat. 129).”.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not apply to any person holding an office covered by the provisions of this Act as of the date of enactment of this Act.
Bill No. 2: Diversity Commission
The second bill up for consideration changes the name of all things related to the Diversity Commission to the Unity Commission. This is a minor bill and doesn't seem to do much other than change some names.
On drafting style, we'd prefer the language to read as follows:
SECTION 1. DIVERSITY COMMISSION REDESIGNATION.
(a) Redesignation.--The Diversity Commission Act of 2009 (ASUN Public Law 77-4) is amended by striking "Diversity Commission" in each place it appears and inserting "Unity Commission".
(b) Technical Amendments.--Section 2(c)(7) of the Executive Compensation Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75-48; 75 ASUN Stat. 144), as amended, is further amended by striking "Diversity" and inserting "Unity".
Notice the change to the second part of the bill. You cannot amend amendatory bills like you can standalone bills. The reason why is once the bill has been enacted, its amendatory provisions are considered to be "executed" and are no longer permanent law. It's like telling someone to write down "The sky is red," later giving that person an instruction to change "red" to "blue," and then later changing your mind on the amendatory instruction by changing the instruction (if that makes any sense). You can't do things that way. You have to amend the underlying language, as amended.
Up to this point, it appears that Sen. Diaz has been doing her homework. Aside from mainly stylistic and legalistic points, she's doing as well as can be expected for senators who receive no (real) training on the mechanics of legislating.
Resolution regarding the Senate's Parliamentarian
This is the resolution that gave rise to the lament at the beginning of this post that we should call the IOSL series "Is Our Senators Reading."
I'm going to ignore the matters of style for this piece of leigslation in favor of focusing on the merits. This resolution would make significant changes to the parliamentarian's role in the Senate.
First, the resolution creates an Office of the Parliamentarian. It would authorize the parliamentarian to appoint a deputy. The resolution also expands the scope of the parliamentarian in an expansive way. It authorizes the parliamentarian to represent the Senate or senators in suits before the Judicial Council. The resolution also authorizes the parliamentarian to render opinions on the constitutionality of legislation. This could be dangerous. As a general proposition, when a legislative body acts, it does not question the constitutionality of its acts. However, we do see value in having someone, acting in the capacity of a legislative counsel, providing such opinions. But the Speaker should never rule on such matters from the Chair.
There are two clauses (c)(7) in the resolution, but one of them provides that the Parliamentarian "shall assist the Secretary on the Publication of the Statues at Large of the Association." Why "Publication" is capitalized is beyond me, but this is the specific section that gives us doubt that the senators are reading the laws. The Secretary of the Senate does not publish the Statutes at Large; the Archivist does (ASUN Public Law 75-39, section 15).
Finally, a point that matters: precedence vs. precedents. There is a difference. (See also here.) And for those readers old enough to remember, this reminded me of the time the Judicial Council, back in 2004 or 2005, didn't understand the difference between "precident" and "president."
The resolution is good in that it provides a deputy for the parliamentarian and that it defines that someone is authorized to represent the Senate in cases before the Judicial Council. However, this resolution needs more work before it is ready to be reported out of committee.
All in all, kudos to Sen. Diaz for putting forth the effort to do what a senator should do. Now, to all the other senators: Get crackin'!
Read more...
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Phantom Committee
When Senator Brandon Bishop calls a meeting of several senators to order tomorrow, he will be giving life to a sort of shadow committee, one that the senators all believe exists and has power to exist, but in reality does not. Hence the title of this post. This phantom committee will be "apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but [will have] no physical reality." Well, no legal reality.
Remember back when the Senate thought it adopted rules at its first meeting of the session? We do, and it is somewhat of an important point. Well, the senators, try as they might, attempted to do it right this time (we applaud the effort) but managed to pull off a magic trick. Before the senators decided to go on extended holiday for the entire summer, despite the end-of-semester posturing that they would work tirelessly while everyone else was up at Tahoe working on their tans, we blogged that because the Senate didn't adopt a legally and parliamentarily proper rules resolution, the Interim Operations Committee did not exist.
Enter Sen. Patrick "Rules" Kealy to the rescue--sort of. At the June 3 Senate meeting, Sen. Kealy offered a resolution to adjourn the Senate for the summer (I guess it's too much to ask that the senators work for the students while the students are away). Included in that resolution was a clause that read, "The Interim Committee of the Senate is hereby active during the recess of the Senate. The duties, membership, and chairperson may be decided at the discretion of the Speaker, pursuant to Senate Rule XI."
Looks simple enough, right? The Interim Committee will be active. Just one slight problem: This committee doesn't legally exist. It would have had the Senate adopted a proper rules resolution at the beginning of the year. Why? The Interim Committee is not included in the codified Rules of the Senate; instead, it was created under a standalone resolution (S. Res. 75-29) (see here, page 221 of the scribd document). (That resolution was subsequently amended by S. Res. 75-64 to allow the committee to meet during spring break.)
Since the Senate did not readopt this resolution for this session, as should have been done at its first meeting, the Interim Committee does not exist. Yet, here we have the trick of this committee, which does not exist, meeting tomorrow. Thus, when the group of senators meet tomorrow, despite the Senate's best intentions, they will be without the legal authority to meet. Of course this is very easy to fix. A resolution like the one below would suffice.
The resolution is short, clear, and unambiguous. It not only makes clear to the senators what they believed was clear already, but allows people looking back to have clarity as well. Indeed, if you compare Sen. Kealy's clause to the actual resolution that created this committee in the first place, it becomes clear that the membership selection is somewhat different than what is precsribed in Rule XI, especially with respect to selecting a chairperson.
Sen. Bishop, since you are the parliamentarian of the Senate, we expect you will take this analysis under consideration and take the reasonable course of action to cancel tomorrow's meeting so that this legal and parliamentary oversight can be corrected by the full Senate. (Oh, and while you're at it, if you could fix the problem that exists with the Senate's rules, too, that'd be great. We've got some other quarrels, but let's start with something simple, eh?)
In reality, we fully expect that this post won't even get the lip service it deserves, let alone actually be taken seriously. No worries, just another item to add to the list of ways the ASUN Senate has tried but failed.
Remember back when the Senate thought it adopted rules at its first meeting of the session? We do, and it is somewhat of an important point. Well, the senators, try as they might, attempted to do it right this time (we applaud the effort) but managed to pull off a magic trick. Before the senators decided to go on extended holiday for the entire summer, despite the end-of-semester posturing that they would work tirelessly while everyone else was up at Tahoe working on their tans, we blogged that because the Senate didn't adopt a legally and parliamentarily proper rules resolution, the Interim Operations Committee did not exist.
Enter Sen. Patrick "Rules" Kealy to the rescue--sort of. At the June 3 Senate meeting, Sen. Kealy offered a resolution to adjourn the Senate for the summer (I guess it's too much to ask that the senators work for the students while the students are away). Included in that resolution was a clause that read, "The Interim Committee of the Senate is hereby active during the recess of the Senate. The duties, membership, and chairperson may be decided at the discretion of the Speaker, pursuant to Senate Rule XI."
Looks simple enough, right? The Interim Committee will be active. Just one slight problem: This committee doesn't legally exist. It would have had the Senate adopted a proper rules resolution at the beginning of the year. Why? The Interim Committee is not included in the codified Rules of the Senate; instead, it was created under a standalone resolution (S. Res. 75-29) (see here, page 221 of the scribd document). (That resolution was subsequently amended by S. Res. 75-64 to allow the committee to meet during spring break.)
Since the Senate did not readopt this resolution for this session, as should have been done at its first meeting, the Interim Committee does not exist. Yet, here we have the trick of this committee, which does not exist, meeting tomorrow. Thus, when the group of senators meet tomorrow, despite the Senate's best intentions, they will be without the legal authority to meet. Of course this is very easy to fix. A resolution like the one below would suffice.
Resolved, That Senate Resolution 75-29, as amended, shall apply in the 77th Session of the Senate in the same manner as such resolution applied in the 75th Session of the Senate.
The resolution is short, clear, and unambiguous. It not only makes clear to the senators what they believed was clear already, but allows people looking back to have clarity as well. Indeed, if you compare Sen. Kealy's clause to the actual resolution that created this committee in the first place, it becomes clear that the membership selection is somewhat different than what is precsribed in Rule XI, especially with respect to selecting a chairperson.
Sen. Bishop, since you are the parliamentarian of the Senate, we expect you will take this analysis under consideration and take the reasonable course of action to cancel tomorrow's meeting so that this legal and parliamentary oversight can be corrected by the full Senate. (Oh, and while you're at it, if you could fix the problem that exists with the Senate's rules, too, that'd be great. We've got some other quarrels, but let's start with something simple, eh?)
In reality, we fully expect that this post won't even get the lip service it deserves, let alone actually be taken seriously. No worries, just another item to add to the list of ways the ASUN Senate has tried but failed.
Read more...
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: Retreats and the Open Meeting Law
This certainly has to be a broken record to our readers, but the Senate and other public bodies that attended this past weekend's retreat at Lake Tahoe broke the Open Meeting Law when they held their retreat. This post is in response to a couple of comments we received to this post. One reader asked whether holding the retreat without posting agendas creates a problem under the OML. Another reader defended the practice, stating that "[n]o meetings were held, Senate or otherwise, so no violation in NOML. The 'retreat' was used to teach those new to ASUN about ASUN, set amazing goals, and learn how to better serve you the students."
This post will examine whether the Open Meeting Law applies to retreats at which members of a public body will gather.
Executive Summary
The Open Meeting Law applies to retreats because a retreat is a meeting for the purpose of the OML. Keep reading to find out why the OML applies to retreats.
It is unquestionable that the OML applies to the Senate and other public bodies of the ASUN (Clubs Commission, etc.). The specific question is whether a retreat, in this particular case at the 4-H camp at Lake Tahoe, at which a quorum of the members of a public body will meet must comply with the provisions of the Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of NRS).
By its terms, the Open Meeting Law states that "all meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies" (NRS 241.020(1)). Several definitions operate to define the scope of the law's coverage (NRS 241.015); they are applicable here.
First, the term "meeting" must be defined. The law states that persons must be allowed to attend "any meeting" of a public body. "Meeting" is defined as "[t]he gathering of members of a public body at which a quorum is present to deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power" (NRS 241.015(2)(a)(1)). "Quorum" is defined as a majority of the members of a public body (NRS 241.015(4). (For the Senate, ASUN Constitution states it is two-thirds of the members of the Senate, but that is a requirement in addition to the OML. The OML is implicated when only a majority is present, regardless of the fact that the Senate cannot act under the ASUN Constitution unless two-thirds of the members are present.)
It is without dispute that a majority of the Senate's members attended the retreat. (EDIT: It appears that the retreat was more sparsely attended than assumed (See Gracie Geremia's comment below. This claim should be viewed taking the new information into account. However, as a matter of situations, this post is still valid.) The threshold question of whether enough members were present to trigger the OML is therefore answered in the affirmative. We next turn to determine whether a "meeting" occurred for the purposes of the law.
Remember, "meeting" is defined as:
According to this commenter, "[t]he 'retreat' was used...to set amazing goals...." The aggrandizing language aside, it appears that some action was taken at the retreat, as goal setting would qualify as an action. (The collective experience of the members of this blog corroborates this comment. Past ASUN officials agree that deliberation occurs during these retreats. Just to be sure, let's look at how "action" is defined in the OML.
But keep in mind, the OML does not require that action be taken to trigger its provisions; to deliberate toward a decision on some item over which the Senate has control or advisory power is sufficient to implicate the provisions of the law. For example, even if the Senate did not take action to set goals but merely discussed them, the OML would still apply.
We have satisfied all of the factors to determine whether the OML applies. None of the exceptions to the law apply either. (I have omitted discussing the stated exceptions for the sake of brevity but will gladly comment on them if raised by commenters.) The fact that this meeting was styled as a retreat is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you call the meeting, because, as the saying goes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Same thing with meeting vs. retreat.
Accordingly, the remainder of the OML law applies to this situation. Notice of the meeting must be given, agendas prepared and posted, minutes taken, public comment allowed, etc.
Don't agree with my analysis? Fine, don't take my word for it, take the Nevada Attorney General's word. The Attorney General has specifically opined about retreats and concluded that the OML does apply and that agendas for retreats must be drafted with particular attention to satisfying the clear and complete agenda requirement (Open Meeting Law Opinion No. 99-02).
The general rule is whenever a quorum of a public body is going to gather to deliberate on matters the body has control over or an interest in, the meeting must be held in compliance with the Open Meeting Law. The rules don't change just because you don't call it a "meeting."
This post will examine whether the Open Meeting Law applies to retreats at which members of a public body will gather.
Executive Summary
The Open Meeting Law applies to retreats because a retreat is a meeting for the purpose of the OML. Keep reading to find out why the OML applies to retreats.
It is unquestionable that the OML applies to the Senate and other public bodies of the ASUN (Clubs Commission, etc.). The specific question is whether a retreat, in this particular case at the 4-H camp at Lake Tahoe, at which a quorum of the members of a public body will meet must comply with the provisions of the Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of NRS).
By its terms, the Open Meeting Law states that "all meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies" (NRS 241.020(1)). Several definitions operate to define the scope of the law's coverage (NRS 241.015); they are applicable here.
First, the term "meeting" must be defined. The law states that persons must be allowed to attend "any meeting" of a public body. "Meeting" is defined as "[t]he gathering of members of a public body at which a quorum is present to deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power" (NRS 241.015(2)(a)(1)). "Quorum" is defined as a majority of the members of a public body (NRS 241.015(4). (For the Senate, ASUN Constitution states it is two-thirds of the members of the Senate, but that is a requirement in addition to the OML. The OML is implicated when only a majority is present, regardless of the fact that the Senate cannot act under the ASUN Constitution unless two-thirds of the members are present.)
It is without dispute that a majority of the Senate's members attended the retreat. (EDIT: It appears that the retreat was more sparsely attended than assumed (See Gracie Geremia's comment below. This claim should be viewed taking the new information into account. However, as a matter of situations, this post is still valid.) The threshold question of whether enough members were present to trigger the OML is therefore answered in the affirmative. We next turn to determine whether a "meeting" occurred for the purposes of the law.
Remember, "meeting" is defined as:
- the gathering of members of a public body
- at which a quorum is present
- to deliberate toward a decision OR
- to take action on any matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power
According to this commenter, "[t]he 'retreat' was used...to set amazing goals...." The aggrandizing language aside, it appears that some action was taken at the retreat, as goal setting would qualify as an action. (The collective experience of the members of this blog corroborates this comment. Past ASUN officials agree that deliberation occurs during these retreats. Just to be sure, let's look at how "action" is defined in the OML.
"Action" means:(NRS 241.015(1)). Setting goals certainly appears to qualify as "a decision made by a majority of the members" of the Senate or as "a commitment or promise made by a majority of the members" of the Senate. If a goal is not a commitment to take some sort of future action, I don't know what is.
(a) A decision made by a majority of the members present during a meeting of a public body;
(b) A commitment or promise made by a majority of the members present during a meeting of a public body;
(c) If a public body may have a member who is not an elected official, an affirmative vote taken by a majority of the members present during a meeting of the public body...
But keep in mind, the OML does not require that action be taken to trigger its provisions; to deliberate toward a decision on some item over which the Senate has control or advisory power is sufficient to implicate the provisions of the law. For example, even if the Senate did not take action to set goals but merely discussed them, the OML would still apply.
We have satisfied all of the factors to determine whether the OML applies. None of the exceptions to the law apply either. (I have omitted discussing the stated exceptions for the sake of brevity but will gladly comment on them if raised by commenters.) The fact that this meeting was styled as a retreat is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you call the meeting, because, as the saying goes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Same thing with meeting vs. retreat.
Accordingly, the remainder of the OML law applies to this situation. Notice of the meeting must be given, agendas prepared and posted, minutes taken, public comment allowed, etc.
Don't agree with my analysis? Fine, don't take my word for it, take the Nevada Attorney General's word. The Attorney General has specifically opined about retreats and concluded that the OML does apply and that agendas for retreats must be drafted with particular attention to satisfying the clear and complete agenda requirement (Open Meeting Law Opinion No. 99-02).
The general rule is whenever a quorum of a public body is going to gather to deliberate on matters the body has control over or an interest in, the meeting must be held in compliance with the Open Meeting Law. The rules don't change just because you don't call it a "meeting."
Read more...
Friday, June 12, 2009
ASUN Summer Vacation
We here at Vis Lupi Est Grex hope that all the ASUN folks heading up to Tahoe for the retreat remember that the exciting weekend you're spending at the Lake is paid for from the pocket of the students, most of whom would just as soon elect not to pay their ASUN fees and use that money to enjoy a weekend at Tahoe themselves.
Read more...
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Shortest Summer Break Ever!
Perhaps I was a little premature in announcing summer break. The Senate may be in "recess" until August, but the Speaker has called a special meeting for next Friday, June 12. The Senate is scheduled to take up the nominations the Oversight Committee considered yesterday, as well as a bill authorizing the SAFE program (after the program was funded yesterday in the Senate's budget) (VLEG story).
Read more...
Senate's Out For the Summer
Last night, the Senate voted to adjourn until the fall semester. Congratulations, senators! Mr. President Eli Reilly now has the authority to recess appoint all pending nominations and vacant positions until the Senate reconvenes. And how can you say no to a candidate who has been working all summer? I wonder what that means for the Oversight Committee meeting held last night to consider the nominations of several individuals to multiple offices. I suppose it was sort of held in vain, since the Senate won't be around to consider its recommendations.
And since the Senate is out for the summer, I suppose so will this blog. We'll have sporadic posts, but for now, enjoy your summer break.
And since the Senate is out for the summer, I suppose so will this blog. We'll have sporadic posts, but for now, enjoy your summer break.
Read more...
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: Beyond the Senate's Power
The Senate's University Affairs Committee today is continuing its discussion on President Reilly's proposed SAFE (Student Aid for Emergencies) program. The program, proposed in Reilly's budget for fiscal year 2010, seeks to provide support for students in financial emergencies. The proposal is below.
ASUN FY 2010 Proposed Budget
The Senate is considering companion legislation (sponsored by Senator Christine Lemon [College of Science]) presumably to authorize the program. This is an excellent step, but the legislation suffers from several problems. Read more to find out how.
The Senate Cannot Legislate Beyond Its Jurisdiction
The ASUN Constitution, in Article II, section 3(b)(3), states that the "Senate shall not...[c]reate laws that presume binding authority beyond the jurisdiction of the Associated Students." This basically means that the Senate cannot legislate on things beyond ASUN. On this basis, the SAFE bill is unconstitutional.
Section 3 establishes the program as an ASUN service. Section 4 of the bill is where the problems are. Subsection (a)(1) states that "The SAFE program shall be administered by the Coordinator of Student Advocacy, who shall deliver monthly written reports to the ASUN President." This bill attempts to direct a University administrator, who is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of ASUN and the Senate's ability to direct, to run the program.
Subsection (a)(2) of section 3 further states that the SAFE administrator "shall determine the number of meal swipes and/or the duration of stay for students participating in the program." Again, this directory and mandatory language is beyond the Senate's ability to mandate and legislate.
Section 3(b) states that meals "shall be provided by Office of Residential Life, Housing, and Food Services." Now the Senate attempts to direct entire University departments what to do. Ah, but this isn't even the worst of it.
Section 3(c) states that "Super 8 Motel located at 1651 N. Virginia Street shall accommodate the students in need of shelter who are participating in the SAFE program." Apparently the Senate of the Associated Students now has the power to tell private businesses what to do.
The program looks like a good idea. But the Senate's legislation needs a lot of work. The bill needs to spell out ASUN's role in this program. Reilly's budget states that ASUN would provide $10,000 to the program, but the proposal on the SAFE program makes no mention of cost. This would be a good thing to sort out. By contributing to SAFE, what future liabilities and obligations does this commit ASUN to?
If the only thing ASUN is doing is providing some financing, that's all the bill really need to say. It's clear from both the proposal and ASUN's bill that ASUN is not administering the program. If that's the case, and there is no obligation on ASUN's part to providing anything more than funding, then that's all the bill need to do: authorize the transfer of funds to this program. If ASUN is actually administering the program, then the bill should spell that out.
Bottom line: it is unclear, from both Reilly's proposal and Senator Lemon's bill, what role ASUN plays in this program. The Senate should get answers to those questions before it spends any money on this program. We hope the Committee does its job and seriously scrutinize this piece of legislation and the underlying program.
Budget Bill Problems
The Senate tomorrow will consider the ASUN's budget for the upcoming fiscal year. (This bill many problems, which we will discuss in a future post.) But for now, the line item for the SAFE program should raise some eyebrows (link). This program hasn't been authorized yet. Until it has been, it is not legal for the line item to appear in the budget.
If this is a Senator's bill, why didn't it get a first reading?
The Senate's rules (Rule XV) provide that senators may introduce legislation. The bill bears the name of an individual senator, indicating that it was introduced for consideration by that senator. So why didn't this bill get a first reading in the Senate? Committees can report original legislation (bypassing the first reading step) directly to the Senate, but they would carry an indication that it was not introduced. So which is it supposed to be? And why isn't the Speaker making sure the rules are being taught and followed?
By the way...
Where is the "Joe Crowley Student Presidents Conference Room"? (Agenda) Is that a building? A room? I know what was meant, but this could be yet another violation of the Open Meeting Law in the works.
ASUN FY 2010 Proposed Budget
The Senate is considering companion legislation (sponsored by Senator Christine Lemon [College of Science]) presumably to authorize the program. This is an excellent step, but the legislation suffers from several problems. Read more to find out how.
The Senate Cannot Legislate Beyond Its Jurisdiction
The ASUN Constitution, in Article II, section 3(b)(3), states that the "Senate shall not...[c]reate laws that presume binding authority beyond the jurisdiction of the Associated Students." This basically means that the Senate cannot legislate on things beyond ASUN. On this basis, the SAFE bill is unconstitutional.
Section 3 establishes the program as an ASUN service. Section 4 of the bill is where the problems are. Subsection (a)(1) states that "The SAFE program shall be administered by the Coordinator of Student Advocacy, who shall deliver monthly written reports to the ASUN President." This bill attempts to direct a University administrator, who is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of ASUN and the Senate's ability to direct, to run the program.
Subsection (a)(2) of section 3 further states that the SAFE administrator "shall determine the number of meal swipes and/or the duration of stay for students participating in the program." Again, this directory and mandatory language is beyond the Senate's ability to mandate and legislate.
Section 3(b) states that meals "shall be provided by Office of Residential Life, Housing, and Food Services." Now the Senate attempts to direct entire University departments what to do. Ah, but this isn't even the worst of it.
Section 3(c) states that "Super 8 Motel located at 1651 N. Virginia Street shall accommodate the students in need of shelter who are participating in the SAFE program." Apparently the Senate of the Associated Students now has the power to tell private businesses what to do.
The program looks like a good idea. But the Senate's legislation needs a lot of work. The bill needs to spell out ASUN's role in this program. Reilly's budget states that ASUN would provide $10,000 to the program, but the proposal on the SAFE program makes no mention of cost. This would be a good thing to sort out. By contributing to SAFE, what future liabilities and obligations does this commit ASUN to?
If the only thing ASUN is doing is providing some financing, that's all the bill really need to say. It's clear from both the proposal and ASUN's bill that ASUN is not administering the program. If that's the case, and there is no obligation on ASUN's part to providing anything more than funding, then that's all the bill need to do: authorize the transfer of funds to this program. If ASUN is actually administering the program, then the bill should spell that out.
Bottom line: it is unclear, from both Reilly's proposal and Senator Lemon's bill, what role ASUN plays in this program. The Senate should get answers to those questions before it spends any money on this program. We hope the Committee does its job and seriously scrutinize this piece of legislation and the underlying program.
Budget Bill Problems
The Senate tomorrow will consider the ASUN's budget for the upcoming fiscal year. (This bill many problems, which we will discuss in a future post.) But for now, the line item for the SAFE program should raise some eyebrows (link). This program hasn't been authorized yet. Until it has been, it is not legal for the line item to appear in the budget.
If this is a Senator's bill, why didn't it get a first reading?
The Senate's rules (Rule XV) provide that senators may introduce legislation. The bill bears the name of an individual senator, indicating that it was introduced for consideration by that senator. So why didn't this bill get a first reading in the Senate? Committees can report original legislation (bypassing the first reading step) directly to the Senate, but they would carry an indication that it was not introduced. So which is it supposed to be? And why isn't the Speaker making sure the rules are being taught and followed?
By the way...
Where is the "Joe Crowley Student Presidents Conference Room"? (Agenda) Is that a building? A room? I know what was meant, but this could be yet another violation of the Open Meeting Law in the works.
Read more...
Sunday, May 31, 2009
When the Cat's Away...
Nevada Sagebrush, how did you drop the ball on this story?
Don't you think it would've been helpful to report the reason the meeting was postponed?
Weak sauce, Sagebrush. We expect more from you.
Don't you think it would've been helpful to report the reason the meeting was postponed?
Weak sauce, Sagebrush. We expect more from you.
Read more...
Seriously, What's So Hard About This?
The Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of the Nevada Revised Statutes) is not a hard law to follow. The law itself is only six printed pages long. The Nevada Attorney General has published a manual to assist public bodies in complying with the law, setting out best practices to follow. This is not a very complicated law.
So why is it that the ASUN Senate, seemingly at every turn, manages to engage in practices that are of questionable legality with respect to this law? Keep reading...
Facilities Must Be Reasonably Large
The Open Meeting Law informs us that "all meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies" (NRS 241.020(1)). What exactly does it mean that meetings be "open and public" and that "all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting"?
Well, the Attorney General has discussed this in her office's manual. At section 8.03, the Attorney General advises, "Public meetings should be held in facilities that are reasonably large enough to accommodate attendance by members of the public." In an Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Opinion, the Attorney General wrote
The ASUN Senate is scheduled to hold a meeting on June 3, 2009, in room 404 in the Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center. A review of the facility shows that the room has a capacity of 18 persons (link). This poses a couple of problems:
This meeting takes the place of the last meeting that was canceled because we pointed out that the notice and agenda for the meeting was not posted in time to take into account the Memorial Day holiday during the posting period. The meeting was canceled as the appropriate corrective response to that deficiency.
This meeting, too, should be canceled because the facilities are not reasonably large enough to accommodate members of the public. The Senate Chamber is adequate, but the reason the Knowledge Center was selected is probably because the Student Union closes at 7 p.m. (It should be noted that the Knowledge Center only stays open for an additional hour. The Student Union, however, is open until midnight on Tuesdays.)
Rooms Must Remain Unlocked During Meeting
Another meeting scheduled could pose a different problem related to facilities. An Oversight Committee meeting is scheduled for 8:30 p.m. on June 3. The meeting will be held in room 206 of the Ansari Business Building. Holding after-hours meetings usually is not a problem during the school year because the Student Union is open late. During the summer, it's a different story.
Has the Committee made arrangements to ensure that there will be public access to ABB after-hours for the duration of the meeting? Meetings have been held in the Business Building during the summer before, but often the exterior doors were locked and the access to the building nearest the meeting room had to be propped open with a chair. The State Attorney General advises that "If a citizen is denied access to a meeting because of [locked] doors, a violation of Nevada's open meeting law would occur."
Accordingly, if the exterior doors to the Business Building do not remain unlocked, and if there are not directions to an unlocked access door to the building on the locked doors, the public would be denied access to the meeting location. A violation has not occurred yet, but the potential for a violation is ripe.
A Related Note...
On a related note, this blog has been criticized of late for unreasonably attacking the Senate as a whole for the alleged violations of a few individuals, namely the Speaker of the Senate, Gracie Geremia. Our rejoinder: of course the whole Senate should be criticized. The Speaker is merely an officer of the Senate; she is responsible to the body as a whole. Her mistakes are the body's mistakes.
This is not the first alleged violation of the Open Meeting Law that has occurred during this session. This is the second meeting in a row where a deficiency has been pointed out before the meeting has occurred (link). One meeting was held this session in violation of the law (link). Almost half a dozen cases have been filed against the Senate for violating the Open Meeting Law.
This is not a new theme, as the following Sagebrush articles demonstrate:
Last session, Speaker Priscilla Acosta, was made an example of because of the violation of the Open Meeting Law she committed. One violation led to that. Ms. Geremia is already up to at least four violations. Will this Senate hold her accountable? Even if they don't, will Geremia make a concerted effort to become an expert on the Open Meeting Law and learn from her frequent mistakes? Only time will tell.
In the meantime, the Senate meeting should be canceled yet again, and the student's business hijacked yet again, because one individual fails to do her job and to do it well.
So why is it that the ASUN Senate, seemingly at every turn, manages to engage in practices that are of questionable legality with respect to this law? Keep reading...
Facilities Must Be Reasonably Large
The Open Meeting Law informs us that "all meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies" (NRS 241.020(1)). What exactly does it mean that meetings be "open and public" and that "all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting"?
Well, the Attorney General has discussed this in her office's manual. At section 8.03, the Attorney General advises, "Public meetings should be held in facilities that are reasonably large enough to accommodate attendance by members of the public." In an Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Opinion, the Attorney General wrote
A public body's failure to conduct an open meeting in a large enough facility, in effect, creates an improperly closed meeting. See Open Meeting Laws 2d, A. Schwing, § 5.76, at 231 (2000). Therefore, it is the legal duty of a public body to attempt to provide meeting space sufficient to accommodate the expected number of attendees including, under certain circumstances the anticipated heightened emotions of a larger number of attendees.(OMLO 2005-14).
The ASUN Senate is scheduled to hold a meeting on June 3, 2009, in room 404 in the Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center. A review of the facility shows that the room has a capacity of 18 persons (link). This poses a couple of problems:
- The Senate has 22 members. Assuming all members are physically present, there won't even be enough room for the senators, much less for any members of the public who may wish to attend.
- Even if several of the senators are not physically present (assume that just a quorum of 15 members is physically present), that leaves only three seats for the public. Add in the Senate's secretary, advisers, the President, other ASUN department heads ( the budget for the next fiscal year is being considered at this meeting), the room is woefully inadequate in size.
This meeting takes the place of the last meeting that was canceled because we pointed out that the notice and agenda for the meeting was not posted in time to take into account the Memorial Day holiday during the posting period. The meeting was canceled as the appropriate corrective response to that deficiency.
This meeting, too, should be canceled because the facilities are not reasonably large enough to accommodate members of the public. The Senate Chamber is adequate, but the reason the Knowledge Center was selected is probably because the Student Union closes at 7 p.m. (It should be noted that the Knowledge Center only stays open for an additional hour. The Student Union, however, is open until midnight on Tuesdays.)
Rooms Must Remain Unlocked During Meeting
Another meeting scheduled could pose a different problem related to facilities. An Oversight Committee meeting is scheduled for 8:30 p.m. on June 3. The meeting will be held in room 206 of the Ansari Business Building. Holding after-hours meetings usually is not a problem during the school year because the Student Union is open late. During the summer, it's a different story.
Has the Committee made arrangements to ensure that there will be public access to ABB after-hours for the duration of the meeting? Meetings have been held in the Business Building during the summer before, but often the exterior doors were locked and the access to the building nearest the meeting room had to be propped open with a chair. The State Attorney General advises that "If a citizen is denied access to a meeting because of [locked] doors, a violation of Nevada's open meeting law would occur."
Accordingly, if the exterior doors to the Business Building do not remain unlocked, and if there are not directions to an unlocked access door to the building on the locked doors, the public would be denied access to the meeting location. A violation has not occurred yet, but the potential for a violation is ripe.
A Related Note...
On a related note, this blog has been criticized of late for unreasonably attacking the Senate as a whole for the alleged violations of a few individuals, namely the Speaker of the Senate, Gracie Geremia. Our rejoinder: of course the whole Senate should be criticized. The Speaker is merely an officer of the Senate; she is responsible to the body as a whole. Her mistakes are the body's mistakes.
This is not the first alleged violation of the Open Meeting Law that has occurred during this session. This is the second meeting in a row where a deficiency has been pointed out before the meeting has occurred (link). One meeting was held this session in violation of the law (link). Almost half a dozen cases have been filed against the Senate for violating the Open Meeting Law.
This is not a new theme, as the following Sagebrush articles demonstrate:
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/10/01/senate-approves-stiteler-as-flipside-director/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2009/02/10/senate-to-vote-on-censure-2/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/09/09/asun-violates-meeting-law/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/02/27/senate-votes-to-censure-todd/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2007/11/01/asun-minute-late-agenda-post-under-review/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/10/14/asun-officer-charged-for-two-constitutional-violations/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/10/13/asun-leaders-need-to-show-leadership/
- http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2008/12/09/student-senate-criticized/
Last session, Speaker Priscilla Acosta, was made an example of because of the violation of the Open Meeting Law she committed. One violation led to that. Ms. Geremia is already up to at least four violations. Will this Senate hold her accountable? Even if they don't, will Geremia make a concerted effort to become an expert on the Open Meeting Law and learn from her frequent mistakes? Only time will tell.
In the meantime, the Senate meeting should be canceled yet again, and the student's business hijacked yet again, because one individual fails to do her job and to do it well.
Read more...
Friday, May 29, 2009
Updated: Falling on Deaf Ears
Update: May 31, 2009 at 7 p.m.
The whole issue is now moot. The Assembly overrode the Governor's veto. S.B. 283 is now law.
Update: May 31, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Looks like the whole issue of this ASUN Senate resolution might become entirely moot. Last night, the Nevada Senate overrode the Governor's veto to S.B. 283. The bill is in the Assembly today for an attempt at an override. On passage in the Assembly, the measure fell two votes short of the two-thirds required to override the Governor's veto. That means the Assembly will need to find two more yes votes in order to override the veto.
VLEG has obtained exclusively a copy of a memo said to have been prepared for the ASUN Senate.*
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Senate of the Associated Students, UNR
From: Nevada Legislature
Re: S.B. 283
In case you haven't heard, the Nevada Legislature will adjourn no later than June 1, 2009. That comes before June 3, 2009. The resolution (E. Res. 77-__) you will be considering to encourage us to override the Governor's veto on S.B. 283, the domestic partner legislation, won't get to us in time. (By the way, what the hell is an E. Resolution anyway?)
As you may not be aware, the Nevada Constitution requires us to adjourn no later than 120 days after convening(art. 4, sec. 2(2)). That day is Monday, June 1, 2009, during this legislative session. Because of that, should your "E. Resolution" pass, no one will be here to receive it, read it, care anything about it, etc.
It is commendable that you are taking an interest in our business, but taking up a resoltuion urging us to do something and not bothering to look at a calendar--the expression "falling on deaf ears" comes to mind, but it's much, much worse. It's like showing up to a party several weeks late. Where were you guys back when this bill was being heard? This resolution should've been ready for presentation during the hearings on this bill, which were over a month ago, not after we've already adjourned for the biennium.
We'd say "nice try," but this has "FAIL" written all over it. In the future, we recommend that you learn about the legislative process before you do something as embarrassing as misrepresent your Association. (And your I. Res.'s and E. Res.'s--the hell?)
*Not really, but it sure would be hilarious.
The whole issue is now moot. The Assembly overrode the Governor's veto. S.B. 283 is now law.
Update: May 31, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Looks like the whole issue of this ASUN Senate resolution might become entirely moot. Last night, the Nevada Senate overrode the Governor's veto to S.B. 283. The bill is in the Assembly today for an attempt at an override. On passage in the Assembly, the measure fell two votes short of the two-thirds required to override the Governor's veto. That means the Assembly will need to find two more yes votes in order to override the veto.
VLEG has obtained exclusively a copy of a memo said to have been prepared for the ASUN Senate.*
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Senate of the Associated Students, UNR
From: Nevada Legislature
Re: S.B. 283
In case you haven't heard, the Nevada Legislature will adjourn no later than June 1, 2009. That comes before June 3, 2009. The resolution (E. Res. 77-__) you will be considering to encourage us to override the Governor's veto on S.B. 283, the domestic partner legislation, won't get to us in time. (By the way, what the hell is an E. Resolution anyway?)
As you may not be aware, the Nevada Constitution requires us to adjourn no later than 120 days after convening(art. 4, sec. 2(2)). That day is Monday, June 1, 2009, during this legislative session. Because of that, should your "E. Resolution" pass, no one will be here to receive it, read it, care anything about it, etc.
It is commendable that you are taking an interest in our business, but taking up a resoltuion urging us to do something and not bothering to look at a calendar--the expression "falling on deaf ears" comes to mind, but it's much, much worse. It's like showing up to a party several weeks late. Where were you guys back when this bill was being heard? This resolution should've been ready for presentation during the hearings on this bill, which were over a month ago, not after we've already adjourned for the biennium.
We'd say "nice try," but this has "FAIL" written all over it. In the future, we recommend that you learn about the legislative process before you do something as embarrassing as misrepresent your Association. (And your I. Res.'s and E. Res.'s--the hell?)
*Not really, but it sure would be hilarious.
Read more...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
How does a Senate defend itself?
Several of the complaints recently filed in the ASUN Judicial Council (read all of them here), in addition to naming the office of the Speaker of the Senate (the Senate's elected leader), name the Senate as a respondent (defendant in the real world). This presents a unique circumstance. How does a multi-member body defend itself?
The power of the Senate is not vested in any one member. The power of the Senate is in a majority of the votes of the members. Nobody under the Senate's Rules is authorized to represent the Senate when it is sued. The only body that can authorize representation is the Senate. In the meantime, the Senate has lawsuits to defend. If it does not authorize someone to defend its collective interests, the petitioner in all of these cases could move for summary judgment against the Senate (and win on such a motion) because the Senate does not answer the complaints and offer a defense.
Therefore, Speaker Geremia should place on the Senate agenda for next week an item authorizing appointment of counsel to represent the Senate's interests before the Judicial Council. It could authorize the Speaker to do so, but since the Speaker is named in the complaints, the Senate's interests could be adverse from Ms. Geremia's interests--differing and contrary to one another.
The power of the Senate is not vested in any one member. The power of the Senate is in a majority of the votes of the members. Nobody under the Senate's Rules is authorized to represent the Senate when it is sued. The only body that can authorize representation is the Senate. In the meantime, the Senate has lawsuits to defend. If it does not authorize someone to defend its collective interests, the petitioner in all of these cases could move for summary judgment against the Senate (and win on such a motion) because the Senate does not answer the complaints and offer a defense.
Therefore, Speaker Geremia should place on the Senate agenda for next week an item authorizing appointment of counsel to represent the Senate's interests before the Judicial Council. It could authorize the Speaker to do so, but since the Speaker is named in the complaints, the Senate's interests could be adverse from Ms. Geremia's interests--differing and contrary to one another.
Read more...
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Is Our Senators Learning: Holidays, Counting, and the Open Meeting Law
Update: May 27, 2009 at 10:26 a.m.
The University Affairs meeting has now been canceled. Once again, we wish to express our appreciation for the officers involved for taking the appropriate corrective action in these cases.
Update: May 27, 2009 at 9 a.m.
So is the University Affairs meeting scheduled for today or tomorrow. The agenda says Thursday, but the date and website both say today. Yet another reason why that meeting should be canceled.
Update: May 26, 2009 at 9 p.m.
It appears, from the website, that two of the meetings have been canceled and rescheduled (Senate and Oversight). We appreciate the officials owning up to their errors and correcting them.
The Open Meeting Law requires that agendas be posted by 9 a.m. on the third working day prior to a meeting (NRS 241.020(3)(a)). Excluded in the count are weekends, holidays, and the day of the meeting (OML Manual, section 6.05).
Accordingly, the meetings should be canceled. If the meetings proceed anyway, a violation of the Open Meeting Law will occur. Given the fact that several cases against the Senate are pending in the Judicial Council for violations of the Open Meeting Law, the senators would be wise to heed this warning.
I'm going to guess the "Senate training" or "chair training" didn't go over this no-so-minor nuance. And how about the Senate "adviser"? Did she go over this point? Does she even know that this law exists and the senators must follow it? Did the senators know and figure no one would catch them? Did they know and just not care? The violations of the law that this blog reports about (way better than the Sagebrush, by the way) are becoming so systemic it's suggestive of a massive problem.
The University Affairs meeting has now been canceled. Once again, we wish to express our appreciation for the officers involved for taking the appropriate corrective action in these cases.
Update: May 27, 2009 at 9 a.m.
So is the University Affairs meeting scheduled for today or tomorrow. The agenda says Thursday, but the date and website both say today. Yet another reason why that meeting should be canceled.
Update: May 26, 2009 at 9 p.m.
It appears, from the website, that two of the meetings have been canceled and rescheduled (Senate and Oversight). We appreciate the officials owning up to their errors and correcting them.
The Open Meeting Law requires that agendas be posted by 9 a.m. on the third working day prior to a meeting (NRS 241.020(3)(a)). Excluded in the count are weekends, holidays, and the day of the meeting (OML Manual, section 6.05).
Example:However, when a holiday falls during the posting period, as Memorial Day did yesterday, you need to add a day.
A meeting for Wednesday must have its notice and agenda posted before Friday at 9 a.m.
Example:Well, guess what, my friends. Looks like some of the senators need a refresher. The University Affairs and Oversight Committees and Senate meetings scheduled for tomorrow, according to the postings on the ASUN Web site, were not posted in time to take into account yesterday's holiday. The University Affairs and Senate agendas were posted on Friday, May 22, and the Oversight agenda was posted around 9 p.m. on Thursday, May 21 (Oversight was posted on the correct day, but after the 9 a.m. deadline).
A meeting noticed for Wednesday, May 27, 2009, must have its notice and agenda posted no later than Thursday, May 21, 2009, at 9 a.m.
Accordingly, the meetings should be canceled. If the meetings proceed anyway, a violation of the Open Meeting Law will occur. Given the fact that several cases against the Senate are pending in the Judicial Council for violations of the Open Meeting Law, the senators would be wise to heed this warning.
I'm going to guess the "Senate training" or "chair training" didn't go over this no-so-minor nuance. And how about the Senate "adviser"? Did she go over this point? Does she even know that this law exists and the senators must follow it? Did the senators know and figure no one would catch them? Did they know and just not care? The violations of the law that this blog reports about (way better than the Sagebrush, by the way) are becoming so systemic it's suggestive of a massive problem.
Read more...
Friday, May 22, 2009
Random Number?
Quick note, maybe someone who knows can help us out.
The Senate minutes as of late have a marginal note, "AN-77-1004" for example. Looks like a serial number of sorts. Any idea what the AN stands for?
The serial number looks like a great idea to help find stuff faster.
The Senate minutes as of late have a marginal note, "AN-77-1004" for example. Looks like a serial number of sorts. Any idea what the AN stands for?
The serial number looks like a great idea to help find stuff faster.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
