Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Procedure! Recopture!
Rules are complicated. Especially when you're the one who writes them.
Let me point out that I'll be using a Daily Cal article to respond. Considering the reporting of The Daily Cal to be accurate is never a safe bet. Also note that this was reported last Thursday by the Patriot folks, and The Daily Cal didn't think it was worth mentioning in their original story last Friday.
ASUC Executive Vice President Anil Daryani challenged the senate's decision to sidestep the ASUC by-laws - which call for a two-thirds vote to change the election date - , and pass the bill with a majority vote.
"While I do not disagree that election dates need to be moved, I believe that such actions should be done in a procedurally proper matter," Daryani said in a statement.
ASUC senators, however, said the ASUC constitution, which they said supercedes the by-laws, allows the senate to move the elections with a majority vote.
"In this kind of situation where there is certain ambiguity, the right of interpretation should be given to the senators, who have studied the by-laws and are working with the association's best interests at heart," said SQUELCH! Senator Ben Narodick, the author of the bill.
Well, the idea that the senators are familiar with the by-laws is a tough one for me to swallow. The implicit dig about Daryani's interests is cold. And I generally have a tough time leaving decisions about such things to the subjective opinion of the Senate, due to the way the Senate has used "discretion" in the past. *cough* Jessica Underhalter *cough*
"There is something inherently wrong with 50 percent of the senate setting election dates for 100 percent of the campus," Daryani said.
Uh... why? Is it somehow inherently rightified when you have 70 percent?
. . .
|
. . .
|
