Tuesday, October 10, 2006
And some analysis
Here's some stuff:
There are 14 authors, which is 2/3 of the Senate. This is Student Action, as well as independent Ali Ansary and DAAPer Dmitri Garcia.
The bill appears to be to refer to both the Judicial Council's lawyers and Oren Gabriel's lawyers, if I'm reading the whereases correctly. But if I'm reading the "Be it resolved," this seems to only be paying the fees of the plaintiffs (i.e. Student Action). Therefore, they're trying to convince folks that this is money that was spent defending the ASUC, but the actual money that they want to pay out is not. I pray that the Daily Cal doesn't fuck this up in reporting, but I don't have high hopes.
I agree that the Judicial Council's lawyers' fees need to be covered by the association, since they had no choice under the constitution. However, the resolution only mentions them in the whereases, and doesn't seem to be planning on doing so. Instead, it looks to be tuned only towards Student Action's lawyers. If someone can correct this, that would be great.
The comparison to the DAAP case is specious, since that was a settlement for a case that was still to be heard. Here, the case has been dismissed, and only Oren Gabriel should be on the line for his lawyers.
The Legal Defense Fund is described in the Constitution as:
The ASUC Senate shall establish a Legal Defense Fund, expenditures from which may be authorized only for the purpose of emergency legal action which the Association may undertake.There is nothing suggesting there is any emergency legal action that needs to be undertaken here.
. . .
. . .