Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Constitutions are for squares
Teh Lame3!1!
Since the council is allowed to deliberate in closed session and the senate will be following the Judicial Council's rules of procedure, Gupta said they have the right to deliberate on the impeachment in closed session.
But former Judicial Council Chair Robert Gregg said although the senate must follow the council’s procedure, it is technically still the senate and thus does not have the constitutional ability to deliberate in closed session on this issue. Let me get this straight: Vishal Gupta thinks that even though the Constitution explicitly lists six grounds on which the ASUC can close their hearings, and the Senate clearly doesn't meet any of them, he still thinks the Senate can close their hearings because it's written somewhere in the JRPs designed for a different body with a different set of Constitutional obligations (including explicit constitutional authority to enter closed session for deliberations "for the ASUC Judicial Council only")? Does he think the JRPs override the Constitution? If he does, it would be pretty ironic, since the only reason he's sitting in office right now is because the Judicial Council decided the Constitution overrides the JRPs.
By the way, the Senate doesn't have "the right" to do anything. I know Vishal and friends like to think of it as their own personal property to use within their rights, but it's a government body, and has responsibilities, not rights. One of those responsibilities is to follow the Constitution. It doesn't matter if the Senate "wants" to deliberate in closed session, they're in office to do a job, not to play.
Here, I'll help you folks out, and post the relevant section. Come to your own judgment:
SECTION 1: CLOSED SESSION
A. All meetings of ASUC boards, councils, committees, and other organizations shall be open and public, except as provided in this article.
B. The ASUC Senate, the Judicial Council, the Graduate Assembly, and subordinate units of these bodies may hold closed sessions only if two-thirds (2/3) of their entire membership approve. Such closed sessions may be held only for the discussion or consideration of the following:
1. Matters involving litigation, when discussing in open session concerning those matters would adversely affect the interests of the ASUC.
2. The acquisition or disposition of property, if discussion of these matters in open session could adversely affect the ability of the ASUC to acquire or dispose of the property on the terms and conditions it deems to be in the best interest of the Association.
3. Matters concerning the appointment, employment, performance, compensation, or dismissal of ASUC employees, excluding elected and appointed officers.
4. Deliberation on a case in order to arrive at a judgment, for the ASUC Judicial Council only.
5. Matters relating to labor-related negotiations between the Association and the University.
6. Matters involving investments, when discussion in open session could have a negative impact on the Association's financial situation.
C. The agenda for closed sessions shall be approved in open session and no further items shall be considered in closed session. No items shall be voted on during a closed session. Note how none of those exceptions are "When you can find a rule somewhere for a different body which allows it to do so."
Will the ASUC Senate be violating its rules in a hearing accusing Sonya Banerjee of violating her rules? It sure looks that way.
. . .
|
. . .
|
