. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Thursday, April 10, 2008

SOME GUY (meh) tells me that Philip Kim resigned this morning. He was going to be removed anyway. Shawn Jain should take his place, which gives CalSERVE 7 senators, enough to block any financial bill, though they also typically have Nadir Shams on their side.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/10/2008 01:58:00 PM #
Comments (13)
. . .
Resignination: a joke or a typo?
It's what I intended to type. Whether you find it to be a joke or not isn't really any of my business.
this resignation is not official,

nor is Shawn Jain as a replacement. There are numerous constitutional issues.
What a useless comment. Enlighten us about these constitutional issues.
Also, Nadir Shams does not always vote with CalSERVE on financial matters. CalSERVE opposed From All Perspectives; Shams was a sponsor (just one example).



#1. automatic removal of senators violates due process

#2. Phil WAS present at the last senate meeting


#1. Replacement is based on "highest number of votes" not necessarily the last candidate to drop.
Automatic removal of senators is specified in the Constitution. A more sensible argument would be that determining absence needs due process.

It doesn't matter if he was present, what matters is if he made roll call.

So far the interpretation has been "last candidate to drop." If we go by highest number of 1st place votes, next in line is CalSERVEr Jessica Parra-Fitch, anyway. Though don't think I'm unaware of the interpretational vagueness, since I pointed it out to the Senate earlier this year and suggested they address it.
due process is also specified in the constitution.

An automatic removal inherently violates due process. Determining absences ALSO needs due process, and the definition in the constitution is too rigid.
The constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Nor, for that matter, does automatic removal upon meeting certain conditions violate due process, any more than disqualifying a candidate upon receiving 5 censures does.

Arguing that the Constitution's definition of absence is too rigid to determine absence is as dumb as it gets. It's a DEFINITION of absence. You are present if you meet the conditions specified, regardless of how little time you actually spent in the Senate chambers during the meeting. You are absent if you do not, even if you spent every other moment in the chambers.

The only due process argument that makes any sense whatsoever is that the determination of whether a senator was present for roll call requires due process, and it was not satisfied in this case. But if he really wasn't present for roll call, then he has nothing to stand on.
one part of the constitution can conflict with another part.

Also, the ASUC constitution can conflict with state or national law, which would void asuc law.

"does automatic removal upon meeting certain conditions violate due process, any more than disqualifying a candidate upon receiving 5 censures does."

You have a point. Basically, there needs to be rights for the accused somewhere along the line. In the case of the censures, the accused can defend herself regarding each censure. So it's ok.

In the case of attendance the automatic removal really is an automatic removal; that is, the accused has no rights along the line to contest it. The problem is that it really is an automatic removal; automatic removal after a fair process is ok.
It amazes me how many people think that if something doesn't go their way, their due process has been violated.

Let's break it down.

1) Kim becomes a senator and agrees to the rules of the ASUC Constitution and by-laws.
2) One of those rules is that he cannot be ruled absent for a certain percentage of those meetings.
3) Absent is defined in the rules as not being present at both the beginning and end roll calls at each meeting.
4) Kim misses those roll calls five times, making him by definition absent.
5) Kim is removed from the Senate.

Am I missing something? For such a bright intelligent public campus, some people have an incredibly naive sense of entitlement.
Now that I've steered them towards the right path, I think the anonymous folks have finally settled on a mildly legitimate argument that perhaps "because the minutes say so" is not a sufficient basis for determining someone missed the roll call. However, none of Kim's defenders have actually argued that he was there for the roll call, so it may be a moot point.
It's the EVP's responsibility to tabulate votes. If they don't collect votes from someone who claims to be a senator, or recognize someone who should not, they are liable to be brought before the Judicial Council for a review of their decision. There really isn't a process of removing someone, just a process by which someone is recognized as having authority to cast a vote or not.

When we removed Evora Griffith in 2000, we said that the EVP should not count her vote at all after the time in which the Constitution said she no longer had the authority to cast a vote. Every vote after that which only had the support of 14 senators had to be redone.

Post a Comment

. . .