[671] in UA Senate
Re: Decision of the Judicial Board
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Lukmann)
Mon Apr 26 17:01:00 2010
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:00:33 -0400
From: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@MIT.EDU>
To: Mike Bennie <mbennie@mit.edu>
CC: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>, UA Executive Board <ua-exec@mit.edu>,
ua-speaker@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4BD5E45F.6010807@mit.edu>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090209030405070606050904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hey UA folks!
It seems to me that Judboard goes a bit too far in this ruling and by
doing so violates to spirit of separation of powers. Both of the
questions addressed in the advisory opinion are matters internal to
Senate and should be dealt with as such. Judboard overextends it's own
authority by assuming the right to dictate to the Speaker which senator
should be allowed to vote under which circumstances. (/Two Important
corollaries... etc./)
Judboard is supposed to rely on the text and the spirit of the governing
documents when rendering decisions (even advisory ones such as this).
However, nowhere in the Constitution or the Senate Bylaws does it define
the nature (or even the spirit) of conflict of interest or how to
respond to such cases. As such, the most relevant section of the
governing documents for both of the issues in question is the "Rules
Section" of the bylaws:
Article IV, Sections 1 & 2 of the Senate Bylaws
1) "Any aspect of parliamentary procedure or rules not covered by these
Bylaws or the UA Constitution,
shall be operated under Robert's Rules of Order (latest edition)."
2) ... "The Speaker may interpret these Bylaws with the understanding
that these interpretations shall be
based on the clear intent of these Bylaws. Rulings of the Chairman may
be overturned by a two-thirds
vote of the Senate."
This means that it is up to the Speaker, and the Speaker alone, to rule
(with Robert's Rules as a catch-all guide) on whether a particular
person is conflicted and what should be the result. As written above,
this can be overturned with a 2/3 vote.
All the best!
-Andrew L.
On 4/26/2010 3:07 PM, Mike Bennie wrote:
> Members of the UA,
>
> The Judicial Board has recently ruled on a request for clarification
> around a conflict of interest regarding incoming Executive positions
> and current Senate positions. It is posted on the UA website at
> http://web.mit.edu/ua/docs/judboard/decisions/Decision%20on%20Senate%20Proxy%20Conflict.pdf.
> Questions or concerns should be directed to ua-judboard@mit.edu
>
> Best,
> Mike
--------------090209030405070606050904
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hey UA folks!<br>
<br>
It seems to me that Judboard goes a bit too far in this ruling and by
doing so violates to spirit of separation of powers. Both of the
questions addressed in the advisory opinion are matters internal to
Senate and should be dealt with as such. Judboard overextends it's own
authority by assuming the right to dictate to the Speaker which senator
should be allowed to vote under which circumstances. (<i>Two Important
corollaries... etc.</i>)<br>
<br>
Judboard is supposed to rely on the text and the spirit of the
governing documents when rendering decisions (even advisory ones such
as this). However, nowhere in the Constitution or the Senate Bylaws
does it define the nature (or even the spirit) of conflict of interest
or how to respond to such cases. As such, the most relevant section of
the governing documents for both of the issues in question is the
"Rules Section" of the bylaws:<br>
<br>
Article IV, Sections 1 & 2 of the Senate Bylaws<br>
1) "Any aspect of parliamentary procedure or rules not covered by these
Bylaws or the UA Constitution,<br>
shall be operated under Robert’s Rules of Order (latest edition)."<br>
2) ... "The Speaker may interpret these Bylaws with the understanding
that these interpretations shall be<br>
based on the clear intent of these Bylaws. Rulings of the Chairman may
be overturned by a two-thirds<br>
vote of the Senate."<br>
<br>
This means that it is up to the Speaker, and the Speaker alone, to rule
(with Robert's Rules as a catch-all guide) on whether a particular
person is conflicted and what should be the result. As written above,
this can be overturned with a 2/3 vote.<br>
<br>
<br>
All the best!<br>
-Andrew L.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/26/2010 3:07 PM, Mike Bennie wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4BD5E45F.6010807@mit.edu" type="cite">Members of
the UA,
<br>
<br>
The Judicial Board has recently ruled on a request for clarification
around a conflict of interest regarding incoming Executive positions
and current Senate positions. It is posted on the UA website at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.mit.edu/ua/docs/judboard/decisions/Decision%20on%20Senate%20Proxy%20Conflict.pdf">http://web.mit.edu/ua/docs/judboard/decisions/Decision%20on%20Senate%20Proxy%20Conflict.pdf</a>.
Questions or concerns should be directed to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ua-judboard@mit.edu">ua-judboard@mit.edu</a>
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
Mike
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------090209030405070606050904--
