[673] in UA Senate
Re: Decision of the Judicial Board
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cinjon Resnick)
Mon Apr 26 21:43:08 2010
In-Reply-To: <4BD5FEF1.3040408@mit.edu>
From: Cinjon Resnick <cinjon@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:42:43 -0400
To: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>
Cc: Mike Bennie <mbennie@mit.edu>, UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>,
UA Executive Board <ua-exec@mit.edu>, ua-speaker@mit.edu
--0016364d280fa8f59f04852e0393
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Hey UA folks!
>
Hey Andrew. I hope all is well with you. I'm very glad that you had the tim=
e
to highlight your view on this matter.
> 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 question=
s
> addressed in the advisory opinion are matters internal to Senate and shou=
ld
> be dealt with as such.
>
I [unsurprisingly] disagree with this view. There are two reasons why we
have not violated any separation of power. The first is that we were asked
to make a formal ruling on this concern by Senator Modi and not just a
limited advisory opinion. The second reason is that these matters are not
internal to Senate due to the potential for conflicts of interest. A
conflict of interest can fall in any domain, including, as it does in this
case, in the domain of the Executive Branch. This speaks directly to our
answer to the second question, but also supports our answer to the first
question because of the plausibility of conflicts of interest escaping the
domain of Senate.
> 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.*)
>
Perhaps our explanation was not as clear as it should have been, but
throughout the decision we tried to ensure that the Speaker maintains its
right to decide without swiping any power from the Speaker. One part in
particular I hope is clear:
"Further, we would like to stress that the Speaker will enforce these rules=
.
If the Speaker is not made sufficiently aware of a conflict of interest,
which would hopefully be referenced by the Senator in question, we do not
see any other plausible recourse."
This refers to the idea that if the Speaker is not aware of a conflict,
whether its through its own means, the Senator itself, the Senate itself, o=
r
another interested party, then there is no other way to correct for this
conflict.
Now it is true that we go on to mention two corollaries that the Speaker
must enforce, but we are doing that to highlight that the Speaker should be
aware of a certain conflict now and in the future. You could call us an
interested party.
> Judboard is supposed to rely on the text and the spirit of the governing
> documents when rendering decisions (even advisory *[It's not advisory]*on=
es 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 sect=
ion
> of the governing documents for both of the issues in question is the "Rul=
es
> 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=92s Rules of Order (latest edition)."
> 2) ... "The Speaker may interpret these Bylaws with the understanding tha=
t
> 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.
>
We agree. And that is why we have structured this decision as we have and
made sure that the Speaker is aware of its power to decide a conflict of
interest. However, please note that under Article 2.3.3.a (reproduced
below), we do have the power to reverse legislation we deem to be in
violation of not only the letter, but the intent, of the governing
documents. We believe that imposing a slight constraint on proxies in this
manner and storing that power within the requisite authority is in fact a
desired feature of the constitution's intent.
Article 2.3.3.a: "Once called upon for review, this board shall have the
power to reverse legislation or policies that it deems to be in violation o=
f
the letter and intent of this constitution and other governing documents."
>
> All the best!
> -Andrew L.
>
Aye.
- Cinjon R.
Chief, Judicial Board
--0016364d280fa8f59f04852e0393
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000">
Hey UA folks!<br></div></blockquote><div>=A0</div><div>Hey Andrew. I hope a=
ll is well with you. I'm very glad that you had the time to highlight y=
our view on this matter. <br></div><div><br>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(=
204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000">
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. </div></blockquote><div><br>I [uns=
urprisingly] disagree with this view. There are two reasons why we have not=
violated any separation of power. The first is that we were asked to make =
a formal ruling on this concern by Senator Modi and not just a limited advi=
sory opinion. The second reason is that these matters are not internal to S=
enate due to the potential for conflicts of interest. A conflict of interes=
t can fall in any domain, including, as it does in this case, in the domain=
of the Executive Branch. This speaks directly to our answer to the second =
question, but also supports our answer to the first question because of the=
plausibility of conflicts of interest escaping the domain of Senate. <br>
<br>=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt=
0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">=
<div bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000">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></div></blockquote><div><br>Perhaps our explana=
tion was not as clear as it should have been, but throughout the decision w=
e tried to ensure that the Speaker maintains its right to decide without sw=
iping any power from the Speaker. One part in particular I hope is clear:<b=
r>
<br>"Further, we would like to stress that the Speaker will enforce th=
ese rules. If the Speaker is not made sufficiently aware of a conflict of i=
nterest, which would hopefully be referenced by the Senator in question, we=
do not see any other plausible recourse."<br>
<br>This refers to the idea that if the Speaker is not aware of a conflict,=
whether its through its own means, the Senator itself, the Senate itself, =
or another interested party, then there is no other way to correct for this=
conflict. <br>
<br>Now it is true that we go on to mention two corollaries that the Speake=
r must enforce, but we are doing that to highlight that the Speaker should =
be aware of a certain conflict now and in the future. You could call us an =
interested party. <br>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.=
8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div bg=
color=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000">
<br>
Judboard is supposed to rely on the text and the spirit of the
governing documents when rendering decisions (even=A0advisory <i><b>[It'=
;s not advisory]</b></i> 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 thes=
e
Bylaws or the UA Constitution,<br>
shall be operated under Robert=92s Rules of Order (latest edition)."<b=
r>
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></div></blockquote><div><br>We a=
gree. And that is why we have structured this decision as we have and made =
sure that the Speaker is aware of its power to decide a conflict of interes=
t. However, please note that under Article 2.3.3.a (reproduced below), we d=
o have the power to reverse legislation we deem to be in violation of not o=
nly the letter, but the intent, of the governing documents. We believe that=
imposing a slight constraint on proxies in this manner and storing that po=
wer within the requisite authority is in fact a desired feature of the cons=
titution's intent. <br>
<br>Article 2.3.3.a: "Once called upon for review, this board shall ha=
ve the power to reverse legislation or policies that it deems to be in viol=
ation of the letter and intent of this constitution and other governing doc=
uments."<br>
<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0p=
t 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><di=
v bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000">
<br>
<br>
All the best!<br>
-Andrew L.</div></blockquote><div><br>Aye.<br>- Cinjon R.<br>Chief, Judicia=
l Board <br></div></div><br>
--0016364d280fa8f59f04852e0393--
