Nanakul v. SGAO
Mar. 8th, 2006 12:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aggienautThe opinion on Nanakul v. SGAO (Case 32)- regarding the missing Student Bill of Rights - is officially out. As promised, the Student Bill of Rights is attached.
Among other things, we basically found that it is ridiculous to say that the Student Government Administrative Office (SGAO) cannot be compelled to do things by other parts of the government (in fact its very purpose seems to be to execute administrative tasks for other parts of the government), and noted that their position is actually so precarious as that as it currently stands, there is utterly nothing stopping the ASUCD President from dissolving the office or moving it into the basement on a whim. (As it is not mentioned anywhere in the codes (except where tasks are given to it), the office has no "institutional rights.")
BUT if the Senate gives them substantial new duties without increasing their resources, they can hardly be blamed for not keeping up. We find that the Senate's overtasking of them does not render them legally deficient.
Among other things, we basically found that it is ridiculous to say that the Student Government Administrative Office (SGAO) cannot be compelled to do things by other parts of the government (in fact its very purpose seems to be to execute administrative tasks for other parts of the government), and noted that their position is actually so precarious as that as it currently stands, there is utterly nothing stopping the ASUCD President from dissolving the office or moving it into the basement on a whim. (As it is not mentioned anywhere in the codes (except where tasks are given to it), the office has no "institutional rights.")
BUT if the Senate gives them substantial new duties without increasing their resources, they can hardly be blamed for not keeping up. We find that the Senate's overtasking of them does not render them legally deficient.
