Nanakul v. SGAO

[aggienaut]

The 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.

Comments

Re: Hehe nice

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

why the crap didn't you have it write something into the codes?

Re: Hehe nice

[libpaul.livejournal.com]

Cuz it was my first piece of legislation ever, and I did'nt realize the importance of not writing into the codes O.o

Also, not that this should become an issue, but how did you acquire your copy of the bill of rights? Was it the exact version of what was voted on and passed?

Re: Hehe nice

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

I tihnk I meant to add a disclaimer that we aren't hereby saying that htis version is the definitive version. The version attached is certified by SGAO as authentic -- we ourselves have not scrutinized it.

I think the question of the endurance of bills & resolutions beyond the year they are passed is an interesting one. Many assume they carry authority until overruled by later legislation; but if that were the case, there would be literally hundreds of these binding documents in the archives which one would be responsible for knowing, and is it really reasonable to expect ASUCD to continue to enforce all these? Maybe it is (= I think it could be argued either way.

Re: Hehe nice

[orwell-troll.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I was worried about this in a recent piece of legislation I wrote. The old codes made reference to an ASUCD Affirmative Action policy, which was presumably passed in the long long ago. Student Services and SGAO didn't have copies (LOL), so I thought about just including a line to strike the previous policy. But since I didn't want to draw attention to that fact, I just wrote in the bill that our affirmative action plan is following the University's plan. Things would run so much smoother in government if it wasn't for politics.

In any case, I might write a bill to fix this issue.

Re: Hehe nice

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

I've been noticing that some of the judicial changes we fought hard for in the last two years have not been included in the latest editions of the codes, I'm currently investigating the matter.

If its not included maybe I'll find SGAO in contempt .... of senate!