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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-08 11:05 am (UTC)Now I'm actually going to read the new opinion.
also
Date: 2006-03-08 11:45 am (UTC)Senate Bill # 38 imposed substantial new duties on the Student Government Administrative Office, however it did not enter these into the bylaws.
That's something else that should be corrected, unless I am mistaken, in which case, my apologies.
-The Anonymous First Year
no subject
Date: 2006-03-08 06:21 pm (UTC)Re: also
Date: 2006-03-08 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-08 07:44 pm (UTC)...followed by the Student Bill of Rights. Well played. I enjoyed that.
Hehe nice
Date: 2006-03-09 05:50 am (UTC)Its kinda funny how the new Focites largely abandoned these Bill of Rights, when it's one of their few remaining legacies...
Re: also
Date: 2006-03-09 09:58 am (UTC)-The Anonymous First Year
Re: Hehe nice
Date: 2006-03-09 10:23 pm (UTC)Re: also
Date: 2006-03-09 10:25 pm (UTC)Re: Hehe nice
Date: 2006-03-10 03:21 am (UTC)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
Date: 2006-03-10 04:40 am (UTC)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
Date: 2006-03-12 07:22 am (UTC)In any case, I might write a bill to fix this issue.
Re: Hehe nice
Date: 2006-03-13 12:00 am (UTC)If its not included maybe I'll find SGAO in contempt .... of senate!