State of the Court Address
Oct. 30th, 2003 03:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aggienaut The chief justice of the ASUCD supreme court ("Chairman" of the "Student Court") is to give a "detailed written and oral" presentation on the state of the Court at the fourth Senate meeting of every quarter. Not that this is probably very exciting to any of you, but having just written my speech, I feel the need to share. If you are bored, feel like humoring me in some devious plot to trick me later, or yearn to tell me definitively what a terrible speech I've just written, I encourage you to read it. Note that it is true that it is very against my nature to actually WRITE speeches, but because they want a "detailed oral and written report" I felt compelled to provide them with a transcript of my no-doubt enlightening speech, which their descendants shall study in everything from comparative literature to philosophy.
Comrades,
Our Codes are plagued with errors. It is from these errors that the need for the Student Court arises, however the Codes of the Court themselves, the Judicial Codes, are probably the most error-prone. By discussing three of the most significant problems we’ve encountered in the Codes this quarter I can pretty much convey to you the experience and state of the Court this quarter. These three issues additionally are explained in the three appendices I have prepared.
The first situation I am going to discuss is the only one that’s unresolved and it has caused me great displeasure this week. Judicial Code Section 302, paragraph two states that once the Student Court Chair has reported to the Senate President Pro Tempore that a Member must be considered for removal from the Court, the Senate must consider the removal before any Court hearing or meetings. The Chair must therefore avoid reporting such situations except in such circumstances as it can be done without interfering with any Court activities in the interim.
The situation can be worse than that however, in such circumstances as happened this week. After our meeting on Tuesday one Member more than fulfilled every single grounds for removal, and another had resigned, but the resignation having apparently not gotten to SGAO, and the Member having fulfilled the objective grounds for removal, had to be recommended for removal as well. I reported via email to the Senate President Pro Tempore immediately thereafter via email of these things, but by the time the Senate agenda closed the next day the closed hearings had not been added to the agenda. The reporting of the need for removals cannot be retracted and the removals cannot be considered for another week. The hearing scheduled for tomorrow and our weekly meeting next Tuesday therefore cannot occur, and we can’t meet at all until after next week’s Senate meeting.
I am very confident that the overwhelmingly malevolent effect of this clause was unintended. I do not doubt it will continue to hinder the Court more than any other legislation, and urgently implore anyone to rewrite it without delay.
The second situation is the so-called “Ten Day Rule:” that from receipt of a case we have ten days to accept it and have a hearing, as mandated by Judicial Code Section 502, paragraph four. It has frequently been the case that the Court cannot make quorum during that time. We’ve been operating this quarter with five effective Members (of nine theoretical positions, five are required for quorum), our first case this quarter the ten days were split between last quarter and this, and during our second one of the five had an injury. Before I was placed on the Court I know this was also a problem as well; a case I was a Plaintiff in two years ago was accepted but not concluded until a year later.
Our reasoning on this subject however was that the Plaintiff has a right to have their case duly adjudicated, and to conclude that a case is made invalid by events entirely out of the hands of either parties or the Court would be contrary to that. More empirically, the Code specifies “cases shall be adjudicated as quickly as possible without substantial hardship for the Plaintiffs, Defendants, or witnesses,” and clearly the invalidation of the Plaintiff’s case places a substantial hardship on the Plaintiff. We therefore confidently conclude that the Court must proceed with the case as soon as it possibly can once ten days have passed.
It is the goal of the ASUCD Constitution and Judicial Codes to see that every Case is given equal opportunity to arbitration and justice. To interpret the Codes here to find that a violation filed at the end of Spring Quarter will have drastically less opportunity to be rectified than at any other time of the year is irreconcilable with that goal. To find that theoretically a violation committed on the last day of Spring Quarter would be utterly beyond judicial review is unconscionable.
Additionally, Judicial Code Section 302-1 states that “if a Member [of the Court] takes a leave of absence for a period of one month or more his/her resignation will be required.” Without exception the absence of the disputed “academic days” clause there has been interpreted to inherently disinclude summer ever since the Judicial Codes were created. To interpret the codes otherwise, would leave no way to retain Members over summer.
The absence of an “academic days” clause therefore is at best a clerical error in the legislation. The precedent set in Student Court Case # 20 (regarding the miss-printing of “two (2) three (3) weeks” regarding election filing deadlines, the origin of the infamous “D-1 Case”) establishes that obvious clerical errors cannot be exploited against the original intended meaning.
The Court therefore definitively finds that in the case of Judicial Code Sections 302 and 403, time outside the academic year is inherently disincluded.
These are the three most significant shortcomings of the Codes we have come across this quarter, but they are by no means the extent of the problems. The Codes make references to mistrials, but there are absolutely no provisions for such in the Codes, and Case # 21 effectively ended in a mistrial. This is huge vacuum into which further justice may be sucked as well. Considering the confusion of the Codes and the historical inexperience of the Court, that the Court could make mistakes that invalidate a hearing is an eventuality which must be prepared for and guarded against.
Even the official name of the Court, the Student Court of the Associated Students of UC Davis is redundant and falsely implies we deal directly with individual students arbitrary needs rather than our actual function. Despite its name, as a description of the Court’s role in student government, it is the supreme court of ASUCD in the same way KDVS is a radio station, and the Coffee House is… not just a coffee house.
And because I'm an over-achiever, there are three appendices (I have no idea why bolding appears to be out of control here):
The Legislation
Judicial Code Section 302
2 - In the event that the Chairperson of the Student Court has reported to the Senate President Pro Tempore that [a Member has fulfilled any of the grounds for removal], the ASUCD Senate must consider removal of that Student Court Member(s) prior to the next regularly scheduled Student Court hearing or meeting.
The Problem
Though the intention of the legislation is apparently to ensure that the Senate does everything possible to resolve this situation before it becomes a problem for the Student Court, in effect the legislation does nearly the opposite. Once the Chairman of the Court has informed the President Pro Tempore of the need to remove a Member, the Court cannot hold any meetings or hearings till it is resolved without making the Senate suddenly in violation of the Codes. It is not the practice of the Court to support activities which cause other entities to be in violation of the Codes.
The Conclusion
The only recourse at this time is for the Chairman to avoid reporting the necessity to remove a Member until such time as it can be done without annihilating any Court activities that would fall in the interim between the reporting and consideration by Senate. While the Codes state specific conditions under which the Chair must request the Senate to consider the removal of a Member, it does not give a specific time-frame for the Chairman to do so. The Chair must therefore wait until such a time as no meetings or hearings will fall between the reporting and consideration by Senate.
The Legislation
Judicial Code Section 502
4 - Speed of Adjudication. Cases shall be adjudicated as quickly as possible without substantial hardship for the Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), or witnesses. The court shall hold a hearing within ten (10) academic days from receipt of a written complaint.
The Problem
The Court sometimes is unable to make quorum for a hearing during those ten days.
The Conclusion
To interpret this to mean that the case is invalid if the Court cannot possibly meet within the ten days would eliminate the Plaintiff’s right to have a case. The elimination of the Plaintiff’s case is quite evidently a rather substantial hardship for the Plaintiff. The only logical course therefore is to proceed with the hearing as soon as possible once the Court can meet.
The Legislation
Judicial Code Section 403
1 - Any member of ASUCD has sixty days in which to file a written complaint to the Student Government Administrative Office alleging a violation of ASUCD Constitution, Government Codes, or Standing Rules. The time limit of sixty days shall take effect upon the date of the alleged violations(s).
2 – The Student Court, by majority vote, can extent the sixty day time limit in light of extenuating circumstances, whose validity shall be determined by the Student Court.
A – The extension of the time limit may not be for more than a period of sixty additional days.
The Problem
If summer is included in the 120 day maximum extension it has already expired for case # 22. If it is not included than the extension is still valid
The Conclusion
It is the goal of the ASUCD Constitution and Judicial Codes to see that every Case is given equal opportunity to arbitration and justice. To interpret the Codes here to find that a violation filed at the end of Spring Quarter will have drastically less opportunity to be rectified than at any other time of the year is irreconcilable with that goal. To find that theoretically a violation committed on the last day of Spring Quarter would be utterly beyond judicial review is unconscionable.
Additionally, Judicial Code Section 302-1 states that “if a Member [of the Court] takes a leave of absence for a period of one month or more his/her resignation will be required.” Without exception the absence of the disputed “academic days” clause there has been interpreted to inherently disinclude summer ever since the Judicial Codes were created. To interpret the codes otherwise, would leave no way to retain Members over summer.
The absence of an “academic days” clause therefore is at best a clerical error in the legislation. The precedent set in Student Court Case # 20 (regarding the miss-printing of “two (2) three (3) weeks” regarding election filing deadlines) establishes that obvious clerical errors cannot be exploited against the original intended meaning.
The Court therefore definitively finds that in the case of Judicial Code Sections 302 and 403, time outside the academic year is inherently disincluded.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-10-31 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-31 10:52 pm (UTC)hahaha..
Date: 2003-11-01 10:24 am (UTC)Re: hahaha..
Date: 2003-11-04 12:41 am (UTC)In 22 minutes I'm going to the Internal Affairs meeting because they apparently are workig on matters related to the Court. About twenty minutes previous to this I went to my Legal Theories & Jurisprudence (POL154) professor (Becker)'s office hours to discuss issues facing the Court.
I am court core to the maxx.
Kris!
Date: 2003-11-01 11:53 am (UTC)*muah*
~waiting to hear from you~
elena (in good old russian, aliona) :)
Doha!
<3 Kris.
i miss doha and cheese danishes!!!!!!!
Date: 2003-11-04 04:12 pm (UTC)i miss you!!!!!! very very much and i want to see you..i'll get some pics of me soon so you can see them, hehehe
i love you! (big smoochy kiss for kris *MUAH*)
Re: i miss doha and cheese danishes!!!!!!!
There were digital camera pictures taken with me in them from halloween and I am dying to see them and get them posted.
Halloween.... this last halloween was the four year anniversery of when we first got together? (= I wore that same costume (the black cloak) to a party the day after halloween this year.
If you called me I'd like... be smiling for the next month straight. (= (530)574-3599
::muuuaaah:: I love you too! (=
Re: i miss doha and cheese danishes!!!!!!!
Date: 2003-11-05 11:45 am (UTC)you're going all santimental on me and stuff...with that halloween...but yeah, i'm actually the santimental one....remember how wonderful it was.!!!!hehehe, even with its bad end :) right on. and i from then on, have a little ceremony i do with some magic spells, etc, every halloween....but that's another issue.
yes, the -ka in yahooka is intentional, its a marijuana website not connected to yahoo, and i use that email adress more often...write me sometime, though i know you're possibly the busiest creature that lives in this universe...:)
i'm going to class now, to play piano, so i must go. love you!!!!!
****MUAH******
Re: i miss doha and cheese danishes!!!!!!!
Date: 2003-11-06 08:56 pm (UTC)hmmm magic tricks on halloween hm? that would explain a lot of things. ::shifty eyes:: I keep having flashbacks to running over the traffic cone we hit as we fled from Oakley's place.
Anyway, I myself must scamper off to meet with my nuclear physics teacher. Talk to you later. I emailed you at the hooka site. (=
<3 love yous. xox
da da da
Date: 2003-11-02 06:35 pm (UTC)here you go