aggienaut | Rule-of-Law

Justice in MUN
   Its been bothering me for quite some time now that the leadership of our MUN club bars any non-officers from their executive meeting. In the past this wasn't an issue because their meetings were at someone's house on a different day entirely, so no one needed to be kicked out, but now they occur directly following the regular meetings and they adamently refuse to start until every non-officer has left the room.
   This lends a down-right nefarious light to their politically motivated decisions on who gets what country/committee assignment at conferences, and room-assignments. It also gives them a chance, which I believe they exercise, to discuss among themselves who THEY want to run for future officer positions, and support those candidates, making club elections deplorably undemocratic.
   In procrastinating tonight I decided to finally take actions against this, and started it out by sending our Secretary-General an email asking him to make the club Constitution available to me.

   According to generally accepted philosophy of the democratic process, (In Californa, The Brown Act and Bagley-Keene Act address this) governing boards' meetings must be open to the membership of the organization. In accordance with SPAC (Student Programs & Activities Center) rules, every club must have a constitution.
   Student Judicial Affairs handles formal complaints regarding club activities.

   In conclusion: there may be some members of the UCD MUN secretariat that I have a positive opinion of; and it may be likely that these activities will result in my never getting the country-assignment I request ever again and having to room with Paul Amnaypayout for every conference from now on; but I really do abhorr injustice that I can avert.
   I don't think the leadership really respects my ability to have a political impact. Prepare to see my lawyering skills.

Justice in ASUCD
   I have heard certain rumours that "the ASUCD Court cannot bring cases against career employees."
   (A) Judicial Code 4, section 402, paragraph 1: "Any ASUCD member may submit a complaint alleging one or several of the following: (A) An ASUCD official has failed to perform the duties of his/her office in conformity with...
   (B) "Official" is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) as: "3. Holding office or serving in a public capacity."

   Furthermore, the logical errors inherent in the idea that career employees are exempt from cases are so glaring upon any serious reflection that it almost insults one's intellegence to recite them. Career employees make decisions and act in the name of the ASUCD government and these decisions cannot be beyond appeal by the Justice branch of the government. Career employees are employees of the government, they may be fired by 2/3rds of the Senate, they may be ordered to do things by the President, their budgets may be reviewed by the Business and Finance Commission, and they may certainly be scrutinized by the Court.
   The idea that career employees may act with impunity to the Court is to accept that they do not work among us at the employ of the ASUCD government but rather supervise an incompetent student play-government. I need hardly point out that the latter precept which is necessary for the argument in favor of their impunity is insulting to anyone that participates in the ASUCD government.

   The above absolutely does not reflect any partiality or bias regarding actual or potential career employee Parties to cases. It only relates to whether or not career employees may BE Parties to cases. If the thesis is somehow wrong, than it is not relevantly partial because those that are the subject (career employees), may not be Parties to cases; if it is correct, it is not relevantly partial because it is absolutely correct. This is a logical tautology.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Dude, you use too many big words for someone who just got home from the bar...

It's too bad that, since the entirety of ASUCD reads your livejournal, your can't get into the specifics of what happened here. THe abstracts are still interesting, though. It's a little hard to believe that ASUCD, with a budget of approximately $hella, is just an inconsequential diversion for UCD students. Where is that rule written? and, can ASUCD amend it?

I've been thinking about school improvement lately -- just little details related to the school elections. My thoughts:

1) I've read that someone (possibly the senate) is doings to the Standing Rules and other important documents that had previously been untouched since Weezer's blue album hit the airwaves. It sounded like progress. I don't know the details, but I also read that sketchy things are happening that might limit ASUCD's power to fund campus groups.

2) Every time the senate passes a resolution that matters, someone writes a letter to The Aggie complaining that ASUCD shouldn't be speaking on behalf of the student population unless every one of the 27,000-ish students agrees with it. My understanding of this is shut the hell up. ASUCD has a certain priviledge, as a democratically elected organization, to pass resolutions without direct approval from the student body. I've never seen anyone explain this to the disgruntled public.

3) Something concrete: DMS shows are on Friday nights at 8 on campus. Not too many students have class from 8-10 on Friday nights (I don't know of anyone who does). Parking on campus is still permit-only until 10 p.m. on Friday nights, so concertgoers have to park off-campus and walk. Sauce. Since there's not much need to limit parking after 8 p.m. on Friday nights (I understand why it's limited during the day) -- what would it take to get the permit-only time dropped to 8 p.m. on Fridays?

1) Not much is going on to amend the stuff that hasn't been touched in decades. Some of the commissions are starting to take it upon themselves to fix their own rules, but I don't think I've heard much about the Senate really trying to fix anything. Except, of course, when they can blame commission chairs for things that we had no control over. And, yes, there is a new policy that the Regents are talking about that forbids students from running a referendum, among the other sketchy aspects.

2) I completely agree. If we had to make every single student agree, there would be NOTHING that ASUCD could do-- no CoHo, no Unitrans, no Bike Barn, etc. I have come to the conclusion that much of the student body just likes to bitch and moan, without taking action any more serious than a LTE to the Aggie. Elected officials tend to make good targets for this.

3) That would involve talking to TAPS. Seeing as how I think TAPS is run by Satan's minions, I don't know how well this could be accomplished. Couldn't hurt to try, I suppose.

3) Its true, an exerpts from the TAPS charter:

Article I, Section 66, Paragraph 6 - All TAPS decisions shall be in keeping with the wishes of Satan

I can comment on this because jurisdiction over complaints against TAPS are resolved by neither the ASUCD Court, nor Campus Judicial Affairs but by.. no one at all. You have no recourse against the malevolent undertakings of TAPS.

It is a historical inevitability that the fundamentally untenable nature of capitalism shall eventually lead to collapse and the rise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The bourgoisie shall be duly "removed" thereupon.

On any account, I shall never cease to undermine the undue powers of the elite over the masses in complete disregard to how many enemies it may gain me.

And at the very least, I may not really be a communist, but that doesn't mean I have any affinity towards the bourgousie.

Long live the Dancing Proletariat.

Rule-of-Law

no subject

Risky territory brah

Re: Risky territory brah

Re: Risky territory brah

the revolution

Re: MUN