The Agrinautica

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.