"Same Interests"
At our Court meeting last Tuesday I was giving a history lesson on the follies of "The Reverend" Tiqula "My Friends Call Me Half-Man Half-Amazing" Bledsoe. When I happened to mention that I too am a reverend, since the Universal Life Church will ordain anyone, several other Court members immediately went to the website (we had multiple laptops present, since we're a particularly advanced body) and got ordained during our meeting. I think we're going to form our own church.
Anyway, the Administrative Office ( SGAO) does not yet have the minutes from the IAC meeting last week where Kai-romwell made the original presentation on how ASUCD doesn't need a Court. But thats okay, because I have the minutes anway.
The relevant portion is only a page, I shall reproduce it here, with my own commentary in bracketed nonitallics.
IAC Minutes, 06-05-15
...
Moved into consideration of legislation.
(Ostrowski continued note-taking duties).
Kai1: Last case was decided on a section, but another section contradicted.2 Our codes are guidelines. No one adheres to them when the court has a say on it. A review board could do a better job and that is what should happen.
1[note "The Goodly Kai" is the only one quoted by first name, rather than last name]
2[Yeah, except that one section was in the Constitution and takes precedence over the other that wasn't. Also note how he prefaces the need to change the court with his disagreement over our last ruling.]
Wu: Cutting the court, what would it consist? What resources are they using? A review board like a police review board? I see a parallel.
Kai: Cutting the court is unconstitutional, get rid of that.1 define what review board would be, court will get 99 bucks in, they are doing a job, like a commission, same deal, that’s the only thing I know. Yes other AS have judicial review boards, doesn’t work for our set up. ASUCD is not a public institution2, you have to pay a fee, if you pay a fee, you get to vote for the president and the senator, like just another organization, normally, making decisions for what is right, should not be a venue for conflict3. A court set up is adversarial, not productive for our set up.4 The people that are involved don’t know how it is supposed to operate, what wrong has happened, rather than those who don’t have much knowledge.5
1[I think he's saying make it constitutional to cut the Court]
2[um, yes it is, as far as students are concerned. You pay a mandatory fee you get a vote.. yeah, you pay taxes (mandatory fee), you get to vote, and city or national elections aren't open to people who don't live there the exact same way ASUCD isn't open to nonstudents. In other words, Kai, you fail at arguing ASUCD is not a government.]
3[Not a venue for conflict... if you're only taking one point of view into consideration. The only situations in which we are deciding "what is right," however, is exactly those situations where there is a conflict of opinions]
4[Not only is the adversarial system a mainstay of the US justice system, but it IS better for our set up. Under the alternative, the inquisitional system, the Court is judge, detective & prosecutor. When dealing with a top-level court that is part of a checks and balances system, it is extremely dangerous to give the Court so much freedom of action. So essentially Ruess is proposing giving the judicial branch more power than we want ... except that I'm pretty sure he envisions this review board actually having only advisory authority (and being Not Us.]
5[Why is Lady Liberty always depicted wearing a blindfold? Because under western legal theory, the justice system is designed to eliminated any kind of preconceptions in weighing justice. Here Ruess fundamentally misses that point and instead asks that we be specifically loaded with preconceptions.]
Wu: Restructuring the court instead of getting rid of it. Not settled with cutting it, rather changing.
Kai: Idea of the court is okay, people who come in, by and large are not qualified1, that changes need to be made, so people will be inclined on what is going on. Mark Champagne has hands off approach, no position on anything, no political agenda2. Review board members would have the best interests in mind. Board with people who knew, [and] had the same interests, maintaining the operation, and the good name of ASUCD3. There would be no resentment, people move on and fix the problem.
1[Yeah thanks. I could write several paragraphs singing the praises of our current Court members as evidence of their qualifications, but I don't think I need to. I'd be extremely interested, however, in hearing one shred of evidence that our justices are less qualified than anyone else in ASUCD.]
2[This would put important ASUCD decisions in the hands of Administrators, rather than students. This was the reason we moved elections dispute jurisdiction back inside ASUCD. And Champagne, having a healthy perspective on this issue, I think realizes thus, and therefore I'd bet you money Champagne wouldn't touch being made ASUCD's judicial authority with a ten foot fiberglass pole]
3["Same interests." There's a telling phrase right there, I think I'll bold it. I think it pretty much speaks for itself. Clearly he means "the same interests" as a party currently in power. At the very least by "same interests" he's certainly implying something different than the current interests of the Court, which is in equitable justice.]
Wu: Quickly, piloting the review board, an advisory board, for all decisions [I think this a haiku]
Harms: Seen the court, it has problems, the way it fits into the rest of ASUCD, our job is to fix internal problems, bring us solutions, we would be happy to look at them, in the real world, there is respect to a judge. They went through law school and so on. Highest court, so much experience and knowledge that they should be respected. Student court at ASUCD, one or two people I know, but that doesn’t mean I respect their legal insight, or their authority for ASUCD1. It’s a cultural problem with a court, with undergraduates in this type of institution. To make a review board, it would have wider respect, and who can make these rulings that people will take. Not a backlash against a separate branch of ASUCD, they don’t understand. Senate doesn’t read all the bills that come in or the briefs, it is a separate entity.2
1[Aw, Harms doesn't respect me. Incidently, I've been involved in ASUCD more than five times longer than Harms has. I even have more experience as a commissioner than he does. But clearly I don't know what I'm talking about and should just follow his lead.]
2[I have no idea where he's going with this]
Wu: Maybe to get a little more respectability, more employment requirements, fix it instead of scrap it. Suggest that you pose as an ASUCD as being a business, this problem; a court doesn’t have a place in a business model. That would be cool. [Not sure exactly what would be cool here... the argument that ASUCD is a business?]
Harms: Thinking of joining the student court, so I get all three branches. [you're not "student" comptroller yet you know...]
Wolfle: Yield
Weinstein: Talent sinkhole1, motivated people on the court, they are squanderer, should be on IAC. Law students look to the court, have no experience2, do very little work3, it is a waste of time4.
1[well at least someone has something nice to say. First we're not qualified and now we're stealing all the qualified people and squandering them.]
2[We meet once a week just like you, you know. Being on the Court solidied my interest in law and was one of my best college experiences. Though I had to give up my dreams of being an Aggie columnist or photographer, or would have gotten on Senate, I would still make the same decision.]
3[You don't know what we do, don't pretend you do. We've had a steady supply of cases all year long. None of us are putting no effort into these]
4[I don't think the parties to our cases (or at least the winning parties) would agree. Those that lost, yeah they're probably lobbying for our elimination...]
Wolfle: Motion to adjourn
Weinstein: Second
Any objections, none, we are adjourned.
And I still think it was a serious breach of good faith that Kai came to IAC with the intention of making this presentation without notifying the Court.
Round III will take place at the IAC meeting next week, on Tuesday, 5pm, De Carli Room. Should be interesting to all those interested in ASUCD, law, or philosophy...
Director of External Affairs James Schwab reads the IAC minutes during a Court meeting.
He thinks they're kind of ridiculous.
Justice Harney holds a copy of the Federalist Papers in the foreground.
And thats newly appointed Justice Kevin Powers on the left.