Internal Affairs Commission Minutes
January 14, 2013
5:05 PM – Mee Room
Quorum Roll Call
Meeting called to order at 5:05 pm.
Members:
Present: Smythe, Waaland, Cano, McManus, Lopez, Rivilis, Lara, Luna, Renslo, Yoon, Dias
Late: Hackney(excused), Herskovitz(excused)
Others:
Present: Kappes(Senator), Thomas(Man About Town/MoP), Glass-Moore(MoP), Hsu(MoP), Pelstring(MoP), Figueroa(Senator), Kapur(Senator), Bottoms(Senator), Huey(MoP), Gilbert(Senator), Burke(Senator), Topf(Senator), Chau(MoP), Noto(MoP)
Renslo: Lamborghini mercy, yo chick she so thirsty
Smythe: WHAT!?
Renslo: I am half-Japanese. You are insulting my sushi culture
McManus: Out of orders of the day and into Senate Bill #38
ASUCD Senate Bill #38(Hsu)
Author’s comments:
Hsu: The ballot pretty much consisted of a 500 word statement which nobody reads. We’re going to have 50-word blurbs instead of the current statements by talking to Creative Media. We’ll keep the 500-word statements. Please strike section 3.
Question-in-text
McManus:
[Line numbers throughout].
Rivilis:
[Change “Kappas” to “Kappes”]
Yoon:
[Section 4: Needs spacing on second line]
Waaland: Same as Yoon
Smythe: We need copies of the bill for other commissioners.
Renslo: Motion to move into public discussion
Public discussion
Renslo: Nobody can write this better than Aaron. Let’s prioritize our time today, it’s a good bill
Cano: For section 4, are you referring to reporting violations in 413G?
Hsu: Not quite.
Cano: I would amend section 4.
McManus: Hereby fixes…not sure. How about re-alphabetizes? If you re-number first, you can amend anything you want
Amendment made.
Cano: Aaron, that section you’re removing…is that the right complaints? That’s the only formal complaint we’re filing.
Smythe: Motion to move into commission discussion.
Commission discussion
Rivilis: Any word on this?
Hackney: Speaks on wrong bill.
McManus: So when would this removal takes place? After the voting period opens up?
Hsu: Yes.
Herskovitz: Motion for something that was removed.
Smythe: Yield
Cano: For section 5, you don’t want names removed during elections? Why don’t we word it that we can remove our name from the ballot up until election day?
McManus: What’s the elections calendar look like?
Hsu: It’s being worked on.
Waaland: What happened to section 3?
Hsu: Section 3 was amended at Senate.
Herskovitz: How was your day?
McManus: Could be better.
Cano: Reading through bill
McManus: Anyone else want to speak on this?
Smythe: Do we feel comfortable with passing as is, Hsu?
Hsu: Sure.
McManus calls bill into question.
VOTE COUNT: 9-0-0
ASUCD Senate Bill #41(McManus)
Author’s comments:
McManus: This amends Senate agenda. It moves Senate agenda around to reflect what Senate actually does. I left the previous Senate agenda there to show what it looked like. I moved around the language that referred to members of the public, they’ve been given priority. Committee reports were added to agenda. It might not do much, but for members of the public, it’s important that we stick to an order. We have an order for a reason. It’ll track things along even better. Not going over grammar, that’s tedious shit.
Questions and Text:
McManus:
[Line 21: Amends section 207A.]
Public Discussion
Herskovitz: Yield.
Renslo: Straightforward bill. Makes sense for public to know. Motion to move into commission discussion; deferment to Thomas
Thomas: I really like this bill. They printed this out on every page, but never used it. It’s fantastic to make it more accessible. I want to thank Smythe and McManus for writing this.
Commission Discussion:
Renslo: Anything to say?
Hackney: I really like this bill.
Lopez: Question in text:
[Line 81 – his or her.]
McManus: Call into question.
VOUNT COUNT: 9-0-0
Senate Bill #46(Glass-Moore)
Author’s Comments:
Glass-Moore: There’s a precedent for this position at UC Berkeley. Basically, it knows the bylaws front and back, and observe any violation of bylaws, and to bring cases into ASUCD Court. Also helps with the repercussion of filing a complaint because it can in many cases be controversial and political. Any individual can file a complaint. Most individuals in ASUCD don’t know the bylaws that well, they have all sorts of advantages and disadvantages to filing a case. We can get some progress in the judiciary such that the bylaws can be followed.
Questions and Text:
Glass-Moore:
[Line 65 – Add IAC Chair to interviewing committee.]
[Line 7 – Put “all” at the request of Liam.]
Herskovitz:
[Line 63 – Court prosecutor should not be bolded.]
McManus:
[Add a line between 33 and 36.]
Public Discussion
Goss: This bill is rife with stupidity. Let’s talk about the history of the bill. Before the current Chief Justice, Emma Seche, there was Pelstring, there was Rudy Ornelas, and Missy. The court was being utilized in the status quo. Then along came Rudy Ornelas, and the court lost respect. Rudy had the idea to create a Court Prosecutor, but this bill would call irreparable harm. The author makes me laugh; look at the IAC Chair, he reads the bylaws! This would create petty cases in which anyone can sue for anything. We cannot allow any breach of the separation of powers. This unites the judiciary, executive, and the legislature into one body, leading ASUCD into chaos. This is unconstitutional because it coalesces executive and judiciary together. This gives one of the people at the table a fancy title.
Herskovitz: Not liking that anyone can drop a lawsuit.
Thomas: This bill thrilled me at first, then I read it. It reads “Students don’t care enough.” That’s bad logic, and leads to other problems, and it’s created in the current dynamic of ASUCD. Consider that every position has a term limit no longer than a year. In an organizations, you don’t structure an organization around individuals. The court is strong enough with this set of rules. You do not institutionalize individuals, I do not support this bill as a Man About Town.
Smythe: Is this an unpaid position?
Glass-Moore: Yes.
Hsu: Given that the court Prosecutor has to know the bylaws in and out, can the Elections Committee outsource Chapter 4 of the ASUCD Bylaws?
Glass-Moore: Anyone can help. Because you can’t do it, this person can’t.
Goss: Point of order, who’s floor is this?
Cano: Aaron’s.
Hsu: It would conflict the existing authority of the Elections Committee to enforce chapter 4 of the ASUCD Bylaws. Not everything comes before the Court. They go before IAC or other closed-session processes. Nobody in ASUCD thinks the Elections Committee should not prosecute these cases. We have a lack of institutional memory. Now that we have experience, I know how to proceed. I need to bring these concerns to IAC.
Renslo: Yield.
Chau: My wig is not on. Now, this bill’s language is extremely offensive, and we can’t think for ourselves of the constitutionality of our cases. It says we cannot look at our own government and we rely on an individual. We as a court handle complaints against individuals and legislation and the elections committee handles the original jurisdiction. That’s all.
Kapur: You said you fully agreed with what Goss said, but Sergio’s not always going to be here…
Cano: Talked about this bill in the past, but Berkeley is the only UC that has a position. Berkeley doesn’t have a commission board that has IAC’s role, so I can see the need for this position. This bill is redundant because IAC already does everything this bill does, it’s constitutionally mandated. This position attends all of our meetings. It feels like you’re creating a de-facto voting member of IAC. I have filed a case in the past, I filed a case against the Elections Committee in the past. It wasn’t political. The reason there’s no court cases because we can resolve conflicts internally. That’s a healthy way to approach this problem. This is a complete waste of time because court cases are rare in ASUCD. I am not in support of this bill, because there’s too many problems with it. This individual controls whether or not the Elections Committee does their job. I can’t support this, it’s too problematic.
Waaland: Have any sorts approached you explicitly stating that they feel uncomfortable filing a complaint and feel more comfortable if there was a court prosecutor?
Glass-Moore: No.
Waaland: Yield.
Glass-Moore: Everyone chill out. Focus on the language of the bill. This does not insult the court, this supplements the court. The fact is, the court is there to resolve complaints. It doesn’t have to do with the justices. Many commissions don’t take minutes. If you’re the protector of the bylaws, why don’t you oversee this?
Herskovitz: If you go to EAC, the best way for their meeting to run is not for people to write minutes every time.
Glass-Moore: So we infringe bylaws based on how commission runs? Sergio’s not going to be here forever. What’s the game plan? We’re going to rely on exceptional individuals? You’re going to write bylaws because you want them to have an impact far into the future, that is the point of this bill. Who’s going to uphold the Senate that passed the bill saying that commissions take minutes? Do you guys enforce all of the bylaws? The point of this commission is to know the bylaws front and back. My point is your commission is not supposed to check for bylaws being enforced.
Cano – Point of clarification – they have.
Glass-Moore: Okay. But-
Chau: This bill is still insulting.
Cano: Out of time.
Renslo: I think you have legitimate concerns. This bill stems from last election. However, this is overlegislation. It causes more harm than good. There are better solutions to this situation, like suing as a group. I see a lot of opposition to this. There’s a lot of negativity coming from this bill. I defer to Glass-Moore.
Glass-Moore: This doesn’t take away from any students. This doesn’t take away from anyone in ASUCD, it just gives the justices more power. Something to Chau…
Renslo: I just think this has more negatives than positives. Something can like this can be accomplished in a way that is less political.
Thomas: I take it back to the idea that students don’t care. This bill is more condescending than I would like. I would like to quote that “this isn’t about you…” This is very much about IAC! Who hunts the huntsperson? This is incredibly politicized position which is responsible to sniff out where the bylaws and constitution are being broken. I see this position as a very dangerous precedent because this job oversees a system that is apparently not working right now.
Glass-Moore: There is a chief justice. So what? Should we stop hiring chief justices?
Goss: The author gave a great example of abuse of this position. Some commission is not taking minutes, then a court case would have to be filed. Maybe Sergio can just be confronted after a meeting instead about taking minutes, despite contemplating killing me. Jefferson, do you think this case would be a waste of time?
Chau: Absolutely.
Thomas: The IAC commissioners revolve around enforcing bylaws. As an uninformed member of the public, that is how I feel about this issue.
Cano: Motion to go into commission discussion.
Commission Discussion
Cano: The Executive branch can enlist a Court Prosecutor. This is more about how the President is able to delegate anyone who tells people they’re not doing their job properly. This person could be the most hated person in ASUCD and they’re not getting paid, why get put into this position? As far as not filing bylaws, yes, some chairs may not fully read bylaws. There is still a learning curve, but there is improvement. B&F takes minutes, OA takes minutes. You could just ask people for minutes. There’s something written into the IAC Codes called Legislative Audits that says we can tell people what to do. You waste an individual’s time for three weeks to run the same result.
Call this bill to question; withdrawn.
Glass-Moore: Don’t just listen to Justin. All of you have an equal voice. This bill upholds the bylaws. Every government that has a legal system has a Court Prosecutor. It doesn’t let individuals sue each other and enforce each other’s shit. UC Berkeley has it. This sounds like you guys don’t want to give up your power, but this doesn’t take power away. If we went through the bylaws today and find examples of stuff that hasn’t been followed. That’s the point of a district attorney, it takes no power from the court or the Elections Committee! This will bring evidence to the court, and if it’s biased evidence, Senate can run closed session. The court can drop the case if they want. This only provides more responsibility, look at the merits of the bill, instead of what people are yelling.
Cano: Once upon a time, there was a president who did improper hiring procedures. An individual who wasn’t hired filed a case. The president didn’t attend the court case, and the president re-interviewed. This lead to two weeks of drama by the Aggie and the result was the same. Berkeley’s in UCSA, they have things we don’t, etcetc. Defer to Topf.
Topf: Just to put things in perspective, not every student on campus is an ASUCD student. Not every student knows that bylaws exist. Your job as people sitting on a commission is to think for the people. You all are comfortable in ASUCD, many students aren’t. This position gives students comfort to do something anonymously because ASUCD scares many people. The court is there for a reason, not every case is a big case, not every case is resolved, so we shouldn’t hear from them? This justifies why IAC and the Court exists. This position works with IAC and the Court. If your problem is that it’s insulting to students, that’s fixable. There’s ways to make it not insulting. It can only better the students if you make the language more comfortable to students.