Comments on: ASUO Senate Rules Cmte. Resolves to Make Resolutions

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 04:25:12 +0000

Respectful banter. Great site. -Tony L.

http://oregonrepublicanleague.blogspot.com

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:13:36 +0000

I meant "exhaustive" in a good way because I like verbosity, dammit. Don't turn into Glenn Reynolds on us.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:58:26 +0000

I don’t know how to respond any other way. There’s details that can’t be omitted. Next time I’ll try and be more brief.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:42:32 +0000

Nick,

Your exhaustive reply is greatly appreciated. A proposal for an Iran resolution could be an interesting test of how the Senate (not to mention the Con Court) judges the two qualifiers of “direct interest” and “overwhelming majority.”

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:21:11 +0000

It seems you’ve gone off topic a bit, but I’ll address the points you made about “direct interest” and “overwhelming majority.” Just a reminder, though: I’m not advocating this. The great part of being in my position is that I don’t have to. On with the chlorophyle.
Direct interest and overwhelming majority weren’t meant to be separated. They are either both or neither, as I understand it. Wally Hicks thought that both of these terms, including their modifiers, were essential. He thought that if the Senate is going to have the authority to make issue resolutions (as opposed to budget resolutions) it should do so responsibly. You are absolutely right that it can be argued that killing Bush, banning homosexuality or creating a KKK group on campus are beneficial to the “cultural and physical development of the University.” But that is for three governing bodies to decide: Student Senate, Rules Committee and Constitution Court.
Further, Senator Kyle McKenzie said that the two-thirds majority rule change will make it so that MORE of the Senate will have to be in support.
When deciding what resolutions are in the direct interest of the overwhelming majority, senators said they will look to see how many people are offended by this. If it’s 51 percent, McKenzie said, that means that 49 percent could be furious. Now it’s not rocket surgery. These are elected officials who decide where several million dollars of student fees should go. If Senator Axelrod is correct in saying “we’re all smart people,” then the required debate will likely throw out resolutions that senators think are too far beyond a “direct impact” of students. Also, the Senate president can block items from being discussed if she thinks they are not germane, whether it be resolutions or DPS audits. The Iran resolution could pass, but we’ve already seen several senators opposing it because it would piss off or “disenfranchise” constituents. The other point is that it’s not gone unnoticed that there are no Muslim or Middle Eastern signatures on the petition.
Lastly, Executive has expressed no interest in this issue, personally or as a body. And so far this year the Executive and the Senate played nicely together.
Talk to Wally Hicks if this isn’t clear why the resolutions section was modified. He was highly skeptical, still may be a little. But he, too, was persuaded.

By: ian

ian — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:02:08 +0000

Uh huh.

By: Meghann

Meghann — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 23:25:53 +0000

No you don’t.

By: ian

ian — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:25:55 +0000

The only person messing with Nick Wilbur is the ODE’s website updater. I just wish I could go to every Student Senate and PFC meeting.

By: Meghann

Meghann — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:51:30 +0000

Yeah, that’s a requirement for all auxillaries. Of course, that doesn’t stop the University from taking funds from an auxillary and doing whatever they want with it. The only auxillary they really do that to is Housing. Housing has long been seen as a “stationary cash cow” for the University, according to past and present Housing officials.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:22:11 +0000

Meghann: Well then, I stand corrected.

Let them have their bread and circus.

That fact changes the discussion over to the more theoretical world of whether or not the University should be in the housing business at all.