Jonathan Rosenberg sent this letter out yesterday in response to the grievance filed by Brown.

Dear Constitution Court,

The meeting of June 13, 2007 was an emergency senate meeting called by student senators to make way for new appointments to the ASUO Senate, consider surplus funding requests, and formulate summer senate. As a result of this meeting, four appointees were confirmed to senate, thus enabling the senate to make quorum for summer session. Because this meeting took place during finals week, the staff member who normally took minutes during senate meetings was unable to attend the meeting. This staff member called me within a reasonable period of time and informed me that she would be unable to take minutes for the June 13th meeting. I unsuccessfully attempted to find someone who could act as a replacement. The controversy over June 13th began when I inattentively forgot to appoint a senator to take minutes for that meeting.

I do not dispute the overall content of the grievance filed against me. I take full responsibility for not appointing someone to take minutes during the meeting of June 13, 2007. However, for the purpose of good record keeping, I would like to correct several critical errors contained within the grievance.

First, my term of office expired on June 14th of this year, exactly one day after the meeting at issue. This neither changes the fact that I neglected to appoint someone to take minutes, nor does it absolve me of responsibility for having continued the meeting in error. It is only to point out that all information concerning my actions after June 14th is irrelevant to this grievance – I had absolutely no power or accountability to make changes following that date.

Second, the grievance incorrectly states (at the top of the attached minutes) that the minutes were “submitted… by former Senator Jonathan Rosenberg.” Given that I was not in office when the minutes for the June 13 meeting were submitted, I take no responsibility for the submission of those minutes. They were submitted by another senator. While I did in fact write the incomplete minutes which are attached to the grievance, they were never intended to be submitted in that format. It should be noted that the “blank” lines you see in the minutes were intended to be filled in by other senators. I had no idea these minutes would be submitted as is. I fully expected them to be modified to the best recollection of other senators who were present.

Third, it must be made clear that the minutes which were submitted on June 15 were not crafted by the ASUO Executive. While I did speak with the executive over the phone about their recollections of the meeting, they in no way contributed to the attached minutes. Not only were their recollections inadequate for the minutes, but they made it very clear to me that the minutes were a senate issue. I was promptly referred to the then Summer Senate Chair.

Fourth, it is important to note that legal counsel advised the ASUO Senate that taking minutes from recollection was an option (this is according to a conversation I had with an ASUO official; I was not present at the meeting with legal counsel). While recollection is no doubt a very poor way to take minutes, it was the only option student senators had short of calling a post-finals week meeting. This important point is omitted within the grievance.

Furthermore, the grievance gives the impression that voting records for the meeting were not kept. This is incorrect. I submit to the court my certification that voting records for both funding allocations and appointments and confirmations were kept and subsequently filed in the bottom right-hand drawer of the former senate desk. Incidental Fee Allocation Memos were submitted according to those voting records. The voting records should still be available assuming they have not been reorganized from their former “pile.”

I do not dispute that the minutes submitted for the June 13 meeting are incomplete. I do not dispute that I hold responsibility for not appointing someone to take minutes for the June 13 meeting. But I would warn the Constitution Court that the pretenses for invalidating the June 13 meeting may be political in nature. If the June 13 meeting is invalidated, the four senators who were appointed and confirmed on June 13 would have to be re-confirmed. The funding for Oregon Marching band would also have to be invalidated. Furthermore, the actions of summer senate would not be valid, and all decisions made during the June 13th meeting up to the time you make your ruling would also have to be ruled invalid. I respectfully ask that you fully consider the implications of your decision. I also ask that you examine all possible resolutions to this grievance, especially those which would not invalidate the nature and content of senate business since June 13. Keeping in mind these possible repercussions, I question why this grievance was not filed when I had recently departed office.

Finally, I ask the court to consider what limitations there are or should be (if any) on grievances filed against individuals who are no longer involved in programs. The Green Tape Notebook does not seem to indicate what or who a grievance can be filed against, except to outline procedures for grievances against program members. So I ask you the question: are private students subject to grievances?
Respectfully Submitted,

Jonathan Rosenberg

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 26th, 2007 at 13:27 by Ossie and is filed under ASUO, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.