Special Elections set, grievance dismissed
The ASUO Special Elections will be this Wednesday and Thursday. Voting will take place on Duckweb. Here is Con Court’s per curium opinion on the proposed ballot measure, here is the ballot measure, and here is the OC’s Special Elections Issue, which still has about half of the 1,500 run on stands, damnit.
In other news, Con Court has dismissed without prejudice the grievance against ASUO President Emily McLain and Vice President Chii-San SunOwen.
The grievance, filed by Freshman Caroline Beranek on March 11, was decided upon on March 19 and published today, March 30. The petitioner claimed non-fulfillment of duties, a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the ASUO Constitution, against both Executive members, but Con Court ruled Article 5 § 4 clearly states that the duties it describes are the responsibility of the President.
The Petitioner has produced no evidence that a designee was selected to carry out the duties of Article 5 § 6 let alone that said designee was the Vice President.
The petitioner also produced no evidence the President delegated any of said duties, according to the ruling.
Therefore there is no basis for the Petitioner to bring a case against the ASUO Vice President Chii-San SunOwen.
The Court would also like to note that there is a difference between when someone is appointed to a position and when said appointment is confirmed. For example the President could appoint a person to a vacant position within the required time period only to have that person not be confirmed by the Student Senate until after the time period is over. Therefore providing evidence of when someone is confirmed in no way indicates when they were appointed.
Well, isn’t that special?
Sorry, it was that or a Special Olympics joke.
In any case, I still think someone should stage a bloodless coup of the ASUO.
Not that I’m necessarily against a bloody coup, mind you.
The Con Court is, essentially, ruled by dumbfucks currently. I miss the days of Tony McCoun.
Just another long lesson in the Con Court not really caring. Not surprising really, they’re just looking for something to put on the resume when they’re out shopping for Summer Associate positions. Also, it is unlikely that any of them can read.
How is the ruling going to state that the evidence did not indicate that the appointment did not occur outside of the alloted time frame, when that was provided in the DEFENSE! The ruling says this when elaborating the difference between allowable times for appointment as opposed to confirmation, but in her own f*ing defense it was admitted that the time frame for APPOINTMENT was well past the allowable time. More ASUO bullshit