ACFC Budget Fun Continues (UPDATED)
I was going to write a lovely story about how ACFC’s budget was passed without an OSPIRG contract last night during a special Senate meeting (by a vote of 9-8) but intervening circumstances have intervened. Besides, you’ve read the same quotes from the same people about the same aspects of the PIRG time and time again. I can say it was an interesting meeting for sure, if for no other reason than that almost no one was there. The only audience members besides myself and Mr. Bains were ASUO Finance Coordinator Colleen Soles and an unidentified blonde middle-aged woman.
According to an email from Sen. Janet Brooks to the Constitution Court, ASUO President Amelie Rousseau vetoed the budget this morning. Brooks argues to the court that because the Senate budget was passed by the final deadline of March 29 dictated by the Court in an email to Senators accompanying their decision in 30 C.C. (2010-2011). Brooks continues to say that Rousseau did not veto the budget by the March 29 deadline, and thus the budget as passed by the Senate last night should be considered valid.
The Senate will attempt to override the veto this evening during their regularly scheduled meeting, but if the vote goes as the last one did, there will not be enough votes to override.
If that occurs, it is unknown what will happen next. Presumably, Concourt will give Rousseau the authority to write a budget, which will almost certainly include some sort of OSIPRG Contract.
UPDATE – The following email chain was accidentally send to the the entire “concourtdecision” listserv:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Andrae Washington <andrae@uoregon.edu>
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Subject: concourtdecision: Re: URGENT: ACFC Veto
To: Nicholas B Schultz <nschult1@uoregon.edu>
Cc: concourtdecision@lists.uoregon.edu
You can address it. I think the senate can present the budget to the state. Alternatively, if the deadline is passed and the senate takes no action whatsoever then the budget will go directly to the hands of University administration. I don’t see anyway the President can grab the budget in time. The Senate has vetoed twice and the senate has overridden the decision. The deference provided to the Senate in the Clark document makes it clear that they are the legislative branch in charge of the budget. The President only get the budget-in my opinion–when the Senate evidence inaction. Since the Senate has made itself clear the budget veto is valid. However, in the absence of anything further actions the budget likely stays as is and goes to University Admin.
In all honestly I am going to be overwhelmed with ROTC stuff so, just make sure you edit the opinion well and you can send it out yourself. To announce a decision you send your email to courtdecision@lists.uoregon.edu.
Good luck,
Andrae
On Mar 30, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Nicholas B Schultz wrote:
Hey Andrae,
Yeah I can write the opinion. I agree with most of your points…we did say the deadline was 3/31 so they have time to override the veto until midnight. Should I address what will happen after that time frame, based on what the justices say? Or should i just say they have until the 31st and uphold the legitimacy of the President’s veto
–Nick
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:34:38 -0700, Andrae Washington wrote:
Hey Nick,
I emailed before I was done. How about you write this opinion. We likely have it out tonight. I will edit it quickly once you are done. In my reading of the ASUO constitution the Senate can submit the budget directly the oregon board of higher education. They also maintain a veto override, so they still have tomorrow to hold another meeting. We set their deadline as the 31st. The 29th was too hold a ACFC vote. Now that the Prez has vetoed again they have till 12am on the 31st to override the veto. This is all laid out in the GTN and the Clark document,
On Mar 30, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Andrae Washington wrote:
FROM: Andrae Washington
DATE: March 30, 2011 3:17:15 PM PDT
TO: Jerrett C. Glass
SUBJECT: RE: URGENT: ACFC VETO
it goes back to senate for veto override
On Mar 30, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Jerrett C. Glass wrote:
Concourt,
How I see it 5.6 still applies, the president vetoed the budget meaning the deadline is not met. I don’t see an alternative to giving Amelie power of the budget unless we ignore 5.6 or some other twisting of the words of the GTN. Does anyone else come out with a different outcome?
-Jerrett
E-mail fail!
This just in, the fate is in the hands of Schultz. God save us all
While I have not actually met this Nick Schultz fellow, I can tell you this, I have reviewed his record. It appears to me that he is likely a pacifist to special interests, and he has a weak mind. Members of the court consider him to base his writing style off of Supreme Court Justice Stevens but think he looks more like Kagan. He is an ambitious person, and I would suspect would strangle a puppy to become Chief Justice. He intends to use Con Court on his resume, but fails to realize that his future employers shan’t be impressed. Rather, they will disregard him and his mediocre grades as the rubbish they are. HE WILL WRITE THIS OPINION TO GIVE OSPIRG THE CASH-O-LA, because he is predictably weak. His hair cut is neat and clean, however, several members of this crummy institution believe that we could look better with a long flowing mane, or dreadlocks.
MOST IMPORTANTLY IN THE RECORD, the fact that he does not recuse himself from this case is shameless, and grounds for impeachment or sanctions by the law school. He has voted repeatedly in favor of OSPIRG and ran a failed campaign to run for president “True Blue” I believe it was called where he promised to fund this organization. SHAME ON YOU SCHULTZ AND YOUR FAILED POLICIES. Recuse yourself now! Do not go down this yellow brick road, because it is covered in shit. The shit hawks are coming, swooping and a screeching, and they’re coming for you, the shut hawks.