Dave Endleman's statment to the Constitutional Council raises two
questions regarding our petition.  To address his second point first, he
denies that actions of the CEO of SSE are subject to Constitutional
review, as the CEO is traditionally a former student, and therefore no
longer a member of the Association.  However this position neglects the
fact that the CEO does not act in a vacuum; the office is authorized by
the ASSU legislative bodies, and acts on their behalf.  The actions in
question were acts of an ASSU official acting for the joint legislative
bodies.  The Constitutional Council has already held (in case (5) from the
1999-2000 academic year) that the ASSU legislative bodies may not
authorize their employees to do what they themselves could not.  The
actions in question remain under the Constitutional Council's
jurisdiction, as do all acts of the Association legislative bodies.

	Ironically, his first point emphasizes this issue, citing the
Joint By-Laws as authorization for SSE to withhold the documents in
question.  Mr. Endleman's claim depends on three premises:

1) The By-Laws give the Board of Directors of SSE sole authority to deem
documents proprietary,

2) The Board of Directors of SSE did so for the documents in question, and

3) Our request was properly rejected in keeping with this.


	Although the failure of any of these claims would obligate SSE to
release the documents in question, all three are incorrect, and we shall
address them in order.

	We reject Mr. Endleman's interpretation of the governing
documents.  He cites a section 1 of the Association Financial Policies
(not, as he states, the By-Laws), which states that "The following
policies shall be determined by the Board of Directors of Stanford Student
Enterprises...a specification of what information held by Stanford Student
Enterprises may be considered proprietary."  He interprets this as giving
the Board of Directors of SSE exclusive authority over which documents are
proprietary, without any Constitutional review.

	The joint legislative bodies have no ability to amend the
Constitution by fiat, nor may the delegate that power to another body.  
Yet Mr. Endleman claims that the joint legislative bodies (and their
designee) have unlimited authority, beyond any Constitutional review, to
redefine the term proprietary.  This power would allow them to amend away
all public scrutiny by simply declaring every document proprietary.

	The correct interpretation of the Association Financial Policies
is that they specify a process by which the Association specifies that a
document is proprietary.  Such documents must actually be proprietary, in
the English meaning of the term, since otherwise the document could not be
shielded from the public without violating the Constitution.

	According to Mr. Endleman's statements to the Undergraduate
Senate, as of last Spring, when the acts in question occured, the Board of
Directors had not declared the documents in question, or any documents,
proprietary.  Section 3 of the Association Financial Policies requires
that "Each year during the Autumn Quarter, the Financial Manager shall
publish the texts of the policies specified above, and shall distribute
copies to the Association legislative bodies."  Certainly this did not
happen last Autumn.

	In fact, again based on Mr. Endleman's comments to the
Undergraduate Senate, his predecessor declared the documents proprietary
after discussing the matter with the Chair of the Board of Directors.  
Section 3.14 of SSE's charter states that "If the Chair and the President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company (the "CEO") determine that
action of the Board of Directors is required before its next regular
meeting, then the following, when in unanimous agreement, shall have and
exercise the power of the Board of Directors in all matters: the Chair,
the CEO and any two other Directors, at least one of whom shall be a
student. Any action taken under these procedures shall be reported to the
Board of Directors at its next regular meeting."  No such body appears to
have been convened, so at the time our request was rejected, the documents
remained public according to the very procedures Mr. Endleman cites.

	While the documents may have subsequently been declared
proprietary (albeit in violation of the ASSU Constitution, as noted
above), such action took place well after our request was made (and so
does not apply to that request) and after it was rejected (and so does not
justify its rejection).

	Finally, even if his other claims were accepted, the fact remains
that SSE is obligated to respond to a request in a "timely, efficient
manner."  As Mr. Endleman admitted to the Undergraduate Senate, the month
long delay between receipt of our request and the response is
unconscionably long, and this violation again obligates SSE to release the
documents in question.

	We wish to emphasize that we are only attempting to address the
questions raised by SSE.  In particular, since SSE has yet to claim that
the documents in question are proprietary, we see no need to argue that
particular point.