Constitutional Council Submission

Bill,

This is an elaboration on the arguments in our original filing.

Our case can be summarized as follows: on April 20th, the ASSU
overturned the executive portion of the Spring Quarter General Election
based on various e-mails send after the start of voting.  As these
e-mails were protected speech, the ASSU cannot create any sort of
penalty based on them, including rejecting elections based on them. 
That means not only that the ASSU's vote to reject that portion of the
election is void (thereby voiding, for instance, the special election),
but that the entire certification procedure is void for purposes of this
election.

1) ASSU Motive

The ASSU's motivation for overturning the election is quite clear. 
While the only formal statement from the ASSU is that the reason was
"deviations" in the election process, context makes quite clear what
those deviations were: the e-mails were the only concern discussed at
either the April 13th or April 20th meetings of the Senate (minutes
attached as evidence).  In addition, the Election Commissions
recommendation (presented at the April 13th meeting) noted no other
potential problems other than the e-mails.  Finally, public discussion
both before and after the decision was also exclusively about the
e-mails--the following articles from the Stanford Daily (the only ones
to substantively discuss election controversy) all mention the e-mails,
and not one mentions any other "deviation":

http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13672&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13673&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13678&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13682&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13693&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13698&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13702&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13716&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13720&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13729&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13762&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13781&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13796&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13803&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13860&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13861&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13880&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13879&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13910&repository=0001_article
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13992&repository=0001_article

In light of this, it would require a fantastic act of fantasy to believe
Senate Chair Josh Shipp's statement that "[the certification] vote is
undertaken by each Senator independently within the framework of the
certification clause we've been discussing.  It represents the view of
those Senators and cannot be interpreted as any more or any less." 
Indeed, as the comments of the Senators who voted (for instance in
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13879&repository=0001_article) show, the e-mails were the sole matter at issue.

2) Protected Speech

The Constitutional Council has already established that restrictions on
the sending of e-mails and the time period campaigning takes place in
are both unconstitutional (Constitutional Council Case 5, 1999-2000
session).

3) Bad Faith

As defined by the Constitutional Council, the definition of bad faith is
met if the Senate either knowingly violated the Constitution, or showed
a lack of concern as to whether it was following the Constitution.

In this case, there is ample evidence that at least some of the people
responsible knew the Senate was violating the Constitution: in
particular, it is hard to interpret Senate Chair Josh Shipp's comments
to the Senate before the vote as anything other than an attempt to
protect from scrutiny an act he knew to be unconstitutional.  This is
particularly true since Shipp was warned in advance of the
Constitutional concerns.  Moreover, the fact that it has been only four
years since the Council originally clarified that neither the existence
nor timing of e-mails are legitimate subjects for regulation means that
the Senate should have been aware that it lacked justification to
overturn the election.  The Senate's obligation to consider
Constitutional precedent is even stronger given that they took an
unprecdented action, and overrode the Election Commission's
recommendation to do so.

However we ask that the Constitutional Council make a particularly
narrow finding of bad faith, namely that the refusal to sign (and in
some cases, active opposition to) this case is sufficient to show a
disregard for the Constitution.

There should not have been any question as to whether this case would be
heard; the issues raised are serious--the results of an ASSU
Presidential Election--and the complainant legitimate.  The fact that
questions of free speech and Constitutionality were raised repeatedly in
the discussion leading up to the Senate's vote demonstrates that the
ASSU knew there were potential Constitutional problems.  While being
aware of the possibility of a Constitutional question is not proof of
bad faith, being aware of the possibility and attempting to prevent
review by the Constitutional Council is.

Indeed, when Mefford tried to bring his case, he met substantial
opposition: ASSU President Nadiya Figueroa didn't even respond to an
e-mail asking her to let the case go forward, and Shipp and Allison both
publicly opposed the case, discouraging others from signing it.  Given
that the only alternative to ASSU approval is the collection of more
than 700 signatures from the student body (burdensome in the best of
circumstances, utterly infeasible in the time frame available for this
case), a successful boycott of the case would have prevented any
Constitutional review.

This lack of interest in seeing serious Constitutional problems sorted
out--indeed, active resistence to it--shows an utter disregard for
whether or not the Senate's vote was Constitutional, and therefore
should be taken as evidence of bad faith.

4) Stemming Acts

Clearly the Special Election stems from the vote not to certify, as
failure to certify is a necessary prerequisite for holding a Special
Election.

5) Certification

Steve Allison has claimed that a President cannot take office without an
affirmative vote of the legislative bodies, and that the legislative
bodies can unconstitutionally bar a President from office by merely
withholding that vote.  If this were true, the ASSU could refuse to fund
student groups based on religious or political grounds, since it
requires an affirmative vote to allocate money to student groups. 
Indeed, the ASSU could mandate that every candidate for office be
approved by the ASSU in a special meeting immediately before voting
started, and then refuse to approve candidates who "violated" the exact
set of election rules the Constitutional Council struck down four years
ago.

Fortunately, this is not the case.  The certification procedure is a
construct of the joint legislative bodies, and when the joint
legislative bodies grant themselves powers, those powers are also
subject to Constitutional review.  Indeed, if the ASSU could create an
effective ban on protected speech by selectively withholding
certification, the conclusion would be that the entire certification
process is unconstitutional.  It is not, however, necessary to
universally invalidate the certification process.  Instead, the process
is void only where it has been unconstitutionally applied; in this case,
that means the certification process does not apply to the executive
portion of the Spring Quarter General Election, and therefore the
results of that election stand without further scrutiny from the
legislative bodies.

Associated Students of Stanford University
Fifth Undergraduate Senate
Minutes: April 13, 2004

Senators
JES Josh Shipp, Chair
AM Alex Moore
AS Alyssa Schwartz
CL Chris Lin
DM Dylan Mefford
GH George Hill
IC Ian Carmichael
JQS Jason Sinocruz
LL Lindsay Love
NB Noriko Boyd
NM Nicole Mazanitis
SR Shyam Ravindran
SSW Sandeep Wasan
STW Stanley Wilson
TJ Theresa Johnson

Others who Appear in Minutes
Nadiya Nadiya Figueroa, President of ASSU
Joey Joey Natoli, VP of ASSU
Nanci Nanci Howe, Representative of the Office of Student Affairs
Hunter Hunter Hargraves, NomCom Chair
Kyle Kyle Alisharan, Financial Manager
Piotr Piotr Kosicki, Publications Director

Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm.

Item 2: Roll Call
Present: JES, AM, AS, CL, DM, IC, LL, NB, NM, SSW, STW
Late:
Not Present: GH, TJ

Item 3: Approval of the Minutes
The minutes are approved.

Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda
The agenda is approved.

Item 5: Open Forum

Item 6: Report of Financial Manager

Item 7: Report of the Treasurer

(IC) Nothing too much but some budget mods coming up. I got an updated budget yesterday. We still have money. I will forward it out to the list.

Item 8: Report of the President and Vice President

(Joey) Spring Thing is well underway. We will be coming to ask for money because it will be an expensive event. It will be really fun if everything goes as planned. There will be rides, food, class competition, a concert. Tentatively it is scheduled for May 15th.

Item 9: Report from NomCom

Item 10: Report from Publications Director

(Piotr) We have a new Pub Director that will be announced tomorrow at the spring quarter meeting. We will also have an assistant pub director this year. Thanks to Nadiya and JES for helping read applications.

Item 11: Report of the Deputy Chair

Item 12: Report of the Press Secretary

Item 13: Report of the ASSU Dorm Rep/Frosh Council

Item 14: Report of the Deans

(Nanci) For some of you, the capital planning and management office is doing a workshop on making some design changes to White Plaza. Some of you may already have gotten an invitation. If you want to come please email me at nanhowe@stanford.edu. Also, the Dean of Students is accepting applications for the Lyons students award. We are also doing a similar award for student groups through OSA. I encourage you to nominate people for both of the awards.

Item 15: Committee Reports

Life
No report because no meeting.

Appropriations
Have some bills this week and some budget modifications. Programming we have overspent but that is fine. We have not actually spent what has been allocated for community service.

Advocacy
Tell people to apply for VSO of the Year Award. Apps are due April 26. Meeting Sunday at 3 to put together what we think that next years committee should know.

(JES) That should go for all committeeswe should pass on our knowledge. Please do this over the course of the next week and a half so that we can transfer it over to the new senate.

A&R
We have a bill. I hope that you had a chance to look at it. If there are problems, then we will discuss and then vote next week. Last meeting is tomorrow at 8:30.

Item 16: Action Items

16.1 Appropriations Bills

Allocation Bills (V-AP-256 thru V-AP-263) PASS BY CONSENSUS together as a packet

Budget Modifications (V-AP-264 thru V-AP-268) PASS BY CONSENSUS together as a packet except the special fees groups

Special fees groups budget modifications (V-AP-269 thru V-AP-272) PASS BY CONSENSUS

16.2 Publications Senate By-Law Amendment

(SSW) The point of this bill is to bring the way we have been doing things over the past couple years in line with the bylaws. We have worked on this in conjunction with Piotr to make sure that they fit what actually happens in practice with the publications community.

(NB) I have a concern in that the non-funded pubs are more skeptical about funding newly formed pubs because it seems like they have forgotten what is required for a starting up publication. I think that it makes it a lot harder for these new pubs to get funding.

(Piotr) That is why we want to have the pub director, the assistant pub director, the OSA rep and the Senate rep to bring that perspective into the meetings.

BILL V-AR-4 PASSES 8-0-2

16.3 Toy Drive Bill

BILL V-4 PASSES 10-0-1

16.4 Presentation on Special Fees Reform

16.5 Election Certification Discussion

(Ellie Martin) I dont to repeat things. Since Friday we have been looking at the numbers and voting trends, we did not find any correlation between voting trends and the email sent by Nick Rodriguez. We have also compiled complaints and have been discussing how we will participate in any action taken by Judicial Affairs. I have a tentative bill up there that could perhaps be voted on next week. The governing documents are vague about how to re-run another election. We are not sure what would happen if you certified only part of the election and then how we could re-run the process. Because of free speech, we can not punish people for violations. The only thing that we can do is to disqualify people/slates who make especially egregious violations. I think that perhaps the rules should be clarified in the future because everyone now knows that rules can be broken without any consequences. Overall, my suggestion is to certify the results.

(Alida Garcia) My suggestion is also to certify the results. The biggest problem this year was that the violations happened during the voting period. Basically we were rushed into emergency meetings with OSA, the slates, and the current executive trying to figure out what to do. There were 3 controversial emails. The first was sent by the Junior Class presidents at 1 am after voting starts requested by the Lee/Mefford Slate. I responded to the person whos account the email came from and sent a retraction that I asked her to send out. Then the junior class presidents went through an entire discussion about who instigated this. Another of the junior class presidents sent us an email with comments saying he/she was not comfortable with endorsing a slate. Around the same time, another email was sent out by the Senior Class Presidents and I learned about it around 11 am. I sent a retraction statement around 1pm. They were not cooperative at all and delayed the retraction statement until about 5:30. At this time, Mikey had taken himself out of this discussion so it was mainly the other 2 presidents. In response to these emails, we started getting many complaints. After this, there was an email sent out to the diaspora list. We do not have any links to the Husbands/Schwartz campaign from this email. It appears to be a Husbands/Schwartz supporter. Then you all know about the Rodriguez email since you all got it. I feel that had the campaign guidelines said that endorsement emails were considered campaigning then I would have done what I could to disqualify them. But they were under the impression that they werent campaigning. Everything that I think about this is in gray areas. That is why I think that the election should be certified. This is very frustrating because it is getting away with a technicality and reading between the lines to get elected. I blame ourselves in underestimating how Stanford students read rules and guidelines and I think that there should be major reforms for the future. The guidelines explain what constitutes campaigning and what does not. The problem was that personal emails were sent from the Lee/Mefford campaign to people who did not want to receive these emails through lists. This is another violation. The other problem is the idea of endorsements. There are no guidelines to follow about the new types of endorsements that came out this year. This turned into a game of endorsements and email lists. We obviously dont think that this is the right way to run a campaign but there is nothing in the CPC that disallows this. We never envisioned this at all nad I was on the Elections Commission last year also.

(Michael Brown II) Looking at the Senate as the last representative body to look at the issues after the election was done, I think that you would be in the best position not to certify the election results. The biggest reason not to certify would be in the joint bylaws article 5. Especially considering the egregiousness of the campaign violations, I think that these emails must have affected the voting. I think that letting this stand and not correcting it will definitely affect the reputation of the ASSU. We want to make sure that we do the right thing even if it is the difficult decision to make.

(Mikey Lee) I would like to address the junior class slate email. We got the endorsement expecting that they would send an email. First, we did not think that the email would be that negative. When we sent our own emails after 12, we followed the parts that explained what was not campaigning. We would not have done this if endorsements were explicitly not included. Regarding the junior class email, I did not call anyone on the slate to remind them to send an email out to the list.

(JES) You felt that the email was an endorsement email not a campaign email. When did you find out that it was going to be emailed to the list?

(Mikey Lee) We found out when it was sent out. We did not plan for them to send it out at a specific time.

(IC) How did you meet with them? How were differing opinions taken into account?

(Mikey Lee) We met mostly with Alex.

(Rashene Taha) I remember hearing directly from you that it was going to be sent at 12. You sat up in the meeting and said directly that that would be the next phase starting at 12:01 am.

(Mikey Lee) We did not know when it would be sent. I think that you are misunderstanding me. We knew that the email was going to get sent because that was the second phase of the endorsement. We did not tell them when to send it.

(NB) My understanding of endorsement is

(Ellie) There is a difference between affiliation and endorsement. What Mikey and Dillon think that they did this year is like what the Daily does in endorsing campaigns. They got away from affiliations like have been used in the past.

(JES) There is also a difference in the case of the junior class presidents is that they are officials who are elected and are using lists that they came into possession of through their positions.

(NM) I feel like the public reads these emails as campaigning and does not recognize the difference between these and endorsements.

(Alida) That is why we sent out retractions right away alerting voters to who the candidates are and to vote and make their own personal decisions.

(IC) For the elections commission, there is this general feeling that it would reflect badly upon the ASSU to not reflect badly to not certify the election. Why would it look bad to not certify when it could also look bad to certify potentially bad elections?

(Alida) I think that it looks bad either way. In terms of the whole process, it has made people who do care about all this really upset. Obviously, if you are upset about the process then it will carry on throughout the work being done throughout the next year. Perhaps it might carry over to animosity to people in office, and the Senate and the elections commission for certifying bad results.

(Ajani Husbands) I am of the opinion that the Senate should not certify the elections. I think that the violations have been egregious and they are tied with the Lee/Mefford slate. In the meeting with the elections commission, Lee admitted to knowing about the junior and senior class emails as well as over 100 unsolicited emails to many people who did not want them. Also, there are issues about junior class making endorsements, etc.

(Mikey Lee) Trying to clarify. We were assuming that they were going to send an email to the class list telling people to vote and having a one line endorsement of us. We did not tell them to send it at a specific time. They agreed to do it. We did not tell them explicitly what to say either.

(JES) Is this the same with the Senior Class list also? You assumed that it was the same with the junior class list.

(Mikey) When we had not received it before voting, then we just assumed it would come out after 12:01.

(SSW) I dont think that the email affecting voting should be taken into account. Ellie said that there was no correlation to be found. My main problem is not who we are certifying but that we need to send a clear message to the student body. We need to send a clear message that anything does NOT go in future elections. I have talked to people who have said that they have been so illusioned with the whole process that when it came down to voting that they abstained because they did not want to do. The ASSUs image by showing that we have no backbone is worse than not doing anything. We must do something to show that we have a backbone and that we wont tolerate this nonsense in the future.

(Omar) I feel that this debate is going in the long direction. I think that we should not look at how the ASSU is perceived. We need to look at these violations and make a decision. We cannot make decisions based on how people will perceive us. I think that we need to look at the violations and see how they affected the election. I think also we need to not look at this by the individual slates but the violations that took place outside of who they were in support of/who they hurt.

(AM) I am just curious what the margin was for the election. Also, if you dont certify the election then what do you do?

(JES) There would be a special election. You can certify part of the election and the part that is not would be held through a special election. If both bodies do not approve, then the parts not approved would be null and void. We can separate out if we decide.

(Hunter) Mikey and Dillon had said earlier that they did solicit the class presidents to send out an email but when Val sent out the email that was sent on her own volition. By saying that should not be attributed to them seems a little shaky. The problem that I have is that Mikey was a senior class president and did have ownership of the list. It seems a little fishy that it was sent out on their own without any influence from part of their slate. I thin that the ASSU in the last 4 years has undergone an incredible slump by how its perceived here by both the administration and the student body. I think as senators you should take into account what other people will think. Certifying these results may send the statement that anything goes and passing the whole buck off to next years elections commission.

(NM) I think that the certification process exists for reasons like this. We cant say we just certify everything because it makes us look bad. If someone does something wrong, then that is why the process exists.

(Matt Henick) I think that even if there are reforms in the pipes for next year, there is no message being sent to next years candidates if you certify. I think that there should be real action taken. Please do not certify.

(Alida) I want to point out that in the CPC it says something about ignorance and misinterpretation would not be a valid excuse. Mikeys statement about assuming that it was going to be a short line endorsement, the senior class list had a 5 line email and Mikey was part of that slate. I am so angered by all this. I feel so bad for Nadiya who has to end her awesome term on this note. She is loved by everyone, the students, the administration, etc. You guys are elected by the students to deal with issues like this.

(Ellie) I agree with Alida. You guys understand why we recommend to certify because we were acting as our role as the commission and wanted to leave it up to the elected officials to decide. If you do not certify then you will obviously be making a statement. I also want you to know that if you do certify, that you can still make a statement by going to the university and allege violations of fundamental standard. Please keep in mind that this is another recourse to reform this situation.

(Nanci) I just wanted to comment on university policy. There are specific policies under computer usage, this would help with how to regulate elections in the future. The registrar has written to me that the use of the junior and senior class email list are violations of the fundamental standard because they are not subscribable lists. Regarding free speech, it is legal to regulate time, place and manner of speech just as a clarification.

(JES) I think that many people agree that there are some cases to be brought before judicial affairs and other campus offices that will likely be successful. This has been brought up in the past, I received an email from Henry Townsner reminding me of this fact.

(Joey) My only thoughts on all this: when I campaigned, I was almost paranoid about email lists. When I hear the discussion about the email not having gone out by 12, then I would have been making sure that it would not have gone out. Once we get past these first issues, I worry about the future of the ASSU. While punishment would send a message, would we also be weakening it for the future? We need to do a cost-benefit analysis on this to see how much damage we might do for the future of the ASSU.

(IC) I would really appreciate before we vote to certify/or not, if the commission could send out a list/document of the violations that occurred, the emails, what appeared in the Daily as well as possibly the email from the registrar. I think that having these documents in front of us when we vote is important.

(Nadiya) It is not our job to be liked by the students- it is our job to do work for students. The best advice that we got was you run your campaign how you work in office. I have seen a lack of integrity in this entire process and people will not forget that.

(AM) It seems to me that it would be hard not to certify because that would imply having another election. Having another election would have to be detailed out and completely outline. What if you have another election and you have similar problem again?

(Eleanor) Since this wont be voted on until next meeting, please dont be swayed by what you hear.

(JES) But on the same side, please go out and talk to people and educate yourself about what people want to see. But also please maintain your integrity.

(Ellie) Also, anyone can email us with more questions.

(Piotr) It seems like me that the entire discussion has been divided into 2 areas: pragmatic issues of what we can do (reputation, longevity, functionality, alternatives that exist to rectify the situation) and then actions taken during the actual process of the election (fundamental standard, culpability either to the candidates or people affiliated with them). I feel like any questions of culpability are irrelevant to the certification process. There is the certification of this election and then there are reforms for the future. Future reforms is where culpability should be addressed in my opinion. Obviously, we need to worry about how the ASSU functions. It is unavoidable that some candidates will be scared and affected in the future. To me, the compromised part of the election should not be certified. But the actual certification process should come out of questions about the situation that we have but not the details.

(NB) I dont want people to make their decision based on what is most difficult. Even though it might take a special election, please dont vote against it just because it is hard.

(Ajani) You can look at this situation 2 ways: egregious violations post midnight or a huge gray area still of violations. Either way I dont know how you can certify these results.

(Mikey) Yes we have a crappy situation. We dont know how these emails affected people. Yes all of this is bad. If we run another election it still all exists. Whatever you think is just, fair then Ill go along with it. Running a re-election is still unfair. The damage has been done. At this point, making it fair you have to come to terms with.

(Ellie) As far as the special election goes, I am not saying that you should not do it because it is hard but because I am not sure that it is going to be fair. Next week you will probably certify the rest of the results and you guys will be gone. We will need lots of help to arrange a fair election so if you dont certify then please stay around because you could potentially put us into an even bigger mess. Without your help, we will have a huge disaster on our hands.

(SSW) This is what tomorrows A&R meeting will be focused on. This is all that we will be discussing. Please email that you want to come so we will know how many to expect.

(Bob Sensenbrenner) I represent a group that did not endorse either of the slates. Last time, I was here I saw a senator resign because he was so disillusioned with the body. I think institutional integrity is a good thing. But what about the students who have to vote in the next election? I think that they will be doubly confused. I think that goes towards institutional integrity as well. I think that the future of CPC should include better definitions and more indepth explanations to help avoid this in the future.

I think that there is a difference between the diaspora email list (of 700 people) and the junior, senior class lists and the Nick Rodriguez email that reached 10,000+ people. We are talking about 300 votes between the slates and I dont think that there can be any reason to think that these emails did not affect the outcome. Please take a stand and dont look scared and lacking a backbone if you shy away from a special election.

The thing that comes out of this election is that the CPC has problems. I think saying that emails sway people is to say that they dont think for themselves and make their own decisions. Also, I think that overturning elections would set a bad precedent. I think you have to think about whether it is worth holding another election. I think another election would be problematic.

(JES) Along the precedent lines, it could set a precedent that this wont be tolerated but also that anyone could come along with a small complaint and ask to have the results not certified.

(Kyle) How many of the past elections have been contested?

(Omar) About the potential of having a special election. With all the press that will go on, students will lose sight of the issues and will turn into who committed the most egregious violations.

(Joey) If the approval of the executive is delayed, then would the next senate certify? That seems like passing the problem to another year.

Item 17: Old Business

Item 18: New Business

Item 19: Closing Remarks

Item 20: Kudos

Item 21: Executive Session

Item 22: Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Fifth Undergraduate Senate
April 13, 2004

Associated Students of Stanford University
Fifth Undergraduate Senate
Minutes: April 20, 2004

Senators
JES Josh Shipp, Chair
AM Alex Moore
AS Alyssa Schwartz
CL Chris Lin
DM Dylan Mefford
GH George Hill
IC Ian Carmichael
JQS Jason Sinocruz
LL Lindsay Love
NB Noriko Boyd
NM Nicole Mazanitis
SR Shyam Ravindran
SSW Sandeep Wasan
STW Stanley Wilson
TJ Theresa Johnson

Others who Appear in Minutes
Nadiya Nadiya Figueroa, President of ASSU
Joey Joey Natoli, VP of ASSU
Nanci Nanci Howe, Representative of the Office of Student Affairs
Hunter Hunter Hargraves, NomCom Chair
Kyle Kyle Alisharan, Financial Manager
Piotr Piotr Kosicki, Publications Director

Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm.

Item 2: Roll Call
Present: JES, AM, AS, CL, DM, IC, LL, NB, NM, SSW, STW
Late:
Not Present: GH, TJ

Item 3: Approval of the Minutes
The minutes are approved.

Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda
The agenda is approved.

Item 5: Open Forum

Item 6: Report of Financial Manager

(Kyle) We have a budget which we will be talking about later.

Item 7: Report of the President and Vice President

(Joey) Spring Thing is well underway. The freshmen are working hard on it. Next week I will be bringing budget modifications for ASSU executive. Also I will be asking for senate money. We are putting a ton of money into it and we would like to see a ton of money too from you.

Item 8: Report from Publications Director

(Piotr) I have the pleasure of introducing new and assistant pub directors for next year. Kristine as the assistant pub director and Matthew as the Pub Director.

Item 9: Report of the Deans

(Nanci) Thank you to all of you senators hard work. I want to introduce Laura Harrison who will be working with me with the next senate.

Item 10: Committee Reports

A&R
Met last Wednesday. Sent out the minutes. We will be talking about it later. I will update the docs before we switch over.

Advocacy
Working on the transition things. Please let me know about comments, suggestions, etc.

Appropriations
Working also on a transition document. Let LL know if have information.

Life
Met and also putting together a packet for next years Senate. Trying to get together all of Stanford Saver stuff.

Teacher of the Year
Have a lot of nominations, about 100 so far. They are due April 26th. Soon I will email out to get together a committee to select the winner.

Item 11: Action Items

11.1 Appropriations Bills

Appropriations Bills (V-AP-273 thru V-AP-275) PASS BY CONSENSUS together as a packet

V-AP-276
Urban Styles discussion about costume costs
Poor communication between the appropriations committee and the group regarding funding interview and committee policy
Costumes are recycled and stay with group to be used year after year, also use own pieces and shoes when appropriate
Motion to vote by NB (2nd by IC)
Amendment passes 5-5-1 by Joey casting tie breaking vote in favor of amending bill to increase funding
V-AP-276 PASSES amended 8-1-2

V-AP-277
Habla de la Noche
SSW objection to allowing group to get more than $1500 for first time funding
JES clarification that $1500 is a guideline not a hard fast rule
SSW perhaps we should have let other groups know this information because we have turned other groups away
Motion by NB
PASSES 9-1-1

V-AP-278 and V-AP-279
Budget Modifications for Stanford Band and Masque
Usually Masque does not get funding from programming but put on a programming event that was unexpected so not in original budget
V-AP-278 PASSES 10-0-1
V-AP-279 PASSES 10-0-1

11.2 Budget Discussion

(Kyle) Not many significant changes from last year. Payout amount has gone down slightly. Line item by line item would take too much time. Dont have to be voted on until the close of the fiscal year so can push off to the new Senate if you want.

(JES) Lets go ahead and leave this to the new Senate. It is a good orientation activity. We have moved some money around. We increased the orientation/retreat money and the copy budget because we consistently go over. We reduced some of the committee discretionary funds.

11.3 Split Buffer Legislation Discussion

(CL) The buffer fund is the place that all the money goes into when its collected and then banking distributes it to the groups individually. The buffer fund is a source of protection for refunds. It is a source of transferring money between students and groups. The legislation would essentially split the fund that is now shared by both grads and undergrads into 2 funds.

(Kyle) One of the reasons that they want to do this now is that the undergrad refund rate is much higher. The buffer is being depleted by undergrads and not grads so the grads want to split out the buffer fund. At the end of the year, there will be a significant difference between the two populations requesting refunds.

(JES) This is something for the new senate to keep in mind. Some GSC members are incredibly interested in this.

(Joey) I see the benefit to grads but what is the benefit to undergrads?

(CL) This is more a reflection of how the money is collected because they are in reality 2 separate systems. In the short term it may hurt undergrads but in the past the grads had a higher refund rate so in the long run it may even out or even come back in our favor.

11.4 Election Certification

(Ellie Martin) Im sure that everyone has stuff to say. I dont have anything new. Steve and Sohini wrote great opposing viewpoints of whether or not to certify. I am happy to reiterate what I said or answer questions.

(Alida Garcia) At the A&R meeting we wrote out a tentative special election timeline. I dont know if that is the best way to go about a special election if we need one so that is not necessarily how it would happen. I dont know if the problems of this election can be avoided in the special election so Im not sure that the grounds for not certifying based on these problems can be avoided and solved based on the timeline for a special election.

(AM) Why would you open it up for new slates?

(Alida) I think that the constitution says that we would have to.

(JES) Since the bylaws are vague, I think that they interpreted it to say that they have to follow the same process which would include opening it up to anyone interested. They would basically run it in the same manner but a shorter timeline.

(Ellie) Please also look at the stuff from the Constitutional Council because that is relevant now. The CPC has been reviewed multiple times by the Council.

(JES) We are going to split the certification into executive and then the rest of the election. One general question that we should all consider is whether or not we should consider the difficulty or the implications of holding a special election.

(AM) I would say that we should consider this unless there is a way to cut down on the red tape as far as the timeline. It seems that if we have another election it needs to be efficient.

(Joey) I think that if we have another election efficiency should be another issue not related to whether or not to have the election to rectify the situation. My opinion is that if something avoidable occurred then we need to fix it. If we mix these issues then that will cloud peoples judgement.

(Mikey Lee) I wanted to apologize for coming across as defensive last week. I dont that to translate as sounding righteous. What we were trying to get across last week is that regarding the situation is that a special election will color our ideas about certification.

I think that the logistics and the difficulties that a special election would incur should be considered but at the end of the day the Senate should certify based on the facts. The fact that there is a stipulation for a special election means that thoughts that problems might occur in the future were considered in at the time of writing the constitution.

(Alida) I dont think that you can make a decision without considering the future. In not thinking about the future, you are not fully thinking about the consequences. Think about transition, students, other implications. The CPC is not ready for another election. I dont think that we have made enough changes to fix the situation for the future. All of this is fuzzy stuff and I dont know if this stuff is solid enough to go through a process that is not ready to be had.

(CL) I think that what we discuss today about a special election should focus on fairness and not on logistics and difficulty.

(Nadiya) I agree with Joey about separating the questions. But I also agree with Alida about implications for the future, long term and the upcoming transition.

Something to consider is whether or not we would be here had the results come out another way.

(JES) I think that we all need to think about this in terms of fairness and not on our personal feelings towards the slates.

(IC) Looking at this constitutional council decision about free speech, I feel like freedom of speech is not as straightforward as I would have thought. Especially regarding these emails that are in conflict with the registrars office and university policy, can someone address these issues?

(JES) Most of the issues that have come up with the CPC.

(Nanci) You are not a court and are not deciding an issue of law. You are trying to decide what the guidelines are for elections and then you can think about university policy after. We have free speech in this country but there are times and places when it is acceptable to restrict speech. I dont want this to be a debate about free speech but elections policy and university policy. I think that there is a confusion about what the Supreme Court would call free speech and what you expect in an election.

(JES) In a special election, what would make it fair? A clearer CPC. We are having this discussion in the framework that we dont certify but also that will give people an idea of what they would be voting for if they vote against certification.

(Ellie) I think that the wording problems will be easy to change but the large issues and the problems from this year cannot be changed substantially in a week.

There was definitely some email violations that were certainly unsolicited. You have free speech issues but I would like to hear more talk about whether or not the CPC was followed. I think that less talk about the special election would be appropriate and more discussion about violations or not regarding the code.

Motion to vote by IC (2nd by STW)

Vote to certify the executive part of the election to be followed by certification vote of rest of the election

Vote to certify executive election DOES NOT PASS 2-6-3

Vote to certify the rest of the election PASSES 11-0-0

Item 12: Closing Remarks

Item 13: Kudos

Thanks to everyone for a great year!

Item 14: Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm.
Fifth Undergraduate Senate
April 20, 2004