SGA Supreme Court Wire

In re Interest Meeting (I/II)

2010-02-15T10:22:00.000-08:00

Chief Justice Frommeyer and Associate Justice Shepard have issued the following orders, certifying the completion of the interest session requirement for the enumerated candidates.

In re Interest Meeting I

In re Interest Meeting II

Decision in Ex Parte Abhari

2010-02-09T12:33:00.000-08:00

To all interested parties, the Court has issued its opinion in Ex Parte Abhari.

Justice Shepard's Dissent from Approval of the 2010 General Election Rules

2010-01-29T07:46:00.001-08:00

To read Justice Shepard's dissent, click here.

Supreme Court Vacancy

2009-12-19T08:42:00.000-08:00

Ryan Kuyers, an esteemed Associate Justice of the Court, will be graduating next week. The executive branch was provided its official notice of vacancy in the Court as of December 15, 2009. Constitutionally, this provides President Oleka one month to find a replacement. Those wishing to apply to sit on the 2009-2010 Supreme Court are encouraged to submit their application throughout this period.

Currently, students in the following colleges are eligible to serve on the Court: Business, Nursing, Speed, Music, Graduate, Dental, and Public Health.

Preliminary Draft of the 2010 General Election Rules

2009-10-26T21:19:00.001-07:00

A preliminary draft of the 2010 General Election Rules is now available for download. An official copy will be posted, pending approval by the Student Senate, and ratification of any amendments, if necessary, by the Supreme Court.

Opinion in the Matter of Brauch v. Student Senate

2009-05-13T19:28:00.001-07:00

The Court's opinion in the matter of Hon. Timothy M. Brauch v. Student Senate, represented by Amber Carrier, can be found here.

Hearing Update for Brauch v. Student Senate

2009-05-06T22:04:00.001-07:00

The Court has finalized the time and location of Hon. Timothy M. Brauch v. Student Senate, Amber Carrier EX. REL. The hearing shall be held in Brandeis School of Law, Allen Court Room on Monday, May 11th at 6:30pm.

The Respondent and Petitioner will each have 10 minutes to present their opening statement/oral argument; this allotment includes time utilized in response to questions asked by the Supreme Court. All witnesses will be examined without time constraint. Finally, both parties will have a 5 minute rebuttal/closing argument period.

Any questions concerning rules and procedures should be address to Chief Justice Alex Frommeyer at sgacourt@louisville.edu.

Brauch v. Student Senate (Amicus Curiae #1)

2009-05-05T09:32:00.000-07:00

May 05, 2009
Amicus Curiae Brief
Brauch (Petitioner) v. SGA Senate (Respondent)
Deemed Meritorious: Case No. 08-06

BRIEF FOR THE SGA SUPREME COURT
AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT

Written by
Amber N. Carrier
President, Graduate Student Council

STATEMENT

The petitioner alleges that several constitutional infractions were committed by the SGA senate in the passage of Senate Resolution 12, “On SGA Officer Remuneration” (herein referred to as SR-12). This resolution was written in response to Senate Resolution 6, “A Resolution on the Reevaluation of Senate Stipends,”(herein referred to as SR-6) written by President Carrier of the Graduate Student Council. SR-6 mandated the formation of a committee, chaired by the SGA EVP and comprised of the EVP, the Chief Justice of the SGA Supreme Court (or his designee), and a minimum of four other senators and students. Other members included Ahmed Awadallah, Academic Vice-President; Anna Ramsay, Senate Speaker; Stephanie Bonenberger, College of Education President; Amber Carrier, Graduate School President; and Ben Shepard, Assistant Executive Vice-President. The committee was charged with examining the current stipend funding model for all branches of SGA and “That a recommendation as to the most optimal financial compensation package that minimizes the financial impact to all students shall be presented… in the form of a report, a resolution, or an SGA constitutional amendment, whichever is more appropriate” (SR-6). The Stipend Review Committee convened, and an extensive examination of the current stipend policies took place. It was acknowledged during the review process that the committee did not have the constitutional power to mandate financial policy on future SGA administrations, both subsequent (2009-2010) and future. The committee made numerous consultations with all three branches of SGA, the Student Activities Board, Student Affairs support staff to SGA, and the university Financial Aid Office. Though the Chief Justice of the SGA Supreme Court was asked to attend per SR-6 or designate another to attend in his place, he did neither, and his only affiliation with the process was over phone concerning the stipend structure of the Supreme Court, during which he voiced no objection to the stipend review process. A recommendation was made to the SGA senate in the form of a resolution, SR-12, on April 7, 2009 and approved by divided voice vote (Official Minutes of the April 7, 2009 Senate Meeting). This recommendation was brought to the Executive Board of the SGA Senate (herein referred to as E-board) in draft form before its presentation to the full Senate, and though the E-board is not required to approve the document, as it comes out of committee, it received unanimous verbal and tacit approval from all members of the board.

The respondent asserts that the passage of SR-12 represents the collective “Will of the Students” in encouraging fiscal prudence and responsibility in future SGA administrations. A frequent complaint of SGA is that it is ineffective, especially given the budget provided for it by University administration each year, and that a disproportional amount of the budget is allocated toward individual stipends. The Stipend Review Committee desired during the stipend process that the dollar amounts originally given to those in particular SGA roles would instead be used by future SGA administrations as supplemental scholarships for those who are not currently in an elected or appointed role within SGA as type of “rebate” of the SGA fees bundled with student tuition each semester. The respondent establishes that SR-12 fulfills the constitutional role of the Senate as established in the SGAC Preamble and SGAC §5.7.5.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The respondent asserts the following in response to the petitioner’s claims that the passage of SR-12 was in violation of the SGA Constitution:

SR-12 was intended in both spirit and letter to serve as an advisory document in stipend and budgetary matters to future SGA administrations and is not compulsory;
The SGA Senate enacted SR-12 with full knowledge that it was constitutionally prohibited from mandating stipend budget policy on future administrations and thus passed SR-12 as a non-expiring advisory document;
As SR-12 is a non-expiring advisory document, and does not explicitly mandate any action be compulsory, the opinion of the Supreme Court in case 08-01 does not directly apply; and
As SR-12 does not set remuneration policy for any branch of government, no constitutional authority to set remuneration policy was circumvented by the passage of SR-12.

The respondent also asserts that since no violation of the SGAC has taken place in the passage of SR-12, all sections SR-12 should stand as written.

ARGUMENT IN FULL:

The Petitioner alleges the following infractions have been committed by the Senate in the passage of SR-12:

A) SGAC § 4.1.3 makes it explicit that the Executive Cabinet (Top 4) “has the powers to develop the Attendance and Remuneration Policies.”

B) In 08-01, the SGA Court upheld that the Senate may not proactively amend nor may they direct the Court in how to perform her Constitutional duties concerning the SGA Election rules before such rules were promulgated by the Court. This precedent shows the claim of the Senate under SGAC § 5.11.3 does not apply until after the policy has been promulgated by the Executive Cabinet (Top 4).

C) Under SGAC § 6.9.8 this opinion should serve as binding precedent on all matters before the Court. Thus, by the same arguments, the Senate does not have the authority to amend nor direct the Executive Cabinet (Top 4) on how such a policy must be set prior to the promulgation of such rules by the Executive Cabinet (Top 4).

D) Furthermore, SGAC § 5.11.12 states that “The Student Senate shall have no power to adopt By-Laws, other legislation, or motions inconsistent with this Constitution. All such actions are null and void.” By adopting this resolution the Senate diminished the role and constitutional authority of the Executive Cabinet (Top 4), thus the action was inconsistent with the SGAC and should be declared null and void

ARGUMENT:

The language of Sections 2, 3, 6 of the resolution makes it explicit that the policies as set forth in SR-12 are recommendations and not guidelines. Furthermore, SR-12 §8.2 states that “Section 2, Section 3, and Section 6 of this Resolution shall be constructed as advisory and shall not be constructed as imperative in any context.” SR-12 §8.3 defines the term “may” as appears in Sections 1-9 to be interchangeable with “advisory” and SR-12 §8.4 defines the term “recommends” as to be interchangeable with “may.” SR-12 §8.5 states that “This Resolution shall not be construed as repealing any provision of the Student Government Association By-Laws or the Student Government Association Constitution, but shall be held and construction construed as ancillary and supplemental thereto.” As the recommendations endorsed by SR-12 are explicitly stated as advisory, and are in no way intended to be binding by either the letter or the spirit of SR-12, no violation of SGAC §4.1.3 has taken place.

In 08-01, the passage of 2007-2008 Senate Resolution 29 was unconstitutional because it directed the Court on how to perform her Constitutional duties before the rules were promulgated by the Court. However, the language of SR-29, concerning a ban on allowing funds from any organ of the university outside of SGA to be used in a campaign, was intended in both letter and spirit to be binding rather than advisory. As a binding resolution concerning elections would have essentially created an election rule, SR-29 was overturned because the Senate does not have the power to create election rules per SGAC § 6.4.1 and SGA By-Laws 601.1. As SR-12 is clearly constructed to be an advisory document only, 08-01 does not apply to this case.
Additionally, SR-12 was passed in response to SR-6, which asked that a review committee convene to examine the SGA stipend process and make any recommendations for change to the Senate in the appropriate format (i.e. formal report, resolution, amendment, etc.). The Stipend review committee felt that the appropriate format for stipend recommendations would be in the form of a Senate resolution for the following reasons:

1. A formal committee report lacked the underpinning as the “Will of the Students,” which all senate resolutions are intended to represent, as the Senate is intended to represent the needs and wishes of the student body. A formal committee report could be perceived as the will of a small committee and not of the student body;

2. A constitutional amendment would force compulsory action upon future SGA administrations, who may have unique financial needs that are unforeseen by the current senate and whose action may be limited by additional constitutionally mandated budgetary regulations;

3. A resolution, even if simply an advisory document, would provide institutional memory of the recommendations of the Stipend Review Committee that could be revisited by future SGA administrations when developing the SGA budget.

SR-12 served to fulfill the requirements set forth in SR-6 by serving as an official recommendation to future SGA administrations. Since the original intent of SR-6 was to elicit a formal recommendation from the committee, and not to compel the committee to make a change to the process, any action on behalf of fulfillment of SR-6 should be deemed as ancillary and voluntary. Though 08-01 does not directly apply to this case, it does establish that original intent of the author is applicable in cases before the SGA Supreme Court, and since SR-12 is clearly intended to serve as an ancillary document, any allegations by the petitioner of coercion of future SGA administrations by the current administration are unsubstantiated.

II.

A) SGAC § 4.12 concerns the remuneration policies of the Executive Cabinet (Top 4). This section of the SGAC makes very clear rules about which remuneration policies of the Executive Cabinet (Top 4) should be set. It is explicit in stating that the remuneration policies must be set in the budget, see SGAC § 4.12.2. SGAC § 4.12.3 goes on to say that any changes to this section of the SGAC must be conducted by the Court and the Executive Cabinet should have floor privileges. While SR-12 did not amend this section of the SGAC the action should SR-12 be implemented goes to circumvent this article. The resolution changes how the remuneration policies are set, without actually changing the portion of the SGAC describing how to make said changes.

B) Again, the actions of the Senate in voting for this amendment were in violation of the SGAC as it was an attempt to circumvent explicit instructions in the SGAC and per SGAC § 5.11.12 they are null and void.

C) SGAC § 4.13.4 gives similar language concerning the remuneration of non-elected officials and thus the same argument applies to that portion of SR-12.

ARGUMENT:

SR-12 §4 states that Administrative Officers (as described in SGAC §4.3, §4.4, §4.5, and §4.6) “shall be issued remuneration limited to full in-state tuition.” While the term “may” is not used in this section, it is implied by SR-12 §8 that §4 is also advisory in nature and shall not be compulsory. The same argument can be applied to the petitioner’s interpretation of SR-12 §5, stating that “Executive Staff, pursuant to SGAC §4.13.4, shall be issued aggregate remuneration: a)No greater than $7500 per academic year; (b) whereas the President shall distribute the aggregate amount among those Staff at his/her discretion” While the term “may” is not used in this section, it is similarly implied by SR-12 §8 that §5 is also advisory in nature and shall not be compulsory.

III.

SGAC § 602.3, “[The Chief Justice shall] set, distribute, and enforce the Attendance and Remuneration Policies for the Associate Justices as approved by the Executive Cabinet.” Under this provision of the SGAC, the Senate has no authority by which to legislate the remuneration policies of the Court. Again, appealing to SGAC § 5.11.12 any attempts by the Senate to set remuneration policies for the Court are null and void. This responsibility is the sole purview of the Executive Cabinet (Top 4).

ARGUMENT:

SR-12 §6.1 and 6.2 do not attempt to remove the power to set remuneration policies from the Chief Justice or the Court. The resolution simply makes a recommendation on the remuneration of the Chief Justice and the aggregate remuneration of the Associate Justices. These recommendations are similar to other recommendations in SR-12. The Court is also addressed in SR-12 §6.3 as follows:

“The Student Senate further recommends that the Supreme Court initiate:

(a) The organization and attendance of events to promote the function of the Court as a judicial body;

And

(b) The organization and attendance of events to promote the function of the Court as the purveyor of the SGA General Election,”

Neither of which addresses remuneration policies. Since internal court remuneration policies are not addressed by SR-12 §6, SGAC By-laws § 602.3 does not apply in this case and any allegations of authorizing legal extortion or facilitating a future retardation of the function of the Court are without merit.

IV.

Finally, Section 7 of SR-12 is invalid. The Court has and has always had the authority to revoke legislation that has been deemed unconstitutional. The adoption of this section of SR-12 diminishes the authority of the Court by stating the Senate has the power to prevent the Court by acting with the passage of resolutions. This resolution is a further attempt of the Senate to restrict the authority of the Court.

ARGUMENT:

There is no wording in SR-12 §7 that attempts to circumvent the authority of the court in overturning resolutions that it deems unconstitutional. SR-12 does not imply that the court has diminished authority over the resolution, nor does SR-12 §7 address the court’s role in any way. SR-12 §7 makes a provision that the resolution stands after the end of the 2008-2009 school year until it is repealed. Such provisions are common in resolutions, both compulsory and advisory in nature, with long-term goals that may extend beyond the end of the school year in which they were enacted. Additionally, there is University and legal precedent for insertion of sunset or continuation clauses (herein referred to as expiration clauses) with similar wording. The expiration clauses of these documents are also assumed not written in an attempt to circumvent the authority of the appropriate court body, as the appropriate court body has always had the power to overturn resolutions or documents that were passed regardless of any mention of the Court within any clause of the document. If SR-12 §7 is invalid, all similar expiration clauses in SGA resolutions must also be deemed invalid, which is surely not the Court or the Petitioner’s intent.

Hearing Set for Brauch v. Student Senate

2009-05-04T22:17:00.000-07:00

The Court will convene on Monday, May 11 at 6:00 P.M. to hear the complaint of the Hon. Timothy M. Brauch v. Student Senate, Stephanie A Bonenberger EX REL. The location for said proceeding is TBA.

Amicus Curiae briefs for both parties shall be due Sunday, May 10 at 6:00 P.M.

Brauch v. Student Senate (Response)

2009-04-28T11:11:00.000-07:00

April 28, 2009
Respondent's Pleading
Brauch (Petitioner) v. SGA Senate (Respondent)
Deemed Meritorious: Case No. 08-06

Summary of Pleading

1) Whereas, Respondent affirms the jurisdiction of this Court, and

2) Whereas, Respondent affirms the Senate is able to serve as a respondent; and

3) Whereas, Respondent affirms SR-12, a resolution concerning SGA stipends, was passed on orabout April 7, 2009; and

4) Whereas, Respondent denies his ex relatione status for this pleading thus invalidating all otherclaims against with Mike Dennis as Respondent; and

5) Whereas, SGAC § 6.9.3 allows for a minimum of fourteen (14) days before between time ofservice and hearing; and

6) Whereas, Respondent will no longer hold elected office at the conclusion of the fourteen (14)day period; and

7) Whereas, SGAC § 6.9.8 mandates previous opinions of the Court shall be binding precedent; and

8) Whereas, in GSC v. SGA re: By Law Violations (April 20, 2006) neither President Brammell norExecutive Vice President Haney represented the Student Senate because the pleading was heardduring transition of the Brammell administration to the Messer administration; and

9) Whereas, in that same case President-elect Messer provided the defense for the Senate while hewas not yet in power when the filing took place in absence of Executive Vice President Haney,President Brammell, and Executive Vice President-Elect Hoffman; and

10) Whereas, in Brauch v. Hoffman re: Failure to Enforce Senate Legislation (September 4, 2007)then President Hoffman was cleared of any malfeasance or dereliction of duty for failing tomaintain Senate records while he was Executive Vice President because it was the opinion of theCourt that he could not be held responsible for actions he performed in executing his duties, orfailing thereof, after his term had ended (oral opinion of the Court, see attached affidavit);

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays the Court will find Respondent is not the appropriate ex relatione torepresent the Student Senate. Should the Court find Respondent to be the correct Respondent,Respondent does not waive the fourteen (14) day waiting period. Furthermore, Respondent notifies theCourt that per precedent cited in (8), (9), and (10) above, Respondent does not anticipate appearingbefore the Court.I hereby represent to the Supreme Court of the Student Government Association my belief in good faiththat to the best of my knowledge the allegations contained herein are true.

Date: April 28, 2009
/s/ Michael J. Dennis

Brauch v. Student Senate (Petition)

2009-04-28T08:34:00.000-07:00

April 26, 2009
Petitioner's Complaint
Brauch (Petitioner) v. SGA Senate (Respondent)
Deemed Meritorious: Case No. 08-06

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

Introductory Statement:

1) Jurisdiction is proper in this Court over this Complaint by virtue of Student Government Association Constitution and By Laws (as amended and effective April 18, 2009, hereafter, “SGAC”) §§2.4, 3.2, 6.1, and 6.8.1.

2) The Student Senate is able to serve as a respondent based on SGAC § 6.8.2.

General Factual Allegations:

3) On April 7, 2009 the Student Senate voted to approve SR-12, a resolution concerning stipends for members of the SGA, claiming authority under SGAC §§4.4.8 and 5.11.3.

4) While Petitioner recognizes those claims to power, Petitioner asserts such claims are incorrect, per 08-01.

5) SGAC §4.1.2 defines the Executive Cabinet as “[t]he President and the Vice Presidents,” commonly referred to as the Top 4.

6) SGAC § 4.1.3 makes it explicit that the Executive Cabinet (Top 4) “has the powers to develop the Attendance and Remuneration Policies.” While SGAC § 4.4.8 states the Senate may vote on the policies, the development of the policies falls to the Top 4.

7) The language used in these sections mirrors the language used in the SGAC § 6.4.1 “[The Court shall] draft rules for the General SGA Elections as set forth in the SGA By-Laws, subject to Senate approval as in 601.1 of the SGA By-Laws.” In 08-01, the SGA Court upheld that the Senate may not proactively amend nor may they direct the Court in how to perform her Constitutional duties concerning the SGA Election rules before such rules were promulgated by the Court. This precedent shows the claim of the Senate under SGAC § 5.11.3 does not apply until after the policy has been promulgated by the Executive Cabinet (Top 4).

8) Under SGAC § 6.9.8 this opinion should serve as binding precedent on all matters before the Court. Thus, by the same arguments, the Senate does not have the authority to amend nor direct the Executive Cabinet (Top 4) on how such a policy must be set prior to the promulgation of such rules by the Executive Cabinet (Top 4).

9) Furthermore, SGAC § 5.11.12 states that “The Student Senate shall have no power to adopt By-Laws, other legislation, or motions inconsistent with this Constitution. All such actions are null and void.” By adopting this resolution the Senate diminished the role and constitutional authority of the Executive Cabinet (Top 4), thus the action was inconsistent with the SGAC and should be declared null and void.

10) Furthermore, SGAC § 4.12 concerns the remuneration policies of the Executive Cabinet (Top 4). This section of the SGAC makes very clear rules about which remuneration policies of the Executive Cabinet (Top 4) should be set. It is explicit in stating that the remuneration policies must be set in the budget, see SGAC § 4.12.2. SGAC § 4.12.3 goes on to say that any changes to this section of the SGAC must be conducted by the Court and the Executive Cabinet should have floor privileges. While SR-12 did not amend this section of the SGAC the action should SR-12 be implemented goes to circumvent this article. The resolution changes how the remuneration policies are set, without actually changing the portion of the SGAC describing how to make said changes.

11) Again, the actions of the Senate in voting for this amendment were in violation of the SGAC as it was an attempt to circumvent explicit instructions in the SGAC and per SGAC § 5.11.12 they are null and void.

12) SGAC § 4.13.4 gives similar language concerning the remuneration of non-elected officials and thus the same argument applies to that portion of SR-12.

13) SGAC § 602.3, “[The Chief Justice shall] set, distribute, and enforce the Attendance and Remuneration Policies for the Associate Justices as approved by the Executive Cabinet.” Under this provision of the SGAC, the Senate has no authority by which to legislate the remuneration policies of the Court. Again, appealing to SGAC § 5.11.12 any attempts by the Senate to set remuneration policies for the Court are null and void. This responsibility is the sole purview of the Executive Cabinet (Top 4).

14) Such a provision makes sense in order to assure a balance of powers in the SGA. Should the legislative branch be able to withhold payment to the judicial branch, the legislative branch would hold the power to retard the ability of the judicial branch to function. Such power is akin to legal extortion should the Court make decisions that are contrary to the will of the Senate.

15) Finally, Section 7 of SR-12 is invalid. The Court has and has always had the authority to revoke legislation that has been deemed unconstitutional. The adoption of this section of SR-12 diminishes the authority of the Court by stating the Senate has the power to prevent the Court by acting with the passage of resolutions. This resolution is a further attempt of the Senate to restrict the authority of the Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays the court find Respondent lacked the authority to set remuneration policies concerning the Executive Cabinet, the Executive Staff, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Petitioner prays the Court will issue a stern admonishment to the Senate for encroaching on the rights of the executive and judicial branches and put as precedent that such actions will not be tolerated.

I hereby represent to the Supreme Court of the Student Government Association my belief in good faith that to the best of my knowledge the allegations contained herein are true.

Date: April 26, 2009
/s/ Timothy M. Brauch

Supreme Court Preliminary Opinion 08-05

2009-04-15T16:00:00.001-07:00

April 14, 2009
Supreme Court Preliminary Opinion 08-05
Lyons (Petitioner) v. SGA Senate (Respondent)

Alex Frommeyer writing on behalf of the Court

WHEREAS, the respondent admits guilt, on behalf of the SGA Senate, in the form of the passage of the Graduate Student Council Constitution at the March 24th Senate meeting.

WHEREAS, the SGA Senate violated SGA Constitution Section 7.2, reading “The Student Councils have general legislative powers over matters pertaining to their meetings and over matters affecting the students of the academic units which they (the Councils) represent”. The Senate admittedly approved a student council constitution that allegedly violated its own voting procedures.

WHEREAS, this violation nullifies any approval on part of the SGA Senate with concern to the Graduate Student Council Constitution.

WHEREAS, the out going SGA Senate members will be present at the SGA banquet on April 21, 2009.

WHEREAS, an emergency Senate meeting can be held, under the condition of quorum, to rule on any proposed changes to the Graduate Student Council Constitution that have been constitutionally approved by the Graduate Student Council.

WHEREAS, proposed Constitutional changes or modifications, especially with regard to election rules and procedures, will affect the immediate future of Graduate Student Council.

THEREBY, the Graduate Student Council will operate, until an April 21st Senate approval or a later date to be determined by the Court, under the full Graduate Student Council Constitution of the 2008-2009 academic year (or latest version lawfully approved by the Senate before version currently in question).

THEREBY, the Graduate Student Council will conduct its elections under the previous election procedures outlined in said Constitutional version and not the illegitimately approved amendments and modifications from the March 24th Senate meeting.