The newly formed AMS Legislative Procedures committee has ruled, and the chair of Council has upheld an interpretation of a March 2009 motion of AMS council to add two questions to the referendum ballot. They interpreted the following resolution of council, brought forward by former Law councillor Clare Benton:
“That on the recommendation of the Code and Policies Committee and the Oversight Committee, Council approve the proposed Bylaw changes contained in the report ‘Bylaw Changes – Student Court Committee Suggestions,’ such changes to be submitted to the membership at a later date in a referendum or general meeting to be called in accordance with a future Council motion.”
- AMS Council, March 2009
Note the last bit of that motion. Normally, Council would simply pass a motion to place the question on a referendum, except it would now be unable to do that due to a rule that says it would have to be passed 10-days prior to voting. That said, the chair in his ruling the chair argued the 10-day requirement was achieved by the original motion.
“The spirit of the referendum question was to change the bylaws [...] so I would say adding it in would be in the spirit of the original question and would be in order,” ruled the chair. It remains unclear, however, who can make such a ruling. Ironically, the final arbiter might actually be student court.
Questions
The two bylaw changes are awkward. They contain an intersection of changes, with little text being unique to each. Passing the first question would:
* require non-law judges
* remove the requirement that the Chief Justice be from law
* removal of referendum interpretation and ‘clarification’ powers in ambiguous cases
* modify the ability of Student Court to impose fees on individuals from $10.00 to an amount set by Council
* removal of the authority of the Student Court to be final interpreter of the AMS’s bylaws
* removal of requirement for Student Court’s decisions to be received by resolution of council
Passing the second question would:
* require non-law judges
* remove the requirement that the Chief Justice be from law
* removal of referendum interpretation and ‘clarification’ powers in ambiguous cases
* require that Student Court sit only with an odd number of judges
* require that Student Court sit with at least one-non law judge
* removal of alternate judges
* adding a proactive requirement that Student Court review referendum questions for consistency with rules prior to being asked
The second question seems more like housekeeping, while the first set would fundamentally change ways AMS elections currently operate. Currently, Council reserves the discretion to disallow all Student Court rulings. Passing the first question would limit the Court’s jurisdiction more towards elections, and remove Council’s disallowance right.
Question Wording
1) “Do you support the amendment of the AMS Bylaws as presented, based on the recommendations of a consultant hired to review the operations of Student Court, for the purpose of revising the rules concerning Student Court? This revision would make Court decisions binding as soon as they are sent to Student Council, increase the amount of the fine the Court could levy on individuals, require that the Court include judges from faculties other than Law, and remove the Court’s power to interpret the AMS Bylaws and its power to rewrite referendum questions.” Full Text
2) “Do you support the amendment of the AMS Bylaws as presented, based on the recommendations of a special AMS joint committee, for the purpose of revising the rules concerning Student Court? This revision would eliminate alternate judges, require that there be judges from at least two faculties hearing any case, and set out new rules for referendum questions.” Full Text
Update: Jan 17th, 11:00pm. Word from the Elections Committee is that these two questions have instead been omnibused into one due to the will of the Legislative Procedures committee. Again, who has the actual ability to do this remains unclear.
They are going to fit those on a ballot? With so much crossover, why is this not a single referendum question?
@hayles
Rumor has it that may still happen. Things are still rather unclear.
Apparently the chair might instead be exercising amendments to the current bylaw questions that have been called (i.e. separation of directors/officers). He is stating that this does not violate the bylaws as they state the word “call”, not “amend”.
It is all very unclear at this point, but the above article is based off comments from the EA, Archivist and chair. We’ll see how this unfolds next Wednesday..
Why is the Chief Justice no longer required to be an individual from the Faculty of Law? While lessening the Law student restrictions for normal judges is a beneficial reform, the insight and guidance provided by the Chief Justice is maximized when the individual has a more detailed knowledge of legal jurisprudence.