Whereas, on April 26th a multitude of Senators protested election procedures, leaving the Senate chambers resulting in a disruption of quorum; and

Whereas, a multitude of Senators have questioned the ethical practices of the professional staff , both in relation to ethical practices for election procedures and in a violation of the separation of powers for demanding Senate actions wherein such interpretative authority lies in the Judicial Board; and

Whereas, no official, authority, or figure is to be above the law; and

Whereas, impartial investigations by the appointed independent counsel are the only manner to provide, “[some] degree of public confidence when there is the need to investigate… high officials…” with investigations by normative mechanisms flawed because, “[the student advocate] is a part of the administration,” and thus, “there is reason to worry a Justice Department conclusion… will always be suspect” [1]; and

Whereas, the Senate holds the authority to, “ To set the official stances of ASUCI” [2]; and

Whereas, the Senate may, “...enter into memorandums of understanding, contracts, and other legal agreements on behalf of ASUCI,” that include the authority to, “explicitly designate this power to an officer, agent, or body of ASUCI” [3]; and

Whereas, the ASUCI code of ethics demands that, “Public officials must also strive to act with integrity, high moral character, fairness and honesty in all of our dealings to maintain public trust, as even the appearance of impropriety jeopardizes our ability to serve our student population” [4]; and

Whereas, the ASUCI Professional Staff cannot, “...knowingly perform or refuse to perform any act to deliberately obstruct the execution of ASUCI policy, rules or regulations, or the achievement of official ASUCI programs,” thus ensuring cooperation with any investigative unit [5]; and

Whereas, the ASUCI Senate has an inherent interest in passing legislation to implement practical measures to set stances and policies on governing; and

Whereas, judicial precedence stands to confirm the Senate the authority to investigate, with the the Supreme Court finding, “There can be no doubt as to the power of Congress, by itself or through its committees, to investigate matters and conditions relating to contemplated legislation. This power, deeply rooted in American and English institutions, is indeed co-extensive with the power to legislate. Without the power to investigate—including of course the authority to compel testimony, either through its own processes or through judicial trial—Congress could be seriously handicapped in its efforts to exercise its constitutional function wisely and effectively,” thus granting the enumeration of the power of this legislative chamber to establish hearings based on legislative considerations within the guidelines of the ASUCI Constitution and Bylaws, specifically the delegation of authority to an independent agent [6]; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court has found that so long as the legislative branch, “[retains] for itself no powers of control or supervision over an independent counsel,” and asks but for, “receiving reports or other information and oversight of the independent counsel's activities,” that such action is, “recognized generally as being incidental to the legislative function of [the legislative],” and therefore legal [7]; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court precedent has upheld independent counsel as it, “[does] not violate the separation-of-powers principle by impermissibly interfering with the functions of the Executive Branch” [8]; and  

Therefore, let it be resolved by the Student Senate here assembled appoint an Independent Counsel to be formed to investigate charges of ethics code violation(s),

Be it further resolved that the Independent Counsel be delegated authority to investigate charges under Article III and Article IV of the ASUCI Ethics Code,

Be it further resolved that the Senate appoint the following individuals as Independent Counsel: Kimo Gandall, as Head of the Special Counsel; Jessica Gabra, Special Counsel; and Ashar Khan, Special Counsel,

Be it further resolved that the Senate President shall issue and mandate the signing of nondisclosure agreements to the Special Counsel,

Be it further resolved that operative ¶ 4 be enforced unless published by the following procedure:

1. Approval by a majority vote of the Independent Counsel;

2. 1 day notice to the Senate’s next session, wherein the Senate can deny publication by a 2/3rd vote;

Be it further resolved that the Independent Counsel shall act in the following manner as prescribed delegated authority by the Senate:

1. To investigate and call upon individuals to provide testimony related to the jurisdictions found in operative ¶ 2, in private or public hearings at the discretion of the Special Counsel;

2. To file update reports every 3 weeks with the ASUCI Senate;

3. To file ethical charges against Professional Staff with the Judicial Board on behalf of the ASUCI Senate;

4. To petition the Judicial Board for motions of discovery, subpoenas, and other relevant documents on behalf of the ASUCI Senate;

5. To recommend policy options to the ASUCI Senate regarding issues within the jurisdiction of the Special Counsel;

[1]. Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Learning the Wrong Lessons from History: Why There Must Be an Independence Counsel Law." Widener Law Symposium Journal 5 (2000). Accessed May 7, 2018.

[2]. ASUCI Constitution, Art. 6 §2 (b).

[3]. ASUCI Constitution, Art. 6 §2 (c).

[4]. ASUCI Code of Ethics, Art. I.

[5]. ASUCI Code of Ethics, Art. IV §6.

[6]. Quinn v. U.S., 349 U.S. 155.

[7]. Morrison v. Olson 487 U.S. 654.

[8]. Ibid.