ASUCI Senate Minutes
Tuesday, February 27, 2018

 

ASUCI Senate Minutes

Date 02/27/18


  • Called to Order by Gurneel at 5:08pm

  • Attendance

    • Person came in late at

      • 5:13pm Homam

    • Person left early at

  • Approval of Minutes

    • Motion: Hong

    • Second: Lim

  • Approval of Agenda

    • Motion: Ton

    • Second: Lim

  • Public Comment

    • Kevin Brum

      • Amendment of code of ethics last week on thursday it was

      • I will make the same 2 points I made on thursday one legal and one moral.

      • Thank you Senators, I am here to discuss the Code of Ethics amendment which I overheard has just been moved from today to Tuesday but nonetheless I believe this is good as it gives you more time to think about what I have to say and to the change the Code of Ethics. I shall make two arguments, one legal and one moral. On the legal side, the proposed bill, as it stands, is so vague that it cannot stand constitutional scrutiny under the US Constitution. This Senate must comply with the US Constitution as this student government is a state actor and thus held to the same standard of Constitutional scrutiny as the legislature of this state or of Congress. This was established by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in 1989 in Alabama Student Party v. Student Government Association of the University of Alabama.

      • Senators are opposed to a high standard and should know what is offensive to other people. The regulations proposed have been attempted by Congress in 1997 with the Communications Decency Act; that act was struck down by the US Supreme Court because it was too vague, overbroad, and didn’t consider less restrictive alternatives. The bill doesn’t clearly define what the terms it uses means, I believe it says that electronic harassment shall be defined as: and then gives a list of things but those things themselves are not defined and do not have any definition in law. Speaking of law, the libel and slander definitions comport with no legal definition. These terms are so vague that they’d have a chilling effect on speech.

      • On the moral level, you as ASUCI senators are already held to a higher standard, this law would make it impossible for someone to know what they are allowed to say or not say. I believe it is the definition of slander that uses the term “offense,” what may seem benign to one person may be offensive to another.

      • For legal and moral reasons I inform the senators about this amendment.

      • Overall, the current bill as it stands is too vague and overbroad. That means if a senator was removed for violation of these Code of Ethics, they could very well sue and they will win based on all available case law that I’ve studied and based on the class I’m currently taking on this very topic. I implore you to reconsider this bill. Thank you.

      • During the event

        • We had multiple senators come up to the door and crowded the door when our guest speakers were in the room.

        • Someone came up to the door and demanded we open the door and we then had to ask uci security to block off the door and even after we did that senators still came up to the door and this was completely unacceptable.

  • Executive Officer Reports

    • President: Lydia

      • The goals of UCI Reclaim Mental Health Conference (May 5-6, 2018) include to destigmatize and normalize conversation about mental health. Office of the President’s Mental Health Commission is customizing Facebook profile pictures, not just to publicize for the conference, but also to empower through personal mental health narratives. If you are willing and able to share your mental health stories, please, fill out the Google Form, so we can start creating your profile picture. Thank you!

      • At 2/15 ASUCI Town Hall, due to time limit, the execs and senators could not answer some questions submitted by students. We are writing a Google Doc statement in response to the unanswered questions. Please, help answer all the questions listed.

      • Judicial Board just opened application for Associate Justice. Deadline: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 @ 11:59 pm.

    • IVP:

      • Had an event in newport

      • Update: second meeting on monday and brought up W line and will have a follow up meeting on march 9th so will have more information on that.

    • Student services: Rusteen

      • Soulstice this thursday

      • Festival this saturday and with alumni

      • Also planning our homecoming court.

    • EVP

      • Still have applications

      • Conference this week

      • I have organization requests today.

      • Afterwards talking with them and that's the position of the arrow (showing on paper) that's for associate Vice Chancellor Auxiliary Services.

        • If you have questions about positions or anything else please let me know.

  • Special Committee Reports

    • Basic Needs

      • Contact info needed

      • Some of our information presented was from the pdf document

    • DREAMers

      • NONE

    • Disability Services

      • We talking about on some ideas and what to talk to dean to have more permanent solution.

      • Will try to meet up with disability center hopefully next week.

    • Labor

      • NONE

  • Old Business

    • R53-74

      • Discussion

        • Motion to call the question

          • Motion: Hong

          • Second: Lim

        • PASSES

    • B53-08

      • Discussion

        • Motion to call the question

          • Motion: Lim

          • Second: Kaur

        • PASSES

  • New Business

    • Office of Student Services Vice President Budget Reports

      • Homecoming

        • Athletics rally charges in this account accidentally (will talk with Robert)

      • Films

      • Soulstice

        • Posters/flyers

        • auditions/photoshoot for pamphlet and social media

        • Expense: $4,000 spent and $76,000 left

    • Social Ecology Senator Appointee Consideration Discussion

      • Discussion

        • Closed discussion

        • Closed discussion ended (5:56pm)

    • R53-78

      • Discussion

        • We noticed some loopholes when we writing it and this just sort of closed some loopholes

        • Rules committee is the second we can just vote on it we don't need to commit it to rules

        • Hong: Candidate, candidate or slate so it means a candidate OR a slate can do this.

        • Boparai:

          • Deadline was friday so honestly it is what it is, and if someone and something we have to deal with if it does come up. And since we lost quorum for this when we needed it before the deadline its difficult. So I think passing a legislation like this at the time of an election I don't think it is very smart so make you vote wisely.


      • Motion to table this legislation until week 4 of Spring quarter

        • Motion: Hong

        • Second: Ton

    • R53-76

      • Discussion

        • Was going to stay for half a year and he has done a lot of great things for asuci.

        • Its not disallowed by the constitution.

        • Ton: Isn’t there a time limit? To how many times

          • Hong: No, but maybe like 3 times.

        • Motion to call the question: R53-76

          • Motion: Lim

          • Second: Hong

    • R53-77

      • Speech

        • In regards to the comments made by Kevin Brum last week during our Senate session on Thursday, February 22, I bring forth an analysis of the claims.

        • First, the argument was made that as a Senate, we must fall in line with the United States Constitution as well as the ASUCI Constitution. According to the public comment, "the proposed bill, as it stands, is so vague that it cannot stand constitutional scrutiny under the US Constitution". The 1989 Alabama Student Party vs. Student Government Association of the University of Alabama and the 1997 Communications Decency Act were cited as examples of why this resolution must comply with constitutional scrutiny.

        • In the 1989 Alabama Student Party v. Student Government Association of the University of Alabama ruling, clause IX states "Of course, academic qualifications for public office could never withstand constitutional scrutiny in the "real world." But this is a university, whose primary purpose is education, not electioneering. Constitutional protections must be analyzed with due regard to that educational purpose, an approach that has been consistently adopted by the courts" (867 F.2d 1344). If, by this case, we are to fall under the same intensity of Constitutional scrutiny, then we are also to be analyzed with due regard to the educational purpose. With due regard to educational purpose, the Senate is upholding our duty to see to it that a "safe learning environment" (ASUCI Constitution, Article 3, Section j) be provided.

        • Furthermore, the 1997 Communications Decency Act was 1) proposed as a regulation for pornographic content online and 2) opposed under the concerns that the Act itself would limit the availability of information to the public. There is no limitation of the access of information that would result from the passage of this legislation. The concerns are simply not shared between these two instances.

        • Additionally, as a Senate, we must fall in compliance with the ASUCI Constitution.

          • ASUCI Constitution, Article 3, Section (j)

            • "(j)  Students have the right to a safe learning environment."

          • ASUCI Constitution, Article 3, Section (q)

            • "(q)  Students have the right to an ethical, fair, and effective student government."

          • ASUCI Constitution, Article 3, Section (r),

            • "(r)  Students have the right to be free from harassment, intimidation, and retaliation."

          • ASUCI Constitution, Article 6, Section 2, Subsection (a)

            • "(a) [Senate has the power] To enact legislation for the welfare and interest of the undergraduate students"

          • ASUCI Constitution, Article 6, Section 2, Subsection (r)

            • "(r) [Senate has the power] To determine what constitutes an impeachable offense for officers listed in [subsection] (o) through [subsection] (q)"

        • This legislation fits the boundaries set by the ASUCI Constitution and the Senate duties. It is true that as officers of ASUCI, we are already held to a higher moral and ethical standard. It is because we are held to a higher standard that we should be able to follow these norms. However, it has been made clear that the need to address this issue is pressing.

        • In regards to the definitions of libel and slander, we are proposing amended, legally comporting definitions for this resolution. I acknowledge having made a mistake in the initial drafting of this legislation and including inaccurate definitions for libel and slander. In regards to electronic harassment terms, of course these terms have no definition in law; defamation laws were written at a time when this type of technology was not available and thus not an issue; it is up to us, as the leaders of this campus, to set that precedent.

        • Lastly, it was stated that under the passage of this legislation, a Senator removed from office could sue and WIN based on the vagueness of this resolution. However, given that Senate decides the removal of a Senator given the severity of the situation, it is very well possible that a Senator violating their obligation to their duties as a leader is justly removed. We do not remove Senators unjustly, (although former Senator Safady would like to argue otherwise). We remove them if they are an unfair representation of our Senate body. This legislation is an attempt to DISCOURAGE libel and slander, not ban it.

        • I am not giving up. Because our position as Senators is about more than just you and I. Our position in this case regards the people who are subject to harassment online by ASUCI officers. Our position is about preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine and the Constitution of the United States of America. As a team, of ASUCI, we understand that we took an oath to perform our duties to the best of our abilities. There is no liberal America, or a conservative America. There is no liberal UCI or a conservative UCI. There is a UNITED States of America and an ASSOCIATED Students of the University of California, Irvine. Let the passage of this legislation reflect that.

      • Discussion

        • We haven't really updated the code of ethics and I think that should be held accountable and I'm not sure how much. We don't want to produce and

        • Kaur:

          • Does this in general and what the implementation of this?

            • Hong:

              • There is a you of the private world. And then there is a you of ASUCI who represents their constituents. The code ethics governs your behavior as an elected official. They should be that is should something comes out does that look bad.

        • Alan:

          • It is at least a warning about what senators are saying.

        • Gabra:

          • From what I see the language isn't that clear. The first thing that came to my mind is that stealing things like is that if I leave a mess so that person going to get in trouble for it.

        • Alan:

          • This is already a part of the code of ethics right now. in turns if this right now I thinks its a conversation that should be had between everyone that is using it. It is our duty to keep our space clean.

        • Gabra:

          • I still feel like it is kind of vague and i can think of people who have fallen for “electronical issues”

        • Boparai:

          • I also was pretty turned off as an individual but the first and second I feel are completely off limits. We can encourage people to engage ethically but it is up to constituents who voted the person if they will do the job ethically. You have to maintain a balance there are certain consequences.

        • Hong:

          • This ordained isn't going to make anything bad happen but it is part of the reasoning. Ethics is a subjective issue and it is always open to debate and discussion. We have different priorities and interactions with other people and the code of ethics is supposed to be a guideline for what some of those actions and how we act are.

          • I’m pretty sure not everyone goes to class and we all have other priorities. But the code of ethics is important because we are the people who will decide what will.

          • It just means you are a bad person bu being a bad person doesn't mean you get to be in ASUCI office.

        • Gabra:

          • Going off of what Tin said I think that if it is about holding yourself responsible. In my opinion then it is rather to vague and like Abadilla said if there aren’t any guidelines or punishments then I think we can just leave it vague.

        • Boparai:

          • The language that this can be applied in different scenarios it can be dangerous

        • Tin:

          • I believe in building off of what is already done. I think that at the end of the day if we continue to build on then we will get there. Ultimately it's about the fundamental responsibility and in this country I think that having a list of those responsibilities there will at least be a clear standard that we believe that will e at minimum standard at least.

        • Motion to commit this to rules

          • Motion: Hong

          • Second: Lim

      • Reviewed that legislation and again ethics is very subjective to handle and it was removed.

    • Two verbal rallies on campus

      • There are 2 labor rallies on campus this week:

      • Yesterday (Monday, 2/26) was the first day of oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Janus vs. AFSCME case. UC Irvine faculty, libraries, staff and student allies went to UCI flagpoles to join a demonstration.

      • Tomorrow (Wednesday, 2/28), there will be another rally at UCI flagpoles 12- 1:30 pm to support UC Student Worker Union (UAW 2865) on their first day of bargaining!

  • Council Intern Program Report

    • None

  • Committee Breakouts

  • Committees

    • Rules

      • If you would like to join us let us know.

    • Finance

      • Will vote on it before thursday. We looked at financial requests and saw one from the office of the president and going to talk and discuss with Lydia about it.

      • Lim:

        • We noticed a $10,000 increase but that only used 7% of the money was used and we are just wondering what they plan to do with it if they haven’t used that much it.

    • Public Information

      • Email your pictures with your bio to Jude.

    • Advocacy

      • None

  • Immediate Business

  • School Breakouts

    • Motion to strike school breakouts

      • Motion: Lim

      • Second: Tin

  • Final Business

  • Announcements

    • It was brought up by academic affairs, I was disappointed that we couldn’t support the elections. I am sorry if i came off as harsh to anyone and it’s just disappointing.

    • The elections website is now live and the elections is

    • Next meeting elections for president of the senate so keep that in mind if you want to run.

  • Next Meeting: <03/1/18>

  • Motion Adjourn Meeting at <7:09pm>

    • Motion: Hong

    • Second: Lim