Court of the Associated Students, University of California, Davis
Unanimous Opinion of the Court
--------MILES THOMAS, SENATOR PRO TEMPORE OF THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS v. CARLY SANDSTROM, PRESIDENT OF THE
ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS
--------Decided: March 3rd, 2014
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES LEECH and IMAN deliver the majority opinion.
I. The Facts
On February 6, 2014 the ASUCD Management Team, as outlined by ASUCD Bylaw
1002(A), failed to present to the ASUCD Senate regarding the budget for the upcoming fiscal
year. February 6, 2014 occurred on the 5th Thursday of Winter quarter and thus represented the
specific time detailed in the Bylaws in which the Team was to present administrative recharges
and income availability for subsidy to the Senate. Witness testimony, published Senate Agenda
and Minutes all confirm there was no such presentation by the ASUCD Management Team about
the administrative recharges and income availability for subsidy.
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 Senate President Pro Tempore Miles Thomas informed
ASUCD Controller Eric Evans of the ASUCD Management Team’s failure to provide the
administrative recharges. Evans provided the administrative charges that day through an email to
the ASUCD Senate listserv. However, the income available for subsidy was not produced until
the Trial on March 3, 2014. The Petitioner filed this case on February 24, 2014 and the Court
agreed to hear it on February 26, 2014.
II. Rule of Law
Section 1002A of the ASUCD Bylaws states:
“The ASUCD Management Team shall initiate the budgeting process no later than the
fourth (4th) week of winter Quarter.
(1) The ASUCD Management Team shall present a proposed schedule of
administrative recharges and the income available for subsidy to the ASUCD Senate by
the fifth (5th) week of winter Quarter.”
Representative to the Respondent, ASUCD Controller Eric Evans, claimed throughout
the Trial that knowing every detail of the Bylaws does not represent the bulk of the ASUCD
Management Team’s duties, that Bylaws in ASUCD are not consistently followed, and that
previous administrations have failed to adhere to BL 1002(A)(1) in the past. According to the
minutes of ASUCD Senate meetings from the 5th week of Winter Quarter from 2013, 2012, and
2011, ASUCD Management Teams have both presented the budget as outlined in Chapter 10 of
the ASUCD Bylaws and have not, a mixed precedent. Previous executive administrations have
both adhered to and violated BL 1002(A)(1). Unfortunately, it has been made clear to this Bench
that Bylaws have been broken without heed. While the Respondent may claim that they have
followed the ‘spirit’ of the Bylaws, this does not exempt them from knowing and following the
specific ‘letter’ of the Bylaws themselves.
III. Importance of the Bylaws and the Budget
Past administrations’ failures to follow BL 1002(A)(1) are not sufficient grounds for the
current administration to ignore Bylaws or to plead ignorance. The Bylaws, in combination with
the ASUCD Constitution, represent the governing documents of this institution. They guide the
day-to-day operations, long term plans, best practices and orders of operation of this institution;
without which ASUCD lacks all grounds and standards for existing. Governing documents have
purpose, they exist for a reason, and failures to adhere to them demonstrate a feigning disrespect
for this institution and the persons who created it. Every Bylaw matters and should be followed
strictly, dutifully, and without failure.
In addition, Bylaw 1002(A)(1) and all of Chapter 10 addresses the operation and
creation of the annual ASUCD budget. This process matters to every student on the UC Davis
campus and allocates a significant amount of money in the hands of ASUCD management so
that it may be dispensed to the respective Unit Directors and other ASUCD operations. While
the Court does not question the competence of the ASUCD Management Team, as the Team
produced the administrative recharges when asked and the income available for subsidy during
the Trial, the failure to inform the Senate of the budgeting process creates questions. Chapter
10 of the ASUCD Bylaw was created so that the budgeting process can follow a consistent
practice. Section 1002(A)(1) requests the ASUCD Management Team to present to Senate
in order to promote transparency for the public in the budgeting process. By blatantly not
following 1002(A)(1) of the ASUCD Bylaws, the Respondent ostensibly disrespects the spirit of
transparency that ASUCD follows.
IV. Conclusion
While the ASUCD institutions’ adherence to the Bylaws remains inconsistent, this is not
sufficient grounds for present governmental officials to blatantly ignore Bylaws or provide
grounds to “pick-and-choose” Bylaws to follow. This Court finds ASUCD President Carly
Sandstrom guilty of violating BL 1002(A)(1) of the ASUCD Bylaws.
Furthermore, the Court should not be the mediator for personal issues or a lack of
communication. Alternative means should have been sought first. Suits and injunctions should
have been of last resort. Trials such as these damage the cooperation of the ASUCD government
and waste the time of the judiciary.
THIS COURT ORDERS the ASUCD Management Team to present the administrative
recharges and income available for subsidy as outlined in ASUCD Bylaw §1002A(1) to the
ASUCD Senate at the next Senate meeting.
THIS COURT RECOMMENDS that the ASUCD President, Vice-President, and Controller
create a new transitioning process for the new Executive administration that promotes the best
practices of each office so as to prevent this situation in the future. This new transitioning
process should place the highest emphasis on following the Bylaws and Constitution of ASUCD,
specifically adhering to the spirit of transparency in the Budgeting process.
THIS COURT FOREWARNS future executive administrations from blatantly failing to adhere
to Bylaws no matter how insignificant or unimportant they may seem.
Opinion Rendered
We Concur: Chief Justice Kim; Vice Chief Justice Chau, Justice Rashidi