\u201cThat on the recommendation of the Code and Policies Committee and the Oversight Committee, Council approve the proposed Bylaw changes contained in the report \u2018Bylaw Changes – Student Court Committee Suggestions,\u2019 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.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n “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.<\/p>\n Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n The two bylaw changes are awkward. They contain an intersection of changes, with little text being unique to each. Passing the first question would:<\/p>\n * require non-law judges Passing the second question would:<\/p>\n * require non-law judges 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n 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.” <\/em>Full Text<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
\n– AMS Council, March 2009<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n![\"venn_thumb\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/ubcinsiders\/files\/2010\/01\/venn_ballot2.png\" "\\"venn_thumb\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n* remove the requirement that the Chief Justice be from law
\n* removal of referendum interpretation and ‘clarification’ powers in ambiguous cases
\n* modify the ability of Student Court to impose fees on individuals from $10.00 to an amount set by Council
\n* removal of the authority of the Student Court to be final interpreter of the AMS’s bylaws
\n* removal of requirement for Student Court’s decisions to be received by resolution of council<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n* remove the requirement that the Chief Justice be from law
\n* removal of referendum interpretation and ‘clarification’ powers in ambiguous cases
\n* require that Student Court sit only with an odd number of judges
\n* require that Student Court sit with at least one-non law judge
\n* removal of alternate judges
\n* adding a proactive requirement that Student Court review referendum questions for consistency with rules prior to being asked<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n