- Student Government (AAS)Student Government (AAS)
- AAS Senate
- AAS Budgetary Committee
- Who Are We?
- What Does the AAS Do?
- New York Times Online Access
- Getting Involved
- Suggestion Box
- JC Rulings
- JC Ruling on April 7th Senate Attendance Complaint
- JC Ruling on the Revisitation of the April 15 Elections Complaint
- JC Ruling on April 25 Referendum Complaint
- JC Ruling on April 15 Elections Complaint
- JC Ruling on Sophomore Senator Complaint
- JC Ruling on April 18 Elections Complaint
- JC Ruling on April 5 E-Board Election
- JC Ruling on April 7 E-board Election
- JC Ruling on Oct. 2 Run-off
April 9, 2010
Judiciary Council Ruling April 9, 2011
Judiciary Council Chair: Thomas Burnett ’11
Voting Members: Samual Bell ’11, Ben Garmezy ‘11, Analena Alcabes ’13, Jean Santiago ’13, George Tepe ’14
The complainant alleged the procedures established in Article V, Section F, Clause 7 of the AAS Constitution were not followed prior to the Thursday Election harming the competitiveness of the election. Furthermore, the complainant argued that multiple candidates were in breach of the college’s Electronic Resource Acceptable Use Policy by violating the “Respect for Others” and “Accounts and Access Restrictions” sections.
The JC unanimously agreed that the first election complaint was invalid and all others were outside of the Judiciary Council’s jurisdiction.
According to Article V, Section I, Clause 3 of the Constitution, “A valid elections complaint must have the potential to affect the outcome of the election and must fall within the prescribed powers of the Judiciary Council.”
Posting the ballot three days prior to the election does not realistically affect the election results, with the exception of misspellings that would negatively affect the individual whose name was misspelled. The JC agreed that this was the rationale and spirit of the clause. Since there were no misspellings in this particular instance, the first complaint is not valid because it does not have the potential to affect the results.
Alleged violations of the Electronic Resource Acceptable Use Policy do not pertain to the Bylaws, Resolutions, Rules, or Constitution of the AAS and therefore do not fall within the prescribed powers of the Judiciary Council. The Judiciary Council has “jurisdiction over any controversy arising under this Constitution or the general bylaws of the AAS (including elections).” The Council withholds judgment on the validity of these complaints but will not proceed with hearings on them for want of jurisdiction. Complainant is encouraged to seek relief from the Information Technology department, which is “responsible for the administration of this policy.”