UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDENT UNION APPELLATE COURT

CASE # 03-SP-02

 BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

BRADLEY JONES                                Petitioner

V.

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDENT UNION                                Respondent 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Is the legislation 57LCB7, passed by Legislative Council and signed into effect by the Executive, unconstitutional and in direct breech of the UCSU governing documents? (Specifically, the Legislative Council Bylaws and University Board on Student Finance Bylaws) Does the Legislative Council have proper constitutional authority to authorize an allocation from the Supplemental Operational Reserve (SOR) without prior review and action by the Finance Board?

 In making such an allocation, did the Legislative Council act in such a way that is of danger to the stability of the SOR? Is the operation of the SOR routine business of the Finance Board as defined in Article XIV of the Legislative Council Bylaws and the UCSU Constitution?

 SOURCES OF LAW

The sources of law relevant to this case are:

 1.   The University of Colorado Student Union Constitution, Article IV § B(l) grants this Court "final authority" in questions of constitutional interpretation.

 2.   The University Board on Student Finance Bylaws govern the operation of the UCSU Finance Board and establishes procedure by which monies may be drawn from reserve accounts such as the Supplemental Operational Reserve and the Emergency Contingency Reserve.

3.   The bylaws of the UCSU Legislative Council establishes procedure for overriding decisions of joint and advisory boards.

4.   The University of Colorado Student Union Constitution establishes the Legislative Council and the various joint boards with specific mandates and areas of responsibility and jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction in this case pursuant to Article IV of the University of Colorado Student Union Constitution.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case concerns the legality and constitutionality of the SOR allocation made by S8LCB7, establishing a Distinguished Lecture Series Board. This court should find such allocation to be unlawful in that it is initiated by the Legislative Council having been given no express control over the SOR funds. Rather, the only body within the UCSU authorized to initiate SOR allocations is the Finance Board, having been granted this authority by the UCSU Constitution and its Bylaws. It is the Constitutional mandate of the Finance Board - and only the Finance Board - to allocate monies for special purposes throughout the year.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Legislative Council Bill S8LCB7 was passed February 20, 2003 and signed by the Executive. The legislation establishes a board with the charge of bringing high-profile speakers to the CU-Boulder campus backed by student fee financial support. The funding structure of the lecture series relies on a $150 thousand dollar SOR allocation to the Board.

While the legislation was passed and signed into effect with an understanding that a supermajority of Legislative Council is sufficient to allocate monies from the SOR, this  understanding is incorrect and in conflict with the reality of the UCSU governing  Documents. This Court has found there to be sufficient reason to believe the issuance of  a temporary restraining order is warranted, in that the expenditure of unauthorized funds  irreparably harms the membership of the UCSU.

There exists no express permission granted to the Legislative Council to initiate expenditures from the SOR. The Legislative Council may, upon the decision of the

Finance Board on the matter of an allocation override or amend such decision by a two-thirds vote. The Finance Board had made no decision regarding a SOR allocation to the Distinguished Lecture Series Board prior to the legislative action of the Legislative Council. The SOR and the processes by which contributions are made to and expenditures from the account are established in the University Board on Student Finance Bylaws. These procedures are put into place in accordance with the UCSU Constitution which charges the Finance Board with allocating monies throughout the year for special purposes. These monies are a function of the normal Constitutionally-mandated operation of the Finance Board.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

This Court should find that the power of the Legislative Council to allocate monies from the SOR is limited to the override power established in Article XIV ¤ C.2 of the Legislative Council Bylaws. In initiating an allocation without any prior action by the Finance Board constitutes interference in the normal operations of that joint board. As the SOR is a product of normal operating procedure established in Constitution and enacted in the Finance Board's bylaws, the oversight of the SOR should be ruled by this Court to be routine business for the purposes of Article XIV of the Legislative Council Bylaws. To that end, such routine business shall be immune from interference by the Legislative Council and subject only to amendment and override as prescribed in the Bylaws.

ARGUMENT 

I.    THIS COURT SHOULD RULE THE ALLOCATION FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONAL RESERVE MADE IN SECTION 5 OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL 58LCB7 UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT IT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH ESTABLISHED GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND STUDENT FEE POLICY.

The Legislative Council lacked the proper authority to allocate monies from the SOR for the purposes enumerated in Section 5 of the legislation in that such an allocation did not constitute proper amendment or override of a joint board decision. This court should find that the management of the SOR is the routine business of the Finance Board not to be interfered in by the Legislative Council in breach of its own Bylaws.

A. There exists no express authority granted to the Legislative Council to initiate allocations from the SOR. Rather, the UCSU Constitution expressly grants the Finance Board authority to grant monies for special purposes, independent of Legislative Council action.

The Constitution of the University of Colorado Student Union provides for a system of six joint boards through which student fee policy is exercised. These joint boards are to carry out this mandate under the guidance of priorities set by the Legislative Council. The power to establish priorities for the expenditure of student fees is significantly different from exercising the day-to-day business of the joint board directly. The Constitution is very clear in establishing the Finance Board to, among other duties, "Allocate monies throughout the year to special purposes." (UCSU Constitution, Article VII ¤ F.3.c) According to the Constitution, the document to which all student government entities must adhere and not contradict, it is the Finance Board's responsibility - not the Legislative Council's - to allocate monies for special projects from accounts designed for that purpose.

 B.  Special Allocations are by definition the routine business of the Finance Board. The UCSU Bylaws prohibit the Legislative Council from interfering with routine joint board operations.

What defines routine operations of a joint board? This court has not issued a ruling to date on this question, but members of UCSU joint boards have a reasonable expectation that the regular operation of their jurisdiction will not be interfered in by the Legislative Council. Examples of such an expectation could be the Recreation Board's decision to open the facility to outside users, the Health Board's decisions regarding indigent care and insurance rates, and the University Memorial Center Board's decisions in allocating student group office space. It is the spirit of the UCSU Constitution to distribute decision-making powers regarding the student union's business across a variety of bodies, of which the Legislative Council is just one part of a larger system. The Legislative Council's Constitutional mandate is in fact rather narrow. Article III ¤ A.2.a-e enumerate the Council's duties. Among them are allocations to student groups (which should not be confused with specific authority over the UCSU budget granted elsewhere in the Constitution) the power to initiate policy and referendum, and ratification of voting members of the joint boards. Nowhere in the Legislative Council's constitutional mandate is mention of special allocations or regular budgetary matters. These duties are deliberately given to the Finance Board in the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

This Court should find the Legislative Council acted outside of its Constitutional powers in initiating the allocation of SOR monies through legislative action, namely Bill S8LCB7. Furthermore the Legislative Council should be found to have interfered in the regular operations of the Finance Board, as prohibited by the Legislative Council Bylaws. It should declare the appropriate clauses of Section 5 of the legislation to be unconstitutional and unlawful.

Respectfully submitted,

 Bradley R. Jones