Judicial reform is at the forefront of the UB Student Assembly's agenda, and Assembly Chair Nicholas DellaNeve is one of many pressing for restructuring.
Concerned over the current appointment process for new justices to the UB Student-Wide Judiciary (SWJ) prompted the call for change.
According to the SA Constitution the president appoints justices, though presently, his or her choice can only come from a limited group chosen by the SWJ.
DellaNeve and other SA officials believe that this process limits the candidate pool and does not give the SA President true power when it comes to judicial appointments.
The SWJ is not known for its impartiality when it comes to adjudicating and has a generally unpopular "guilty until proven innocent" policy.
Amending the appointment policy for SWJ justices is necessary, if for nothing more than to prevent inbreeding and the proverbial "friends and family" plan that can indoctrinate organizations that follow similar membership guidelines.
On Sunday, DellaNeve explained the specifics of and necessity for these proposed amendments to the SA Constitution.
What does the proposed legislation address?
The proposed amendment changes the process in which SWJ Justices are appointed into office. It includes the addition of a timeframe in which justices must be selected and appointed as well as a deadline by which they must be approved by the Assembly. It also changes where the justice appointment process begins: the proposed amendment states that justices will be selected and appointed by the SA President but then continue to be interviewed by the SWJ to confirm that the selectee is qualified to be a justice. The process for a justice being approved by the Assembly remains the same.
Describe the process an amendment has to go through to be passed.
An amendment has a long, yet necessary process before it becomes part of the SA Constitution. The amendment must first be proposed in the Assembly where it is then referred to the Rules Committee (a sub-committee of the Assembly) for review. The Rules Committee assesses the Amendment to verify its legality and clarity and submits its recommendations to the next Assembly meeting.
The voting process begins in the Assembly where it is approved by a two-third (2/3) majority vote. If the amendment passes in the Assembly it is next proposed in the Senate where it is approved by an absolute majority of the Senate. If approved by the Senate the amendment is enacted in one week unless vetoed by the SA President.
Why are these changes begin proposed, and why now?
The reason the SWJ appointment process is being changed is because it is flawed. Currently the process involves the SWJ sending around ten individuals to the SA President for an interview to determine if the potential justice is deemed acceptable. However, the SA President has no say on what individuals are sent to him. An SWJ Justice is a presidential appointment; therefore, the SWJ should not have power to exclude possible candidates. This issue is being addressed this year because the currently flawed process consumed most of the SA Assembly's agenda for the first semester.
What do you hope will be the end result of these changes if they are passed?
Mostly what I would like to see out of this amendment is a more effective and smooth appointment process that takes less time and causes less frustration. I hope to see this amendment is passed so that next year - and the years to come - the SWJ has the justices they need to effectively run their office with the most capable and comprehensive staff in the least time possible.
What roadblocks do you see this proposed legislation hitting?
The only roadblocks I see hitting this amendment are members of the Senate or Assembly being unhappy with the time restraints given on the proposed legislation or other small details. It is a solid piece of legislation that has been edited multiple times to make sure it doesn't hit an impasse and I am looking forward to seeing it appear in upcoming meetings.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
