Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2018

ORDER LIST

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

RPA-005 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

Part I is amended.

RPA-006 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

Rule 6.1 is amended.

SCHEDULING ORDER

18-001 IN RE MAURA LOSH

The petitioner having waived his right under Rule 6.1 to a

Question-and-Answer session, amici shall file motions or briefs

in the above-entitled matter no later than March 23, 2018 at 5

p.m., whereupon the case shall be submitted for Conference.

REVIEW GRANTED

18-002 IN RE PARLIAMENTARIAN OPINION 17-01

The petition for a writ of review is granted.

The Student Association Parliamentarian is invited to file an

amicus curiae brief in this case expressing his views, pursuant

to Rule 1.6.

The case name is changed to In re Parliamentarian Opinion 17-

01, pursuant to Rule 1.6. As a Review of an Opinion, there is no

defendant.

1
 No. 18-002 1

Statement of WESTENDORF, C.J.

NOTICE: The Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley is not a court of law

and its members do not practice law, are not lawyers, and are not
licensed to practice law in the state of Michigan. Those seeking legal
advice should contact the State Bar of Michigan, 306 Townsend Street,
Lansing, Michigan 48933-2012, or visit: http://www.michbar.org.

SUPREME COURT OF SAGINAW VALLEY

______

No. 18-002
______

In re PARLIAMENTARY OPINION 17-01

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF REVIEW FROM NIC VON SCHNEIDER

[March 12, 2018]

The petition for a writ of review is granted.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, with whom JUSTICE EICK joins,
respecting the grant of review.
I vote to grant the writ of review and I write separately to
address JUSTICE WARD’s statement respecting the grant of
review. Respectfully, I do not see a “contradiction” between the
governing documents of Student Association and the Court. Post
at 1.
THE SUPREME COURT OF SAGINAW VALLEY has the
authority that our Constitution grants us. We do not operate
within Student Association’s framework, and we’re very explicit
in saying so.
“The judicial review of the Saginaw Valley State University
Student Association’s governing documents, procedures, and
policies by [The Court] shall be non-binding and advisory only.
[The Court] shall have no formal authority over the Saginaw
Valley State University Student Association.” Constitution,
Article I § 3. (Emphasis added.)
Notwithstanding that disclaimer, however, we clearly have
the authority to review the formal opinions of the Student
Association Parliamentarian.
2 In re PARLIAMENTARY OPINION 17-01

Statement of WESTENDORF, C.J.

“[The Court] shall be neither bound by an opinion of the

Parliamentarian, nor, upon a successful appeal, by an opinion of
the Legislation Committee. To the contrary: the Court has the
power to review formal opinions of the Parliamentarian (or the
Legislation Committee); and to affirm, vacate, or reverse those
opinions.” In re Executive Assistant to the Association, 16-003
(2016) (WESTENDORF, C.J., concurring.)
“The judicial review of the Saginaw Valley State University
Student Association’s governing documents, procedures, and
policies by the Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley...” Constitution,
Article I § 3. (Emphasis added.)
“The Court shall have the power to hear all cases and
controversies...” Constitution, Article IV § 2.
Our rules are even more explicit. Rule 1.1 of this Court states:
“Any person or organization may appeal to this Court for the
review of an opinion by the Parliamentarian...”
We have a duty to write ‘REVERSED’ at the end of the review
of a Parliamentary Opinion which disrespects the Student
Association Charter, no matter the practical effect of our
Opinions or Orders.
If it helps, imagine that the Court is a group of baseball
fans who gather to review controversial calls by umpires. We
certainly wouldn’t have the power to actually reverse on-field
calls, however nothing would prevent us from independently
publishing meticulously-researched and well-reasoned opinions
on why the calls are correct or incorrect.
We seek no power or control over the Association. Our
influence comes from the quality of our Opinions. It does not
come from the actual ability to reverse, affirm, etc. Our ‘power’
comes from public perception due to the long-term juxtaposition
between our work and the Association’s work. Take a look at
recent Association meeting minutes, campus news reports1,

“A visibly upset Mr. Fleming responded, pounding on the table in front of

1

him, indirectly asking Mr. Jones why he did not approach him privately about
his concerns instead of airing them at a public meeting ... Other members
responded as well, equally as angry. Association representative Jasmine
Charlton stormed out of the meeting after speaking. The association’s executive
assistant Angela Grimaldi was visibly upset, and members were begging other
 No. 18-002 3

Statement of WESTENDORF, C.J.

Parliamentary Opinions, etc.; and then examine this Court’s

work: our cohesion, our orders and Opinions, our meticulously-
updated website, how we correspond to inquiries from Parties or
from the public, etc. The difference is striking.
If the petitioner prevails in this case, Maura Losh will not
actually get her seat back. We’re playing the long game. (Which,
let’s face it, is mostly lost on the majority of the young mind’s in
the Association.) But a future Representative, five-to-ten years
from now, looking back on the details of this case will clearly see
which participants, parties, and documents involved had more
credibility and legal integrity. That may not be of comfort for
Ms. Losh, but it’s a good description for where our true influence
is derived.

* * *

JUSTICE WARD writes that “when a [Parliamentary Opinion]

exists, this Court must recognize its binding force.” Post at 2.
However, the Court has already spoken on this specific issue
with a clear voice. Parliamentary Opinions are indeed binding
upon the Association. To the Court, however, Parliamentarian
Opinions are instructive.
“The Court finds the opinions of the Parliamentarian ...
instructive ... and we defer to them under the presumption that
they comply with the Association’s governing documents.” In re
Separation of Powers, 16-008 (2016) at 9, quoting In re Executive
Assistant to the Association, 16-003 (2016) (WESTENDORF, C.J.,
concurring). (Emphasis added.)
Following JUSTICE WARD’s line of reasoning to its logical
conclusion, the Court would not even have the power to declare
invalid any provision of the Association’s Bylaws. However,
we have already — and correctly — done so (and with JUSTICE
WARD’s sanction). Of course, like with Ms. Losh’s expulsion,

members to refrain from commenting further, wanting to bring the discussions

behind closed doors. Association representatives Michael Kerkau and Jennora
Walker pleaded with their fellow members to stop the discussion.” Westendorf,
Michael. “Tempers Flare In Year-End Student Association Meeting.” The
Saginaw Valley Journal (University Center, Mich.), April 21, 2011.
4 In re PARLIAMENTARY OPINION 17-01

Statement of WESTENDORF, C.J.

those invalidated provisions still stand. Even though they

disrespected the Association’s Charter, they were not actually
struck from the Association’s Bylaws.

* * *

There is a distinction between what our Constitution and

Rules allow the Court to do, and the actual effect of our work.
Respectfully, that is not a contradiction; and our carefully-
constructed framework permits that distinction and requires no
reconciliation.
 No. 18-002 1

Statement of WARD, J.

NOTICE: The Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley is not a court of law

and its members do not practice law, are not lawyers, and are not
licensed to practice law in the state of Michigan. Those seeking legal
advice should contact the State Bar of Michigan, 306 Townsend Street,
Lansing, Michigan 48933-2012, or visit: http://www.michbar.org.

SUPREME COURT OF SAGINAW VALLEY

______

No. 18-002
______

In re PARLIAMENTARY OPINION 17-01

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF REVIEW FROM NIC VON SCHNEIDER

[March 12, 2018]

The petition for a writ of review is granted.

JUSTICE WARD, with whom JUSTICE MARTUCH joins,
respecting the grant of review.
I concur with this Court’s decision to grant the instant appeal.
However, I write separately to comment on the nature of this
appeal and, what I believe to be, the limits thereof.
The Parliamentarian of the Saginaw Valley State University
Student Association (“SA” or “Association”) is, among other
things, that body’s judicial entity. As such, the Parliamentarian’s
opinions are binding upon the Association. See, e.g., P.O. 14-
05; see also In re Executive Assistant to the Association, 16-003
(2016). While the Bylaws provide a mechanism for an appeal to
the Legislative and External Affairs Committee, this is the only
mechanism to review and reverse a P.O.1
Notwithstanding the above, this Court has purported
authority under its rules to review the decisions of sitting and
former Parliamentarians. This is an apparent contradiction:
the Bylaws provide for binding P.O.s, with a limited avenue of
1
Of course, the Association may choose to pass a Bylaw amendment
to reverse a P.O., or the Student Body may elect to amend the Charter to
undermine a P.O.
2 In re PARLIAMENTARY OPINION 17-01

Statement of WARD, J.

review; and yet, this Court asserts it too has authority to review
the legitimacy of P.O.s.
While, at first blush, this appears to be a contradiction, I
believe there is a way to reconcile these propositions. To do so,
however, this Court must recognize that, upon issuance of a P.O.,
that Opinion is binding upon the Association. Therefore, the
Association must act as if that P.O.—no matter how fallaciously
reasoned—were a part of its governing documents. At the same
time, this Court may articulate, in a written opinion, that the
reasoning, analysis, and/or conclusion of a P.O. is erroneous.2
But, this does not mean that we can “reverse”3 a P.O. We have
no such authority. Rather, we are constrained to merely pointing
out the flaws that exist in a P.O., and hope that—upon proper
appeal to the Legislative and External Affairs Committee—the
P.O. is reversed.
Recognizing the above has important consequences for both
the Association and this Court. A P.O. is binding authority for
the Association. As such, when a P.O. exists, this Court must
recognize its binding force. To be sure, while we can articulate
our grievances with a P.O., we must accept it as governing in the
instant case, and all future cases. After all, the Bylaws, and the
precedents of many learned Parliamentarians, instruct us that
P.O.s are binding authority which are to be given the weight of
authority vested to the governing documents.
With this understanding, I concur with this Court’s grant of
Petition 18-002.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive.

2

By “reverse,” I mean the ability to issue an order invalidating the opinion

3

under review.