No.

18-002

IN THE

Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley

______

NIC VON SCHNEIDER,

Petitioner,

V.

SEAN MUELLER, STUDENT ASSOCIATION PARLIAMENTARIAN

Respondent,
______

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF REVIEW TO THE

STUDENT ASSOCIATION PARLIAMENTARIAN

______

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF REVIEW

 PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner is Nic Von Schneider, a Michigan resident and

tax-payer. Petitioner is not an SVSU student. Petitioner is a
“person” pursuant to this Court’s rule 1.1.
Respondent is Sean Mueller, an SVSU student, in his official
capacity as Student Association Parliamentarian.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF REVIEW

Nic Von Schneider respectfully petitions the Supreme Court

of Saginaw Valley for a writ of review to review Parliamentary
Opinion 17-01.

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to

the Constitution of the Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley,
specifically Article I § 3 and Article IV § 2.
This appeal has been properly filed pursuant to this Court’s
Rules of Procedure, specifically rules 1.1 and 1.4.

OPINION BELOW

Parliamentary Opinion 17-01 was published on Jan. 8, 2018.

It is attached hereto, as Exhibit A, pursuant to this Court’s
rule 1.1.

STUDENT ASSOCIATION CHARTER AND BYLAWS

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Charter Article I § 4; Bylaws Article IV § 4.1.5; Bylaws

Article IV § 4.1.11; Bylaws Article IV § 4.3.2; Bylaws Article IV
§ 3 4.3.4; Bylaws Article IV § 4.3.5; Bylaws Article III § 6 3.6.2.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Upon information and belief, Respondent published

Parliamentary Opinion 17-01 on Jan. 8, 2018. As a direct result
of Respondent’s ruling, Student Association Representative
Maura Losh faced expulsion. On Jan. 22, 2018, Representative
Losh was expelled. See: Fox, Brian. “Student Association
Removes Representative.” The Valley Vanguard (University
Center, Mich.), January 28, 2018. This Court granted
certification of certain questions on Representative Losh’s
expulsion without regard to Parliamentarian Opinion 17-
01. This petition does not ask the Court to disturb that case.
Likewise, this petition does not ask the Court (in this case) to
rule on the merits of Representative Losh’s expulsion.
I. THE DECISION BELOW IS WRONG
The opinion erroneously declared that “...complainant
members can put another member up for review, even if they
are no longer in the Association...”. By definition, a person
cannot be simultaneously a ‘complainant member’ and a non-
member of the SVSU Student Association.
The fact that Article IV § 4.3.5 of the Student Association
Bylaws requires the Speaker to “[read] the discrepancies”
contained within the charges to expel a Representative has
nothing whatsoever to do with who has the power to initiate
an expulsion proceeding. Following the logical conclusion
derived from Respondent’s erroneous ruling, former Student
Association Representatives from decades past (conceivably,
even persons never having been a member of the Association!)
now enjoy the power to initiate expulsion proceedings against
currently serving Representatives. This position is absurd.
II. THIS MATTER IS JUSTICIABLE
The Constitution of the Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley
clearly allows for the review of Parliamentary Opinions. Such
a review constitutes a “...judicial review of the Saginaw Valley
State University Student Association’s governing documents,
procedures, and policies...” (Article I § 3.)
This is bolstered by the Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley’s
Rules of Procedure. See: “Any person or organization may
appeal to this Court for the review of an opinion by the
Parliamentarian...” (Rule 1.1).
 CONCLUSION

The petition should be granted and Parliamentary Opinion

17-01 should be REVERSED for the reasons stated within. I
certify that this filing is submitted in good faith and that I am
the named person below, pursuant to this Court’s rule 1.9.

Respectfully submitted,

NIC VON SCHNEIDER

March 1, 2018
EXHIBIT A
 SVSU Student Association
Judicial Opinion 17-01
Parliamentarian Mueller
January 8, 2018
______________________________________________________________________________
Syllabus
On December 13, 2017, Representative Maura Losh submitted a request for
Parliamentarian Mueller to interpret the question, can a member of the Association puts another
member up for the Review Process, if the complainant member will no longer be in the
Association.
As established in {B} 1.4.1, The Parliamentarian may prepare a written opinion that has
been formally presented in writing with a question of the interpretation of the Charter and
Bylaws. The written request of Representative Losh satisfies the requirements for
Parliamentarian Mueller to write this opinion.
Pursuant to the Bylaws of the Association, Parliamentarian Mueller has found evidence
in stating that any member of the Association can put a Representative up for the Review
Process, even if the complainant member will no longer be in the Association. As long as, the
member being put up for review is not an Officer of the Association, under {B} 4.1.6.
Held
1. The Association follows Article 4 of the Bylaws under Creation of Vacancies in the
matter of procedure.
Ordered
1. That any member of the Association can put up another member up for review, even if
the complainant member will no longer be in the Association, as long as the charges are
not against an Officer.
______________________________________________________________________________
History
On December 13, 2017, Representative Maura Losh submitted a formal request for a
Written Judicial Opinion to Parliamentarian Mueller on the question of who qualifies to put a
Representative up for the Review Process.1 After looking through the Charter and Bylaws,
Parliamentarian Mueller did find evidence that states a member of the Association can put
another member up for review, even if the complainant member will no longer be in the
Association, as long as the member that is being put up for review is not an Officer.

1
See Appendix One.
 2

I
Review Process for Representatives
As presented in Article 4 of the Association’s Bylaws, under Section 3 of the process for
removal of a Representative, “The Speaker shall explain the discrepancy, the Representative in
question will respond for no longer than five minutes, and then the Representatives shall have a
clarification period to ask questions…”2 In the review process for a Representative, The Speaker
is the one that reads the discrepancies of that of the complainants. Ensuring that the environment
is not hostile between the Representative in review and the complainant Representative. As well
as that the removal of a Representative is being removed from the Association entirely. With that
stated, the process does not need for the complainant Representative to still be in the Association
when the review process is in session.
II
Review Process for an Officer
As stated in Article 4 of the Association’s Bylaws, under Section 1 of the process for
removal of an Officer is different from that of removal of a Representative. Stating that, “The
charges shall be read by one or more of the complainants and then the officer in question shall
present his or her response.”3 Which brings the question to why the complainants have a right to
present the charges for an Officer. As state further in the process, “In the event an officer is
removed, he or she forfeits all titles and duties of the position and retains his or her duties as a
Representative.”4 This establishes that if an Officer of the Association is removed, they are
removed only from their title and duties only, still hold Representative rights. With that stated,
the complainants must be current Representatives during the time of the Review Process for an
Officer.

III
Conclusion
First, it has been declared that the Association will follow the removal procedure outlined
in Article 4 of the Bylaws, in which that the complainant member can put another member up for
review, even if they will no longer be in the Association.
Next, the Bylaws give reasons to why the process requires the complainant to be present
during the review process of an Officer. In that an Officer is not removed from the Association,
just from their position. Whereas, removal of a Representative is being removed from the
Association entirely, so the charges are then read by the Speaker.

2
{B} 4.3.5
3
{B} 4.1.5
4
{B} 4.1.11
 3

Finally, with all evidence being presented, the complainant members can put another
member up for review, even if they are no longer in the Association, so long as it is not an
Officer.
It is so Ordered.

Appendix I
Written Request for Parliamentary Judicial Opinion
Hello Parliamentarian Mueller!

I know the semester is near over and break is upon us, but I do have one request, perhaps for you
to do over break.

I would like you to do a parliamentarian investigation and write an opinion about whether or not
a representative can bring another representative up for review if the accuser graduates before the
house meeting when the review meeting will take place.

As you are probably aware, representative Earle has put me up for formal review, as of tonight.
Because rep Earle is graduating fall 2017, and thus will no longer be a rep during winter 2018
semester, she will not have speaking or voting rights during the house meeting when my review
would take place.
Thank you,
Maura Losh

Representative, Student Association