Petition in Response to Dray Krishnan et.

al January 11, 2013 Nature of the Situation A petition for review naming John Zang, Spencer Malloy, and Courtney Lennartz was filed on January 9th, 2013 in reference to the recent purchase of two Apple iPads. This petition to the Board of Arbitration seeks to address these concerns and requests a speedy end to continued legal action and dismissal of the aforementioned petition. Concerns re: Nature of Situation The Nature of Situation in the named petition is generally factual but does not adequately describe the situation because of the omission of relevant information. 1) No funds have yet left the Associated Student Activities (ASA) account of the University Park Undergraduate Association (UPUA). ASA purchased the iPads and Defendant John Zang signed the ASA order knowing that UPUA cannot release more than $1000 from any single committee or director for a single purchase. ASA will deduct funds from the UPUA account only once a tax emption is applied. The petition is untimely filed because UPUA, as an organization, has yet to purchase anything. John Zang placed an order with ASA and received the iPads, but the transaction has yet to be completed. The defendants request the entire case be dropped due to this untimely filing. Concerns re: Cause of Action: Violation RE: Budgetary Policy The Cause of Action: Violation in the named petition provides multiple allegations against the defendants. Answering the allegations of violations of 8.9.1.14, 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.3, 9.4.4 of the UPUA Budget Policy, the Defendants deny all allegations. Answering the allegations of violations of 1 & 6 of the Code of Practical Standards, the defendants deny all allegations. 1) The petitions point (1) suggests a violation of 8.9.1.14, hereafter referenced as personal gain. The defendants ask that this allegation be dismissed. a. The budgetary statement (exceeding fifty (50) dollars) within personal gain suggests monetary calculus in determining whether personal gain exists. b. Via (a), any suggestion of personal gain through the use of ancillary features (e.g. using an iPad to watch a YouTube video) that are non-monetary should be removed from discussion. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. c. Via (a), such a cost implies ownership. The iPads in question are legally owned by the UPUA. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds.

d. As a severable suggestion, the definition of personal gain implies ownership. In the same line of reasoning as (c), the defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. e. It is noted that the development of a loaning policy (which has been verbally agreed to be considered) would provide further evidence against personal gain. f. It is noted that the ease of wiping via Apple factory instructions the iPads to their original state for transitionary purposes, as per (b), would provide further evidence against personal gain. 2) The petitions point (2) suggests a violation of 9.4.1, hereafter referenced as less than $1,000 The defendants ask that this allegation be dismissed. a. The cost of the two iPads is below $1,000: the purchases of (2) iPads at the cost of $499 each totals to $998. The discrepancy between the report used by the Plaintiffs is incorrect in the application of taxation to the cost of the iPads. Apple.com did not allow for the application of tax-exempt status at the point of purchase, which led to ASAs purchasing of the (2) iPads at a cost of $1,070. Because of this, ASA is appropriately applying for tax exemption. As confirmed by email correspondences submitted to the Board for consideration, ASA is in contact with Apple, Inc. in receiving tax exemption. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. b. The purchases of two iPads are separate purchases of $499. This is the case, regardless of the decision of ASA to combine the two items on the report. i. It is duly noted that ASAs procedure cannot uniformly adhere to our standards. Judging a violation of UPUA policy based on the technological or administrative restrictions of ASA is unfair; their wait times, aggregation, and reporting policy is not completely harmonized with our own requirements. ii. Evidence of the separation is found in the split between funding sources, as one iPad was purchased from the Chair discretionary and the other from the Presidential discretionary. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. iii. Evidence of the separation is found in the split between use cases. One will be governed by Assembly procedure, the other by executive. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. iv. It is duly noted that 9.4.3, pooling, is not relevant to this discussion. Pooling is, by definition, the combination of funds. Funds are combined in order to reach a certain amount necessary to purchase an item. In this case, funds were not pooled to reach a total cost funds were disbursed

separately within UPUA from each account for separate items to be used for separate works. This lack of an end-goal of total cost removes this point from the discussion. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. v. Point (iv) is further enhanced by the severability of the purchases. Pooling would only make sense in the case where the final cost is necessary to purchase an item or event; the fact that the iPads could have been bought days, weeks or even months apart is evidence of the severability and thus unnecessary association of the purchases regardless of whether there are multiple purchase orders. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. vi. The spirit of the rule, to the defendants interpretation, is that this severability is more important than the ASA report (as per point (i), above. A relevant example: ASA does not actually treat the many sub-accounts of UPUA (e.g. Committees, Exec) as separate accounts: they only exist within the UPUA budget framework. Our own reporting (and thus our own severing of the two items) supersedes any UPUA interpretation. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. 3) The petitions point (3) suggests a violation of 9.4.2, hereafter referenced as reporting. The defendants ask that this allegation be dismissed. a. Point (1) under Concerns re: Nature of Situation above is extended. The fact that the purchase has not been made makes this issue completely irrelevant, as the report would be forthcoming anyway. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. b. Point (a) above is further bolstered by Point (2)(a). The fact that tax exemptions had to be recalculated due to an Apple issue and ASA issue, rather than student inaction, further bolsters this point and highlights the importance of waiting to file a report until final costs are tabulated. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds.

c. Section 9.4.2 has been fulfilled by the inclusion of two separate reports within the Chairs black binder of Sub-$1000 purchases. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. d. Point (c) is extended and bolstered as the ID committee, which has filed the suit, has happily accepted every single sub-$1000 purchase this year until this moment. This inconsistency alone is ground for dismissing this point; the defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. e. Reporting is duly met by the posting of budget issues on the UPUA website. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds.

f. Point (e) is also subject to the extension (d) above. Internal development (nor anyone else in UPUA for the past two years) has felt that reporting all purchases in monthly budget reports was insufficient. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. g. Undeniably, it is important to revise policy that is not met appropriately (in the above points). However, it is noted that it is poor precedent to begin enforcing them in a judicial manner when a legislative resolution of policy is sufficient in other situations and it would be unknown at what point the issue would suddenly be enforced. For issues of fairness, we ask request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. 4) The petitions point (4) suggests a violation of 9.4.3, hereafter referenced as pooling. The defendants ask that this allegation be dismissed. a. Any discussion of this allegation is pursuant to the assumptions dealt with in this memos points (2)(a) (that it is under $1,000) and (2)(b) that they are separate purchases. Any further consideration of this allegation is unnecessary should the Board recognize any of the many objections to the above issue. b. The pooling allegation is irrelevant, as it does not implicate the Chair discretionary. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. c. This objection is not relevant; the hypothetical pooling cannot be considered as used to avoid legislation when it could have easily been spent by one entity or another. The fact that it could have been spent by one entity negates the idea of pooling entirely. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. 5) The petitions point (5) suggests a violation of 9.4.4, quorum. The defendants ask that this allegation be dismissed a. This point is irrelevant; neither purchase was made by an entity that would require a committee vote. This provision is clearly to maintain consistency in purchases from committees that have discretionary line items, not for the separately delineated Chair or Presidential discretionaries. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. b. Because of point (a), the record requirement in 9.4.4 is irrelevant. RE: Code of Practical Standards 1) The petition attempts to cite the code of practical standards for judicial review. This document is not enforceable and is not in the purview of the Board of Arbitration for

actual enforcement (though it can, like anything else, be reviewed for Constitutionality etc.). a. It does not have an enforcement mechanism within the legislation. This could easily have been included and as such it is clear that the legislation is not enforceable in any unique manner, but a set of suggestions and guidelines to be included [in transition binders]. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. b. The Code of Practical standards explains that its only enforceable via the UPUA Constitution: Serious Violations of this code that bring into question a members ability to fulfill his or her responsibilities, can serve as grounds for removal as stipulated in 11.3 of the UPUA Constitution. Section 11.3 specifies standard removal procedures via the Assembly, making any violations of the budgetary policy subject at best to Assembly review. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. c. The Code of Practical standards is variable enough that it can at best be considered a suggestion. Enforcement of the code of practical standards by the Assembly itself (let alone by the judiciary!) opens the floodgates to nonsensical debates over the wild variety of items in the code, including but not limited to 1) texting, cleanliness, and clothing (seriously). The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. d. Concurrence on either (a), (b), or (c) makes further considerations of the petition related to the Code of Practical Standards irrelevant, though additional points are added below for reference. 2) Point (1) of the petition suggests that 1 of the code was violated. a. The manner in which it was violated is not specified. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. b. No enforcement mechanism, level/scale of severity, etc. is specified. Such vagueness is unenforceable in any fair manner and thus must be avoided. The defendants request such an allegation be dismissed on these grounds. 3) Point (2) of the petition suggests that 6 of the code was violated. a. Extend (2)(a) and (2)(b). b. This section is perhaps even more vague and subject to such ridiculously variable interpretation and emotional interference that it is impossible to consider and in

sore need of legislative review if it is to be considered any more than a suggestion. Conclusion These points are suggested in good faith to rectify the current situation developed by the petition submitted to the Board. All of the suggestions should be independently considered as many, regardless of decisions on others, are suggested by the defendants to be weighty enough to dismiss specific violations suggested by the petition and, both together and in a few individual instances, enough to dismiss the case entirely. Prepared and submitted by Spencer Malloy, Chair of the Assembly, John Zang, Chief of Staff, and Courtney Lennartz, President.