In re Executive Assistant to the Association

In re Executive Assistant to the Association, 16-003 (2016) is a case in which the Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley ruled 5-0 that the Executive Assistant to the Association does not enjoy floor privileges during association meetings.

The case arose due to a dispute as to whether or not it was appropriate for the executive assistant — technically an association employee and not a Representative —to speak on motions, express his or her opinion, and influence votes.

In its advisory opinion, the court ruled that the executive assistant does not enjoy floor privileges, according to Roberts Rules of Order, however it did permit certain exceptions "due to the nature" of the executive assistant's position. It also clarified that the association may grant the executive assistant floor privileges through its rules of procedure, but that those privileges aren't automatically bestowed.

Justice Trevor Ward delivered the opinion of the court.

Chief Justice Westendorf's Concurring Opinion
Chief Justice Michael Westendorf wrote a concurring opinion which said that the practice of allowing the executive assistant to participate in debate, mold issues during meetings, and affect voting outcomes is improper and that it, "dishonors the elective nature of the association and it cheapens the voice of the students at the polls."

However, Westendorf said, the wisdom of passing a rule allowing the executive assistant to have floor privileges should not be up to the judiciary. He wrote that while he thought it unwise, policy positions such as that should be determined by the students and their representatives.