2025 RUGP Crisis
THE BELOW WRITING IS HIGHLY INACCURATE, DO NOT TAKE IT AT FACE VALUE
| 2025 RUGP Crisis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Grand Marshal Tiburon "T" Benavides expressing dismay during debate | |||||||
| |||||||
| Belligerents | |||||||
 Rensselaer Union Student Senate Rensselaer Union Executive Board |
Rensselaer Union Judicial Board | ||||||
| Commanders and leaders | |||||||
|
Grand Marshal President of the Union Vice President of Rules and Special Projects |
Judicial Board Chair | ||||||
In October 2025, a constitutional crisis occurred in the Rensselaer Union due to the reversal of a Judicial Board ruling on the Rensselaer Union Guidelines and Procedures (RUGP) made in the aftermath of the 2024 RUGP Crisis. Due to a combination of poor documentation and miscommunication both between the Union's governing bodies and within the Judicial Board, the resulting opinion had many procedural and constitutional flaws that led to the eventual overturning of the case after the Senate discussed the ruling on October 28th, 2025.
Background
The Rensselaer Union Guidelines and Procedures is a document maintained by the Rensselaer Union Executive Board (E-Board) that outlines operating procedure with respect to budgeting and club relations. Established in 2017 from the combination of decades of policies of the Union, it was often a source of controversy. In October 2024, a constitutional crisis began due to the addition of requirements for Class Councils to attend financial training, as it was unclear whether or not E-Board had the authority to regulate other branches in this way.
After discussion, the Senate voted to nullify the changes to the RUGP and raise a case before the Judicial Board, alleging that some elements of the RUGP were unconstitutional. The Senate charged Vice Grand Marshal Timothy Miles '25 '26G with overseeing this case, which will be further referred to as Senate vs. E-Board. Miles argued that the clause within the RUGP stating that the Grand Marshal could defer changes to the RUGP for Senate review 48 hours after its passage was unconstitutional, as the Senate maintained the power to set overarching legislation on most areas covered in the RUGP and, therefore, could theoretically override it at any time.
Simultaneously, a Senator raised their own Judicial Board case against the RUGP, although on different grounds. This case would be assigned the number Case 1122. In Case 1122, the plaintiff argued that the portions of the RUGP that outlined club classification procedure were required to be in the Executive Board Bylaws per the Union Constitution. This, the plaintiff argued, made the RUGP tantamount to a bylaw of the Executive Board, meaning that any changes to it would require Senate approval.
In January 2025, after proceedings for Senate vs. E-Board were underway, the two boards opted to settle. Among the terms of the settlement were that E-Board would move the club classification procedure to the Bylaws and remove language in the RUGP's preamble suggesting that EBoard had unilateral authority over the Union's policy. As would later become important, the RUGP retained the section on club classification, but noted that any changes to that section would require approval of the Senate. The settlement process was overseen by the Judicial Board Chair at the time. However, once the settlement was made, no record of it was made by the Judicial Board Chair.
After the settlement of Senate vs. E-Board, a ruling was made on Case 1122. However, no involved party was informed of the ruling, nor was there any record in the Judicial Board's internal records beyond the fact that they had voted on a ruling. As such, it remains unknown what the Judicial Board's original decision in Case 1122 was.
Crisis
On September 25th, Case 1122 was re-opened by the Judicial Board. Representatives would later claim that it was re-opened due to the lack of any record about the outcome of both Senate vs. E-Board and Case 1122, but it is not clear. Neither the President of the Union nor the Grand Marshal were notified about the case being re-opened. After about a month of deliberation, the Judicial Board came to a ruling on the case, ruling that the RUGP was not a bylaw and recommending several changes to the RUGP and Executive Board procedure, including the statement of the right to appeal and a removal of the requirement for Senate approval in the club classification sections of the RUGP.
However, the member of the Judicial Board tasked with writing the opinion added many claims and statements well beyond the decisions that the Judicial Board ruled on. The document that the Grand Marshal and President of the Union recieved stated that the Executive Board had unilateral authority over the Union's operational policy, and mandated that all Executive Board communications in the future include notice of the right to appeal any Executive Board decision to the Judicial Board. This revised ruling went in direct violation of the Judicial Board's own Civil Procedure, which prohibits any binding action in civil cases beyond the declaration of legislation as being unconstitutional.
Upon receipt of the ruling and after consultation with the Senate, the Grand Marshal stated
October 28th Meeting
The Senate meeting on October 28th, 2025 hosted a discussion on the Judicial Board ruling. At the opening of the meeting, the Grand Marshal described it as a "death match between the different boards of government". Several members of the Judicial Board came to defend the decision, but quickly found themselves struggling to counter the arguments made by the Senate and the members of the Executive Board who attended. The Senators pointed out what they saw as various procedural flaws in the Judicial Board's ruling, and questioned whether or not it had the right to unilaterally re-open. The members of the Executive Board argued that the ruling was burdensome to comply with and made Executive Board operations difficult.
A particularly noteworthy exchange occurred between Miles (at this point no longer a student at RPI) and one of the members of the Judicial Board present. Earlier in the conversation, the Judicial Board representatives stated that the case being ruled on was Senate vs. E-Board: Miles asked for clarification on this, and was told that, indeed, this was the case being ruled on. He then pointed out that several of the quotes taken in the ruling were never written by him, and appeared to come from Case 1122. Miles then went on to state that it appeared as if the Judicial Board was not fully aware of the differences between Senate vs. E-Board and Case 1122.
At this point, several members of the Judicial Board acknowledged the procedural failings in the case, and raised the possibility that the Executive Board could request a retrial. The Executive Board did so, and the Judicial Board accepted the request and dismissed the case, in effect overturning their ruling on Case 1122 and reinstating the state of affairs after the settlement of Senate vs. E-Board.
Trivia
- The meeting at which the case Senate vs. E-Board was opened occurred exactly one year before the meeting in which the second ruling on Case 1122 occurred (October 28th, 2024).
- Both of these meetings were also the very first meeting after the election of the Senators of that year's freshman class (Class of 2028 and Class of 2029, respectively), and so the first meeting at which they were present.