Doing something wrong over and over again doesn't make it any more right.And the fact that our senators repeatedly disregarded a certain clause in the Student Union bylaws didn't make it any more constitutional. I hope the Union Judiciary realizes this when it makes its decision regarding Senator for the Class of 2009 Eric Alterman's complaint against Senators for the Class of 2011 Lev Hirschhorn and Alex Melman.

But now it's up to our senators to maintain that principle as they consider what to do next.

The main issue with the UJ case lay with the interpretation of a clause in Article IX, Section 1 of the Union bylaws: "All Senate Money Resolutions must be used for Student Union Government projects and/or operations."

Government projects. Government operations. Not club projects, and not club operations.

Two chartered clubs, Democracy for America and Students for a Democratic Society, requested funds through the Finance Board for Bill Ayers and Robert King to come speak. If requesting money through F-Board doesn't imply that something is a club event, then I don't know what possibly could. Requesting additional money from the Senate discretionary fund through a Senate money resolution for this event wasn't merely double dipping: It was unconstitutional.

But the overall problem was in no way limited to the latest student money resolution from the Senate. Don't blame only Hirschhorn and Melman or even the eight other senators who voted for the resolution. Most of the Senate has been guilty of such activity at some point.

The text of the court petition filed by Alterman for this current case even acknowledged that "The Senate has already passed money resolutions this year to support non-government projects."

Alterman himself has even voted for a sketchy student money resolution. In the Oct. 12, 2008 Senate meeting, the 11 senators present that day, including Alterman, unanimously voted to support another nonstudent cause, the Prospect Hill Terrace community center.

But a common practice is not necessarily a correct practice, and in this case it is not correct at all. Legislative precedent does not constitute legal precedent.

Many clubs are short on money this semester, and it's absurd to give them the opportunity to expand their funding through Senate money resolutions.

If all clubs began requesting such resolutions on their respective behalves, the Senate would quickly become a second F-Board, as Alterman points out. That's unacceptable.

The F-Board exists for a reason. Its objectivity is crucial to the success of our club financing system.

F-Board members cannot receive endorsements when running for office. They must recuse themselves from any votes on funding toward clubs in which they are involved, and their votes are secret to eliminate the individual accountability that could potentially taint the funding system.

On the other hand, the Senate is a fundamentally subjective body, as was pointed out on more than one occasion at Melman and Hirschhorn's trial last weekend. Senators can and often do receive club endorsements. They have specific constituencies. And the votes of our senators are available for all to see unless the Senate goes into executive session. Our student body is too mutually dependent to have anything even close to an ethical funding system if we allow our senators to distribute funds to club projects with such ease-or even at all.

If a club can't afford an event on F-Board money alone, then it should seek the necessary funds through legal means or just not have the event at all.

The Senate must mind the line between what can receive a Senate money resolution and what cannot, as stated by the bylaws. In his closing statement at the trial, Melman asked whether something couldn't be a Union project and a club project.But the answer is clear: There is already a fine line between Union projects and club projects. And now the Union Judiciary has made it even clearer.

The UJ needs to supply a precise definition of what constitutes a Union government project and what does not. The current Ayers/King event is not a Union government project-it's a club project. The Judiciary must affirm that in its decision and subsequently correct this trend of unconstitutional senatorial action.

The decision that the UJ will soon make only deals with one line of the bylaws. Were any potential amendment to this line be passed, the Senate must ensure that it reflects that distinction between club and Union government expenditures We need to value ethics-not expediency-in our funding processes.