Dear Judicial Council:

As you are aware, in April 2006, Oren Gabriel, Vishal Gupta, Joyce Liou, and Jason Chu (the Student Action Executive Slate) won decisive victories in their respective bids for the office of President, Executive Vice-President, Academic Affairs Vice-President, and External Affairs Vice-President of the ASUC. A small minority of the Judicial Council has attempted to block the Student Action candidates from assuming their offices by virtue of its recent decision in the Ratto v. Vakil matter. I have reviewed the current controversy regarding their election at length and concluded that this group has acted improperly and without legal or factual basis. Accordingly, in order to preserve the proper functioning of the ASUC and pursuant to my enumerated powers under Article 2, Section 2.C of the Constitution, I am issuing the attached Executive Order Number Seven (“E.O. #7”), which is effective today, June 27, 2006.

In determining whether to issue E.O. #7, I reviewed the Judicial Council’s decision in Ratto v. Vakil, consulted with the ASUC’s legal counsel Mr. Mark Himelstein, and considered the correspondence of the law firm of Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp (which I enclose and request that you re-read). After consulting these sources, I am convinced that the Ratto v. Vakil decision is invalid on multiple procedural and substantive grounds. The most glaring problem with the Judicial Council’s decision is its complete ignorance of the unambiguous Judicial Council Rules of Procedure, in particular, its:

1) lack of jurisdiction to enhance the sanction related to the Student Action Executive Slate candidates’ alleged campaign rule violation in light of the Judicial Council’s final adjudication of that question in the prior ASUC v. Student Action Executive Slate matter;

2) disregard of the quorum requirement;

3) seating of an ineligible Justice to hear the dispute;

4) its failure to create a permanent record of the proceedings (the absence of which is made particularly acute in the context of the contempt of Council allegations); and

5) the disproportionate severity of the punishment issued given the technical nature of the underlying campaign rule allegedly violated.

As President, one of my primary duties is to monitor the health and well-being of the ASUC and the members it represents. As such, I am particularly cognizant of subjecting the ASUC to potential legal liability. Based on my review of the Ratto v. Vakil decision, I believe that the reasons stated by the Judicial Counsel are a weak cover to achieve their ultimate objective – the disqualification of the Student Action Executive Slate candidates. Simply stated, the Judicial Council’s opinion seems too tenuous for the ASUC to defend. I am advised that Mr. Himelstein is concerned about the potential liability that the ASUC faces in light of the Judicial Council’s decision.

The ASUC is a large organization that employs dozens of individuals and has a budget counted in the millions of dollars. The ASUC’s fiscal year commences on July 1st and the uninterrupted administration of the budget is of paramount importance to the proper functioning of the ASUC. The controversy created by the Judicial Council’s actions threatens the ASUC’s ability to continue to properly function. In short, the controversy requires immediate resolution in order to avoid the crisis that would result in the absence of a legitimate functioning executive upon my resignation. Accordingly, I issue E.O. #7 pursuant to my enumerated power to “direct by Executive Order the taking of actions which are urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC. . . .” ASUC Constitution, Article 2, §2.C.

In issuing E.O. #7, I firmly believe that I have acted in the best interests of the ASUC and the students it represents and I urge the Judicial Council to do the same. The ASUC Constitution provides no basis for the Judicial Council to challenge E.O. #7. Therefore, I am confident that E.O. #7 should put this matter to rest. Any action by the Judicial Council to undermine E.O. #7 can only serve to prolong the controversy, enhance the confusion among the ASUC members regarding the status of the election, and – most significantly – further irreparably harm the integrity of the Judicial Council by attempting to substitute the will of a minority of its members for the overwhelming will of the ASUC’s members, who decisively elected the Student Action candidates.

Sincerely yours,

Manuel Buenrostro
ASUC President, 2005 - 2006

—

EXECUTIVE ORDER #7

Whereas: The authority of the ASUC rests upon the democratic will of the students of the University of California; and

Whereas: Record numbers of students voted in the Spring 2005 ASUC Elections and overwhelmingly chose Oren Gabriel to be the next ASUC President, as well Vishal Gupta, Joyce Liou, and Jason Chu to be the other ASUC Executive Officers; and

Whereas: A small minority of the Judicial Council, acting outside of its Constitutional authority, and in violation of ASUC By-Laws and its own Judicial Rules of Procedure by, among other things, meeting without a quorum in attempt to reverse an earlier, final decision of the Council, has attempted to cast doubt on the election results and subvert the democratic process; and

Whereas: Should the members of the Judicial Council continue to persist in illegally trying to prevent the executives from assuming their responsibilities, the members will open the ASUC to legal liability against which it cannot effectively defend; and

Whereas: During this time, the ASUC Executives have been unable to discharge critical functions, including the allocation of office space and preparation of the executive offices; and

Whereas: The new fiscal year in the ASUC will begin on July 1, 2006, and will bring upon the newly elected executives a host of financial and administrative responsibilities; and

Whereas: Article II, Sec. 1(A) of the ASUC Constitution commands that ASUC Executives assume their term of office “beginning the first day of the regular Summer Semester,” and the proper, legal functioning of the ASUC is dependent upon the service of the democratically elected ASUC Executives; and

Whereas: Should the members of the Judicial Council continue to persist in illegally trying to prevent the executives from assuming their responsibilities, the members may precipitate a prolonged constitutional crisis that paralyzes the ASUC from acting to further the students’ interests;

Whereas: Article II, Sec. 2(C) of the ASUC Constitution charges the ASUC President with the duty “[t]o direct by Executive Order the taking of actions which are urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the A.S.U.C. until the Senate can again meet;” therefore, be it

So ordered: That the election results, as properly tabulated and released by the Elections Council Chair and Attorney General on May 24, 2006, be recognized immediately and that Oren Gabriel, Vishal Gupta, Joyce Liou, and Jason Chu immediately assume their executive roles with all their powers and privileges, including but not limited to, the power to spend money, make appointments, and issue further Executive Orders consistent with their responsibility under the ASUC Constitution.

Be it further ordered: Any further action on this matter not be undertaken until after the ASUC Senate returns to campus in the Fall of 2006 and the Judicial Council is properly reconstituted to its full nine members.

So ordered this the twenty-seventh day of June 2006.

Manuel Buenrostro
President, 2005 - 2006
Associated Students of the University of California