BREAKING - STUDENT ACTION EXECUTIVES DISQUALIFIED FROM ELECTIONS
The Student Action Executives have been thrown out of the 2006 ASUC Elections.
The nine-page unanimous decision outlined the ways by which the Student Action Executives, as well as litigants and witnesses involved, overtly schemed to deceive the Judicial Council and subvert the legitimacy of the ASUC elections.
Some choice quotes from the decision:
… Therefore, when Vakil answered questions of fact, knowing that Student Action used tactics to prolong the time that chalking remained on the ground, and that in previous election seasons Student Action chalking had persisted well beyond the course of one day, he was deliberately attempting to mislead the Judicial Council by testifying that chalk disappears after one day. Here we must examine the extent of “misleading.” When Vakil offered witness testimony to the Council that he knew to be misleading, or guiding towards a false impression of reality, he was knowingly providing untruthful testimony. Hence, Mr. Vakil should be found guilty of “perjury” and held in contempt of Council for the ASUC v. Student Action Executive Slate hearing. The fact that Vakil was not subject to an oath prior to testifying does not mean that Vakil was therefore absolved from his obligation to tell the truth. The Judicial Rules of Procedure, in Article 4 Section 15.1, requires that “all participants in a Judicial Council hearing shall truthfully, accurately, and concisely answer any question addressed to them,” a rule for truthfulness that Vakil violated. In particular, “witnesses must, to the best of their ability, provide the Council with relevant and truthful testimony.” Moreover, the Judicial Rules of Procedure, the document that governs the “rules and procedures for the exercise of [the Judicial Council’s] responsibilities,” does not direct that litigants or witnessesbe sworn in. Because of this fact, the Council’s definition of “perjury” differs from that of traditional court systems, but the Judicial Rules of Procedure mandate the same standard of truthfulness.
…
Furthermore, during this trial of Ratto v. Vakil, witnesses Emilie Saleh, Joyce Liou, Jason Dixson, and Bret Manley repeatedly gave evasive answers, often verbatim repeats of answers that the previously questioned witness had given, to the plaintiff and the Council when asked questions about Vakil. Student Action members also attempted to interfere with witness testimony by whispering to each other when directed to answer controversial questions; the witnesses had not requested legal counsel. The events of both hearings point to an organized effort on the part of Student Action to conceal the truth and obstruct the judicial process, which directly threatens the democratic institution of the Associated Students of the University of California. The defense argues that these elected candidates represent the will of the students, but it is surely not the will of the students to be deceived during public hearings. The Judicial Council unanimously feels that, given the clear and convincing nature of the evidence presented,the severity of the violation, and the consequence mandated in the Judicial Rules of Procedure, a default judgment must be issued.
…
We therefore issue a default judgment which takes the place of the original decision forASUC v. Student Action Executive Slate, and thus the remedy is the plaintiff’s originally requested penalty. This request is outlined in Attorney General Nathan Royer’s brief: “The ASUC is seeking the maximum number of censures (3) on each count against the accused candidates. Given that even a minimum of one censure on each count would result in six censures per candidate, the ASUC is also seeking the disqualification of these candidates.” The Judicial Council hereby issues three censures for each of the six counts of violation brought against the defendants (Title IV, Section 13.3.8 of the ASUC By-Laws), resulting in a total of 18 censures for each of the Student Action executive candidates: Oren Gabriel, Vishal Gupta, Joyce Liou, and Jason Chu. Furthermore, Title IV Article 13 Section 10.2 states: “Punishment for violation of this Article XIII shall be in the form of disqualification and censure, which may be from one to five, for the conduct at issue. Five censures in any one election shall require disqualification from participation in that election on the part of the offending party. All candidates were warned of the consequences of these censures at the candidate’s meeting…” The Judicial Council has the authority to issue both censures and disqualifications, and because each candidate has at least five censures, they are automatically disqualified from the 2006 ASUC Elections.
As the outcome of the default judgment makes Mr. Ratto’s additional requested remedies irrelevant, the merit of his charges regarding new campaign violations is not considered in this decision. Pending the conclusion of appeals,22 the Elections Council should be prepared to retabulate the votes for the four executive positions so as not to disenfranchise any voters, specifically by counting the second place selections made by those voters who had given their first place votes to the Student Action executive candidates.
What happens next? It looks like barring an appeal from Student Action, the next round of candidates would be sworn in to office. This would be Lauren Karasek, Ben Narodick (me!), Igor Tregub, and John O’ Connor. Student Action has a week to appeal to the Judicial Council, but must present some sort of evidence that the hearing was flawed in its interpretation of law or application of due process. It will be an interesting week, to be sure.
(As a PS, Andy Ratto would have posted this, except he was too busy screaming “OH MY FUCKING GOD I WON!”)
maybe this is a bad question, but what happens now? do the people that got second win? do we redo elections? does SA appeal, and nothing changes?
Comment by matt — June 14, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
The people who got second win, if it stands. SA will appeal. They may also appeal to “real” court. Since SA controls the Senate, one wonders how they will represent the ASUC against SA candidates.
Comment by Beetle — June 14, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
what happens with the Academic VP position? Andy is quoted in the daily cal as saying he’d relinquish the position if elected and i dont remember anybody else running for that race
Comment by jlmay — June 14, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
rock! way to go. student action gets its comeuppance.
Comment by mano — June 14, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
FREE AT LAST!
Comment by Anonymity — June 14, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
oh nevermind, i forgot about the squelch candidate
Comment by jlmay — June 14, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Ben’s quotation of my initial comments notwithstanding, I’m actually a lot more ambivalent about this than my reaction might indicate. I was hesitant about filing this lawsuit, and that I took so long to file was based on at least three factors, one of which was my lack of desire to resort to a judicial remedy to punish Student Action for their perjury and obstruction of justice.
As far as I can remember, I’ve never previously filed a JCouncil suit against a party or candidate, although in this case, I eventually decided that their transgressions were so deliberate and egregious that they merited a reaction.
Not only that, but I’m not enthusiastic that the second place finishers will be taking office because of disqualifications, although that hesitancy is tempered by my eventual conclusion that a party that behaves the way that Student Action did in this lawsuit does not deserve to rule.
Comment by Andy R. — June 14, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
John O’Conner, of Squech!, ran for AAVP, too. I dunno who’d win, though, because they have to transfer votes. If the winner resigns, the constitution has provisions for filling vacant offices.
Comment by Beetle — June 14, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
technically andy, the first place finishers will be taking office. when someone is disqualified, they dont get to keep their “place”.
Comment by mano — June 14, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
mano: you’re right, I should have said “second place vote-getters.”
Comment by Andy R. — June 14, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
Today is Suken’s birthday.
Comment by Anonymous — June 14, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
Andy Ratto thank you for what you did. I am glad to see Student Action get disqualified.
Comment by Yuriy — June 14, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
i am in shock….well i shouldn’t be, but i am
*screams*
Comment by Anonymous — June 14, 2006 @ 9:34 pm
So the one guy who doesn’t get DQ’d is the guy who beat me.
Really, just bang-up fucking work, Andy.
Comment by Aaron Brownstein — June 14, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
everyone beat you, Aaron.
Comment by anonymous — June 14, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
Guys, the J-Council noted the resolution of voting in the final paragraph of the decision:
So, the presumptive second place finishers don’t automatically win, they do have to transfer the votes of the SA candidates. I’m about to tabulate them now.
Comment by J Koo — June 14, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
How does the appeal thing work? They get to appeal the decision from the Judicial Council to itself?
Comment by Boalt Student — June 14, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
How are you going to tabulate, JKoo? I tried the program I have, but it doesn’t seem to be possible on it.
Comment by Beetle — June 14, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
Boalt Student: Yes. They also, however, can file a case in “real” court, as DAAP did several years ago, winning what essentially turned out to be a shakedown suit.
Comment by Beetle — June 14, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
Beetle, I just finished writing the article at my place. What you do is before you import the votes, you click redistribute on the SA candidate, and then click no to the “Reset dead candidates?” question.
Comment by J Koo — June 14, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
Cool. Thanks.
Comment by Beetle — June 14, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
This also happened several years ago and SA filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court. Eventually, the J-Council, which was mainly roomates of SA candidates and party members, miraculously revised their decision allowing the whole slate, and one Apple exec. candidate back into the election. This all happened during the campaign process. The senate doesn’t represent the ASUC, the ASUC has a lawyer, Mark something, who btw is on a $50,000 per year retainer.
Comment by schulmania — June 14, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
Yeah, so anyway, details on my website, but Lauren wins president in a playoff with Dmitri, Ben wins by default, Igor gets quota in round 1, and John beats Andy in a landslide (though it doesn’t really matter). What I assume will be John’s upcoming resignation will begin the start of a 7-member elected officials council that will take nomination for AAVP and make a final recommendation to the Senate, who must approve by 2/3 vote.
Comment by J Koo — June 14, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
I’m quite sure there’ll be a federal lawsuit. If DAAP can use a federal lawsuit to win a seat, I’m sure Student Action has the resources.
Comment by Simon — June 14, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
Man, there was so much spite in that ruling. It was literally dripping of pure anger at the Student Action People….
Comment by BFeinberg — June 14, 2006 @ 11:37 pm
Wouldn’t the agreement signed by the candidates to follow the Elections By-Laws and 14.1 of the Elections By-Laws granting the J-Council sole jurisdiction be considered an agreement to waive the right to take cases to real court and use the Judicial Council as a forum for binding arbitration?
Comment by J Koo — June 14, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
And I meant to add, wouldn’t those facts lead to a summary judgement for the defendant?
Comment by J Koo — June 14, 2006 @ 11:59 pm
Wow. I’m in serious shock still. My gut tells me that the DQs won’t stand, however. I sense another technicality creeping up @ appeal process which will keep SA in. However, its just a gut feeling.
Comment by Anonymous — June 15, 2006 @ 12:01 am
#22, the ASUC attorney is Mark Himelstein. He also represents Cody’s Books and Top Dog among others.
As much as I’d like the ruling to stand, Student Action has a habit of finding a way to get what they want. Time will tell though - maybe if we’re lucky things will be worked out before the end of this year.
Comment by Ed — June 15, 2006 @ 2:46 am
Man!
All this crazy stuff happens when i’m done with college!
Just to let everyone know. I’m totally ambivalent toward SA, no good feelings or bad.
I do feel bad for the execs, since one of them is a friend of mine, and i’m not an “Anti-SA” type of person.
As Con Review Chair for a semester and being part of con review this year, I can say that in my opinion, most of the new justices we appointed were pretty neutral in terms of exposure to ASUC / party affiliations, and after thoroughly reading the entire 9-page document it seems like the j-council is pretty solid on their decision.
I think what really stands out is that this happened in a year when CALSERVE didn’t run any execs, so when I come back to visit next year the ASUC just might be too different for me to handle.
Anyways i just wanted to share my thoughts. I feel bad for the people involved, my problems with the party where with certain individuals(that is pretty easy to figure out if you know me)
I’m in shock, in all my years in the ASUC i never thought a party would actually get disqualified for doing anything.
I wonder what Grad students think? since they always complain about our JRP’s / Undergrads J-council overstepping its bounds.
Anyways I am in Shanghai for a summer Chinese program so i missed all of this drama for once.
Good to see old school people like Richard still posting.
THIS IS JUST UNREAL!!!
Comment by Billy Wang — June 15, 2006 @ 6:33 am
It is not unreal. The process worked like it was supposed to. Calm down.
Hopefully the Council won’t be suscetible to all your hyperventalating.
Comment by captain duh — June 15, 2006 @ 7:06 am
This is almost as exciting as when Bush won Florida in 2000!
Comment by Ian — June 15, 2006 @ 7:32 am
Aww, but I got dropped.
Comment by John — June 15, 2006 @ 7:36 am
Accountability in the ASUC? I didn’t think it possible.
Comment by Donald — June 15, 2006 @ 8:08 am
Congrats to Andy for doing what I never could.
So, anyone want to tell me what Squelchers will serve, and which will resign? I’m out of the loop, and curious how it’ll all work out.
Comment by Kevin! — June 15, 2006 @ 8:40 am
you know, this is the second time in 2 years that candidates have suffered as a result of the actions of their party leaders.
liberman and vakil, what a fucking power duo.
Comment by Anonymous — June 15, 2006 @ 8:51 am
I think Bears United candidates actually benefitted from not being associated with Liberman.
Comment by Beetle — June 15, 2006 @ 9:10 am
but he had a blimp!
Comment by chet (CEO) — June 15, 2006 @ 9:26 am
can we get some dailycal quotes on here? i wasn’t able to pick up the paper on my way to work.
Comment by bobby gregg — June 15, 2006 @ 9:54 am
Though I’m not necessarily a fan of all of the SA slate, I do think it does a disservice to the Cal student community and the Association as a whole, because, the executives have LOTS of work to do before school starts. The less time they have, the fewer policy advancements, business agreements, and events will be in effect by the time August rolls around.
Comment by CalStudent — June 15, 2006 @ 10:14 am
Bobby, I picked up the Daily Cal. There isn’t much new there. Joyce said “I don’t think this was representative of a fair process,” though no details as to why she thinks that are provided. She said that they hadn’t decided where to go next.
Comment by Beetle — June 15, 2006 @ 10:37 am
So it seems in this moment of disarray only the Student Advocate, Andrew Gavin, is in charge of an executive office of the ASUC? I’m sure the SAO and the new execs work well together. I don’t know much about the last guys (vikram ieyr?) relation with the other 4 execs last year, but I from elections season I assume it was good.
Do you pundits think relations will go well? And what will the new officers agendas be?>
Comment by CalSophomoreGearingUpForSenateRun — June 15, 2006 @ 11:01 am
I don’t think the execs generally step into the SAO. The SAO pretty much runs itself, and even the major parties let the SAO pick its successors, it seems.
Technically, the old execs are still in charge of their offices, I believe. The election results haven’t been made official yet, so Gavin is not in charge of the SAO, though I’m sure he has plans and such.
Comment by Beetle — June 15, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Congratulations Andy, you wanted a witch-hunt against Suken and your chase was successful. And if an appeal doesn’t go through, you’ve really left the executive offices in great shape. While I can appreciate your deep-set loathing for Student Action and all that they stand for, the fact remains that you’ve taken away a slate of people who were already creating their offices to try to persecute a person and a party that you can’t see eye to eye with.
I’m not commenting on the nature of the allegations and who was in the wrong at all - but I do think that in all of what you saw as championing for justice, you left the ASUC, and thus the student body, much more crippled than it would have been before.
Way to go.
Comment by disillusioned — June 15, 2006 @ 11:13 am
Hey disillusioned,
Stop predicting gloom. If the contest for President of the US can be crippled for over a month and result in a peaceful transition/ and at least a minimally competent President, surely you don’t think that handing over the keys to people after only three weeks will criple student government operations, do you?
Have some faith in the capabilities of people other than those in SA. (Whats funny is that one of them has just proven that he is guilty of the same and if this appeal doesn’t go through, which it might, his life in the SA will have been a complete waste.)
Either way, the ASUC will be fine. Geez.
Comment by Anonymous — June 15, 2006 @ 11:53 am
fuck student action
Comment by studentactionhater — June 15, 2006 @ 11:54 am
#44, I’m pretty uninformed about these things, (and obviously have a significant personal bias), so what I think isn’t relevant here.
That said, according to other people who DO seem to know about this stuff (the Daily Cal included) two of the four replacements–Ben and Igor–are generally regarded as two of the most conscientious and effective politicians in the ASUC.
Comment by Aaron Brownstein — June 15, 2006 @ 11:59 am
um, you mean being lying manipulative douchebags? yes, i’m sure we can all appreciate andy’s unreasonable, deep-set loathing for lying douchebags
Comment by mano — June 15, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Guys, be mature about this. You really can’t make generalizations about all of SA. I happen to know Oren and he is one of the most capable people in the ASUC. He also truly cares about Berkeley students. Now, Suken may be another story . . . I don’t know him.
Comment by Ben — June 15, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
I don’t know Oren, but I’ve heard that too. Igor’s a very good guy too. i’ve heard ben is somewhat self serving sometimes.
Comment by jasmine — June 15, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
I know people said this already but I still have a feeling this won’t stand.
I can’t say I’m particularly secure on the rationale presented in the JCouncil’s opinion, I suspect that the flaws and ambiguities could be used against the ruling by someone more legally-minded than I am. Little technicalities can always turn things upside down.
Comment by Eddy C — June 15, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Don’t worry, disillusioned. Presidencies only last for one day.
Comment by Beetle — June 15, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
I agree that Ben and Igor are two of the most qualified people on campus, both strongly committed to serving students. However, despit whatever bias remains against SA and its party tactics, this doesn’t mean that the exec candidates running with Student Action care any less. Just because they pass out glossy pamphlets and strive to appeal to a broader student base with overarching goals doesn’t make them any less qualified or less willing to serve.
Comment by disillusioned — June 15, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
While that may be true, could it perhaps be argued that either deliberately violating or simply not bothering to digest the campaign bylaws says something about how much one cares about an office?
Comment by Aaron Brownstein — June 15, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
If you want to argue that point, exactly how much did Igor care about the office when he had his campaign violations (claiming false endorsements, leaving campaign material within 100 feet of a polling location, etc.)? And yet I still think Igor is a stand-up guy who is committed to serving students.
All I’m saying is that personal bias is a very large driving factor in these charges, not just a sole-minded pursuit of justice.
Comment by disillusioned — June 15, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
As an aside, Igor received two censures for his actions: 1 for unintentionally campaigning within 100 feet of the polls, and 1 for leaving his campaign base unattended for a matter of minutes. The other four charges against him were immediately dropped, and Suken was almost held in contempt then for filing charges in bad faith.
Igor was also, to my knowledge, completely honest and upfront about his mistakes. He owned up and accepted responsibility for them. Comparing the SA case to Igor is an insult to Igor.
Comment by Ben N. — June 15, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
As a slightly more accurate aside, Igor asked for those censures.
Comment by Beetle — June 15, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
It’s always fun to come back here every spring to see that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Thankfully most of y’all are too young to recognize me (and no, I am not Chris Gray), but this sounds just a little bit like 2001. I do not particularly care which side wins here, and feel free to correct any mistaken assumptions of fact I have about this, but having been through this exercise enough times, here are a few questions that I have.
1. Having found SA not guilty in the underlying case, how does the current disqualification not create a double jeopardy for SA, given that the decision appears to have set aside the ruling in the underlying case and replaced it with a “default” judgment?
2. Even if there is no double jeopardy, how does the JC still have jurisdiction over the underlying case, having disposed of it on the merits?
3. The remedy appears to have problems. Assuming the default judgment may be entered by the JC, would such authority not be limited to the *instant* proceeding, not to one already concluded?
4. Even if such authority extends to proceedings already concluded, does it not violate SA’s due process rights to have a default judgment entered without any notice, hearing, or due process regarding whether the original judgment (finding them not guilty) should be vacated?
5. Does the JRP authorizing the entry of a default judgment against any party who any perjuring witness sought to benefit not violate the Constitution’s due process rights?
I know everyone is anxious to go lynch SA (as always), but this seems like a bad case of deja vu.
Comment by AMK — June 15, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
AMK, I believe most of those questions are answered in the Council opinion (follow the footnotes). As for the due process question… the fact that this hearing was held to consider the charges of perjury gave the defendants due process. They knew exactly what was charged and exactly what the consequences would be if they fell short in their defense.
Comment by bobby gregg — June 15, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
I used to campaign for SA and they got progressively worse every year. Not the candidates, necessarily because one of my best friends served as President, but the “leadership” turned sour the year I started really distrusting SA. It’s sad when you have a conservative like myself ready to pick up CalSERVE signs (if I was here) just to make sure corruption ceased. If anyone wants to know the rational and irrational reasons why I hate stduent action feel free to contact me.
But this is a great leap for the students. For once, independents that aren’t victims of a party machine are in power. For once, the once thought to be unbeatable ironclad rule of Student Action is over. And yes, I do feel bad for some of the candidates and to be honest I would have liked to see an SA exec candidate but this is the price of reform. Just like going to an ivy league bears the consequences of informed people not respecting your degree, uninformed SA execs will be forced to remind themselves the price they pay for making a bad choice.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 15, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Student action candidates must pay the party to run. Could these doomed candidates sue SA leaders for negligence, breach of contract, etc.? I think there is no case, but perhaps one of you can think up some intriguing possibilities.
Comment by McMike — June 15, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
AMK, the candidates lost the original case, and were found guilty.
I agree with your point 5, though in this case, one could argue that the spokesperson and the witness were in collusion, since they were the same person.
Comment by Beetle — June 15, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
I think we need to take a break and be reasonable for a second…Student Action candidates are people too…I don’t think students run for office under Student Action harboring the intent to lie and fuck you over. I know several people in SA and they’re all nice, reasonable, and competent. Is there anything specifically wrong with Oren et al?
That said, Suken does seem like a bag of shit. But I don’t think that justifies disqualifying individual SA candidates. It would be more reasonable, I think, to punish Suken and maybe the Student Action PARTY, but as it is — we’ve only knocked off a few scapegoats, and it just doesn’t seem legitimate to disregard the popular will and promote the runner-ups to office.
Comment by also anonymous — June 15, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
where are the other 5 JC members?
Comment by Anonymous — June 15, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
At least two have resigned.
Also anonymous, what kind of punishment would you suggest that would be effective, if you aren’t willing to knock people out of races?
Comment by Beetle — June 15, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
As I read the By-Laws the only option the Judicial Council has AFTER the tabulation is to void the election and have the Senate schedule a new one. Title IV, Section 18.4.3 seems quite clear, “If the ASUC Judicial Council rules that there was mismanagement, or that there was an unpunished violation, the ASUC Judicial Council may void the election on the grounds that the mismanagement or the unpunished violation substantially affected the outcome of the election.” There is nothing in the By-Laws, at least that I see, that would authorize the direction of a retabulation.
Comment by anonymous — June 15, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
There’s nothing that prohibits it, either, and the Judicial Council has fairly broad authority in its remedies.
Comment by Beetle — June 15, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
Considering Suken isn’t an elected official there’s nothing you can do about him so we MUST set an example. Unless the ASUC wants to rid itself of any of their psuedo-independence and have the university step in. SO it’s either you DQ a corrupt party, you lose autonomy or you let SA do what they have always been doing.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 15, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
What to do? Well it’s a good question. There’s not much to do about Suken since he’s an alumnus now, otherwise you could perhaps mandate his resignation from SA and bar him from ASUC positions. Perhaps that’s an option for some people still around. And for SA as a party, there could be sanctions as to what kind of campaigning they can engage in next election. Frankly, I don’t know what the rules are regarding this stuff, so maybe my ideas are completely ridiculous. Nonetheless, while I agree that we should DO SOMETHING about corruption, I just don’t think THIS was the right thing to do. It may be that this is one of those tough-shit situations where we can’t hold the right people accountable; that doesn’t mean we have to settle for the next-closest people if they weren’t responsible for Suken’s perjury and other shady shit.
Comment by also anonymous — June 15, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
Yeah it wasn’t good but it was necessary. This HAD to be done otherwise SA would go around doing what they’ve done for years.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 15, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
Suken was the party head. The defendants chose to allow Suken to defend them, and had to know what kind of person he was. When you run as a member of a party, along with the benefits of the party structure come certain responsibilities. You’re taking advantage of the infrastructure that you had no part in creating. You can’t suddenly say “Hey, it’s not me!” when the people who run that infrastructure (which you chose to use) break the rules.
Sanctions are meaningless if they don’t have consequences. You can’t say “don’t do this next election” because they’ll do it next election and we’ll be in the exact same spot we’re in now.
Comment by Beetle — June 15, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
I was thinking hypothetically that instead of using censures, use monetary fines. If elected, the fines must be paid before taking office — this money could then be used on the next election cycle. If the fine gets too high (some upper limit) that would warrent disqualification.
This would have more of an affect than symbolic censures… what do you think?
Comment by Bobby Gregg — June 16, 2006 @ 7:15 am
… or keep the current censure system and just associate a $100 fine with each censure, something like that.
I would certainly try to avoid paying $400 in order to take office.
Comment by Bobby Gregg — June 16, 2006 @ 7:18 am
Would a much more “reasonable” action for the JCouncil to take after finding in favor of Andy have been to declare the previous hearing (AG Royer vs SA Execs) a mistrial?
I’m starting to question the rationale of overturning the ruling in the previous case because of what was established in this one. They are choosing to exact more penalty (18 censures instead of 3 each) when the actual infractions meriting those penalties were not the issue discussed in the current case.
As much as I can say I feel that “they had it coming to them” for letting Suken do what he did, I feel that the way they arrived at the punishment that they did (however justified it might be) is not legally….solid.
Comment by Eddy C — June 16, 2006 @ 7:31 am
The JRPs allow for the Council to issue a default judgment if you lie to them. Since the original case asked for 18 censures, they got 18 censures. The Council could have given them this many originally if they chose, but they dialed down the punishment, which is their discretion, because they thought it would be excessively harsh. Then they found out the exec candidates lied to them and aren’t in the mood to do them any favors.
Comment by captain duh — June 16, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Re: the fine idea, I think it’s a good idea, but $100 per censure would be too low to be much of a deterrent (considering that students in my opinion sometimes vote for not-really-necessary fee increases that come out to more than that over their lifetime at Cal).
Also, such a fine would discriminate against low-income candidates.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 16, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Slow down people. Ben - you didn’t win. Sitting around conducting dildo races is more of a disgrace than SA could ever be. The campus selected their leaders (by a wide margin) and that will stand for something.
Comment by dueprocessbitches — June 16, 2006 @ 10:17 am
Jim, don’t forget that these executives from either party probably pay about $1000 to run for office in campaign expenses. I think a simple disqualification is fine. Even if Oren and the rest did nothing wrong intentionally (unlikely that these execs knew they were doing everything right), that’s too bad. They should sue the Student Action leadership in civil court.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 16, 2006 @ 10:22 am
When all the accusations of perjury and conspiracy are stripped down, these charges appear to be about little more than chalking tactics. I worked on a successful senate campaign this past election, and realistically, I believe chalking does little to further a candidate’s campaign. Advocates of chalking and its importance say that apathetic student voters will simply vote for whatever name the recognize. However, it is my humble opinion that anyone who is so apathetic that they will vote solely on what name they see the most will probably neglect their voting responsibility altogether.
Opponents will astutely point out that Suken lied under oath about the chalking violations, which is much more serious than the chalking violations themselves. I certainly don’t mean to equate the two in terms of their gravity, but this seems analagous to former President Clinton lying under oath - about his private, personal life. Chalking seems almost as trivial as oral sex. I can’t believe the judicial committee is willing to negate elections over this.
Do not misinterpret me; I appreciate Ratto’s vigilance in assuring that candidates follow campaign guidelines. However, I feel his role his more suited to ensuring that parties do not, say, harass voters in Sproul, sabotage opponents, or inflate vote counts using other students’ accounts. He contributed to a fair election and should be proud. Pursuing chalking violations is frivolous and shows that Ratto is willing to pursue whatever obscure diplomatic methods he needs in order to remove the Student Action executives from office. Despite whatever feelings he may hold about the party, the students have decided. It is not up to Andy Ratto to decide this election.
It shocks me that certain individuals appear to have successfully dismantled four winning seats in the ASUC elections. On such a trivial matter, this has all the makings of a witch hunt. I’m disappointed - in Suken, in the power-hungry judicial committee’s inability to see past red tape and their unwavering desire to have an impact on elections, and in Ratto for pursuing such a trivial matter.
Two of the disqualified winners are close friends of mine, and I’ve discussed their candidacy and their plans for the ASUC with them at length. At the end of the day, I’m most disappointed that (at least) two excellent and capable leaders, passionate about leading the students of Berkeley, will be robbed of their hard-earned office. No one should be rejoicing about this entire fiasco. It’s a sad day.
(Disclaimer: I only mention Ratto repeatedly because he is the only one of whom I am aware who filed the lawsuit. I don’t mean this as a personal attack on him. Thanks.)
Comment by J — June 16, 2006 @ 10:47 am
Andy never pursued chalking charges. That was Attorney General Nathan Royer, doing his job.
It seems kind of odd that parties spend so much time chalking when it’s useless. We should note that the apathetic folks who may not be willing to vote might change their tune when offered free stuff for voting, as approved by the major parties who engage in most of the chalking (hmmm…).
If you have evidence of voter harassment, sabotage, and false voting, feel free to bring it up. Many of us lack the resources to personally police an election, and those who do have those resources agree with each other not to do so through no-file agreements.
To say that “students have decided, it’s not up to Andy” is pretty lame. You could use this argument anywhere you want. “So what if Student Action has been murdering CalSERVE candidates. Students have decided!” It wasn’t Andy’s call, and Andy didn’t make the call. The Senate made the call by writing the by-laws and approving the JRPs, and they reasonably concluded that when candidates break the rules, the vote no longer reflects what “students have decided.”
If you consider that one of the major parties having no respect for the institution of the ASUC and in the obligations government officials have in following the rules a “trivial matter,” then you may want to reconsider your understanding of the ASUC. You seem to want it to be a tool for the winners to do whatever they want to make pals and boost resumes or whatnot. Some of us prefer that it be held accountable.
Had the Judicial Council had an “unwavering desire to have an impact on elections,” they had plenty of opportunities already, and did not do so. Only when it got so horrendously blatant as this did they act.
Comment by Beetle — June 16, 2006 @ 11:09 am
J, what makes you think the “power-hungry” judicial council was
“determined to have an impact on elections”?
They’ve made plenty of deferential rulings this election cycle. They let the RSF referendum language stand, and also let the Yes on RSF fee campaign get away with using university resources. They let the GA referendum language stand (a decision I agree with, but that’s not the point). They didn’t kick out Student Action when the chalking was first presented to them, choosing to punish with only three censures. They let online voting go ahead even though it did not meet the specifications of the bylaws.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 16, 2006 @ 11:15 am
“Except for her husband’s assassination, Mrs. Lincoln had a great time at the theater.”
Your whole comment misses the point, in that this case no longer seems to be about chalking. It’s about the integrity of the elections process.
Let’s run down the story again.
1) Two of the SA exec candidates served in the Senate, and were very knowledgable of the by-laws. One of them even served on the Con Review committee for a semester.
2) All 4 SA execs ran for office, and were given copies of the campaign rules.
3) All 4 exec campaigns were caught chalking within 100 feet of the polls by the Elections Council and the Attorney General.
4) In order to defend themselves, the SA execs chose to support Suken Vaikl and his tactics in the Judicial Council.
5) Suken lied deliberately on a number of issues directly related to a case that, quite frankly, probably could have been beaten multiple other ways. He did this in front of not only myself, but at least 3 of the SA Exec candidates who were present at the meeting and well aware of what was happening.
6) Suken was convicted of obstructing justice, and the candidates who asked for him to do so were held accountable.
Now, I’ve been in the Senate for two years, working with Oren and Vishal in the past. I genuinely believe they are good people.
But, people who cheat to win elections are not qualified to serve the students they have worked to deceive. Their offices are hardly hard-earned, and unfortunately their passion and dedication got the best of them in this situation.
I feel bad for Vishal, Oren, Jason, and Joyce, but no matter what happens, it’s hard for me to be sorry for them.
Some factual errors in your post:
1) Andy Ratto never filed charges against SA for chalking. He filed charges against them for openly lying.
2) No one has won this election until the results have been certified, and it can be confirmed that winning candidates did so fairly and squarely.
Comment by Ben N. — June 16, 2006 @ 11:20 am
Apologies for the factual errors in my post. I did not mean to imply that they were already in office; I didn’t anticipate election certification bringing a different result than the one reported by the press.
I’d also like to clarify what I said about vote harassment and sabotage: I have no evidence of anyone doing that. I was simply commending Ratto for running to police the elections and prevent candidates from doing so. Frankly, in a government run by ambitious teenagers and young adults, it is easy to see how elections could fall victim to complete corruption, and people like Ratto should be commended for preventing this. Not sure how that was misinterpreted, but there you go.
Comment 53 brings up a good point - SA candidate’s alignment with the party does not diminish their committment to leadership. Few people are questioning the passion and dedication to the ASUC that SA candidates have. I think a fair question, then, (braces self) is how the student government will function with an executive board that, with the exception of Igor (who had a very close race), was not elected by anywhere near a majority of students.
What role, also, will the disqualified SA candidates have in the ASUC (if any)? And how will the Senate, controlled by SA, work with an executive board they may privately view as usurpers undeserving of the executive seats they hold? This sure does look messy to me. Thoughts?
Comment by J — June 16, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Not to be picking nits, but a majority of students didn’t vote for the SA candidates either. When voter turnout is 33% its laughable that you think students really care about this or that public opinion will sway anything. If anything the Judicial Council will have more support as everyone hates the ASUC, is sick of campaigns and loves to see the powers that be get smacked around, particularly when they deserve it.
If SA is smart they’ll sweep this under the rug as quickly and quietly as possible, and the senators will work with the execs next year. No one likes a cry baby, if SA devolves to its lowest common denominator and makes things ugly next year they’ll be shooting themselves in the foot as they won’t have many accomplishments to run on. They’ll have a tough enough time as is, who wouldn’t vote for a Squelch party that is funny AND gets stuff done? If Ben is smart he’ll leverage his and Lauren’s office into a machine like SA has done before him.
Come to think of it, Ben, Lauren and Igor would be smart to organize a 3rd party like the old APPLE did and try to peal off some SA senators. They’ll have sympathetic ears with the elected independents already and after this fiasco SA senators should feel nervous about remaining with such a corrupt party.
Comment by captain duh — June 16, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
No executive is ever elected by anywhere near a majority of students. In fact, if you pool all candidates in a given race together, they still won’t get near a majority of students. Popular support isn’t really necessary to be an effective executive.
Ben certainly might have trouble keeping the Senate in line, though I don’t view an adversarial relationship between the Senate and executive to be a bad thing. I don’t know John or Lauren’s real plans, since I don’t think either was planning on winning. Lauren has “first female president for some time” points, though.
Comment by Beetle — June 16, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
is anyone else wondering if cal$erve is deeply regretting their decision to not run an executive slate? wouldn’t they have easily finished second in all races (except maybe against igor), just on name recognition alone? it’s weird how life turns out.
Comment by chet (CEO) — June 16, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
I didn’t mean to imply that the SA execs were supported by a majority. I meant plurality (is that the right word?) The largest proportion of students voted for the SA candidates. Apologies.
And the last comment is exactly what I’m trying to say - I know Ben and Igor are capable leaders, but as for the others, were they really planning on winning? Everyone expects executive elections to be battles between SA and CalSERVE - when the latter decided not to nominate, it looked like SA had a much easier path. Now that SA is gone, what are the plans of the surprised winners? I don’t mean to question John or Lauren’s leadership ability insultingly - I really ask, will we have capable leadership? I really hope so. I hope our president isn’t there simply because she (unlike others) avoided getting in trouble.
Comment by J — June 16, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
That’s right about the majority rarely electing someone. Besides Bush, the only other presidents in recent times to get a majority of the popular vote was Reagan and Nixon.
I know Igor and Ben will do a phenomenal job and let them be the ones who define this administration. As for a third party with Ben, Igor and Lauren, it would only have the fate of Bears united.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 16, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
how can the j council make an ruling with out having all members present?
Comment by Anonymous — June 16, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
how can the j council make an ruling with out having all members present?
Comment by Anonymous — June 16, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
By ruling when not all members are present?
Comment by Beetle — June 16, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
#89/90: All members of what present? If you are referring to J-Council members, then I refer you to the Judicial Rules of Procedure Article 6 Section 1:
“Quorum
For the conduct of a proper hearing, or a proper meeting, a quorum shall consist the majority of the eligible Justices.”
Four out of seven members were present, that’s a majority — quorum was met, which is all that is needed to make a ruling that holds the authority of the Judicial Council.
Why only seven members when there should be nine? Alexandre Olsson resigned at the beginning of summer due to personal reasons and I retired when I graduated. The absent members probably had some summer obligation that prevented their attendance.
Comment by bobby gregg — June 16, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
I’ve always been sort of ambivalent towards SA.
Igor I’m sure will do a great job, but it’s really too bad that the slate will be replaced by an entire slate of execs who represent the student demographic to an even lesser degree.
Comment by Anonymous — June 16, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
“But, people who cheat to win elections are not qualified to serve the students they have worked to deceive. Their offices are hardly hard-earned, and unfortunately their passion and dedication got the best of them in this situation.”
But conducting dildo races and sitting on your ass qualifies you to serve the students. My god we’re im sick of your disgusting self-congratulatory bullshit. You didnt fool students at the polls, and youre not fooling them now.
If the ASUC sucked with SA on board…the ASUC will be laughable when its run by the losers who received it by technicality. Good luck with that one.
Comment by Anonymous — June 16, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
I see I’m not the only one tired of SA’s corruption. True, I believe their candidates are good poeple. But if we didn’t do what was done, this woudl perpetuate forever. The student body needs justice and of course I would ask to DQ CalSERVE if they were doing the same. Fortunately (or unfortunately) for them, their leadership is too stupid to think up half this stuff.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 16, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
The Clinton analogy seems flawed to me in that a blowie isn’t against the law.
Comment by Aaron Brownstein — June 16, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
its really ignorant to think that the fact that someone chooses not to run with a major party makes them somehow incapable of carrying out the duties of the office. clearly…they’re smarter than the 4 losers who decided to sign their lives (yes i’m exaggerating) over to yet another corrupt and incompetent student action party leader that got their asses disqualified for lying about chalk. any nobody can get on board with a major party and win based on name recognition alone–case and point George Dubya…–which has nothing to do with their qualifications or ability to lead…It’s a damn popularity contests…it might as well be the race for homecoming queen because half of the people that voted for them couldn’t regurgitate one fact from their mouths or campaign lit. Ben Lauren and Igor all have experience under their belts that warrant them far more credit. Lastly J and Cameron, you seem to know a whole lot about nothing, but a whole lot nonetheless…so why don’t you, in all your capable and qualified glory, get off your asses and run for something independent and see how name recognition kicks your ass! (wait…one of you already has…)Way 2 Go Ben, Lauren and Iggy!
Comment by ihateurignorance — June 16, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
Yes, I know a whoel lot about nothing, the ASUC. And if you seem to forget, I’m on your side, so way to knock your support. And if nothing is what you’re trying to look at, I ran several successful candidates, a few whom I was unhappy that I ran but I helped run them nevertheless. I helped coordinate all the dorms last year so in relaity I should have been up on the stand to testify against SA.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 16, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
If you’re talking about my campaign, I received 83 votes before I was dropped and finished 40th, beatign several serious calserve and SA candidates and highest vote-getter of the non serious people.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 16, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
am i mistaken or has every anti-decision/pro-SA commenter been anonymous? i wonder if any of the SA exec candidates are among the anonymous postings…
Comment by Anonymous — June 16, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
#86 - I discussed it up in me blog, but the thing is, if CalSERVE had run, the chalking situation would probably have ended up different, or both of them would have been guilty of chalking violations. And I think Igor would have won in a landslide in the retabulation, like he did in this one.
Comment by J Koo — June 16, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
Oh, and on the relevance of chalking in a campaign? When my Senatorial rankings were entering the “random” phase, I remembered to “Vote Vivienne”, put in “Jen for Sen”, and…okay, that’s it.
My point is, chalking, if done with an alliterative or rhyming slogan involving one’s own name, can be effective for campaigns.
Comment by J Koo — June 16, 2006 @ 11:25 pm
Both being guilty of the chalking violations wouldn’t disqualify them both. Being led by a person who treats it as a game where he can lie at will would, but I dunno if CalSERVE works that way.
Comment by Beetle — June 16, 2006 @ 11:51 pm
aww…whatever rep…the fact still remains that 40th or not…serious or not…YA LOST! and the majority of the winners were “big name” party affiliated. In defending yourself soo vigorously you missed the entire point which is that some people actually think that getting a “pluarlity” of votes says something about a person’s qualifications…when in all actuality it doesn’t mean shit. I clearly see what side your on, and thannnks!!!(dripping with sarcasm) but anyone who’s confident in their assertions doesn’t need “support” to validate what they know to be true…so as for “knocking the support” I really could give a shit…
Comment by ihateurignorance — June 17, 2006 @ 10:15 am
“If you ran a serious campaign you would have easily won” - SA executive. Remind me to never respect your anonymous ass.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 17, 2006 @ 10:56 am
“but anyone who’s confident in their assertions doesn’t need “support” to validate what they know to be true”
sounds like a sermon… are you a religious man?
Comment by bobby gregg — June 17, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
someone put this on a DONE flyer
Comment by JM — June 17, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
ihateurignorance - In the future, please put more effort into respectfully posing questions, asking for clarification, and debating current events at Cal. By contrast, refrain from your profanity-laced diatribes and personal attacks on myself and some whom I consider friends that have no place here. I asked about the new executives’ credentials not to question their comeptence, but because I do not know about their leadership experience, and seek information from someone who does. Calm down and have some respect and class is all I ask.
Comment by J — June 17, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
Haha! The only thing shorter than J’s name is J’s penis! Especially if J is a chick!
Asking for “respect and class” is pretty classless.
Comment by Beetle — June 17, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
Arrey people, let’s tone it down a bit. Beetle, I’m a little surprised, you usually don’t get into personal attacks.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 18, 2006 @ 11:24 am
If I wanted to get into personal attacks the SA heads would be on the short list. Some of them have told me really nasty things about people.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 18, 2006 @ 11:29 am
My penis is 13 inches. No joke.
Comment by chet (CEO) — June 18, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
Are you african american?
Comment by Anonymous — June 18, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Personal attacks make calstuff worth reading. Bring it on, you fucking (little) wieners!
Comment by mano — June 18, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
I wanted to ask a legitmate question about the incoming execs. Then, someone with a sentence for a name attacks my intelligence (the word form you’re looking for, is, in fact, spelled “your.” Ur is an ancient city in the Middle East), and someone named Beetle attacks my gender and genitalia? Can one no longer ask questions or pose opinions? You should be ashamed of yourselves. There should be some way to regulate irrelevant comments like yours.
Comment by J — June 19, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
There are ways. The fact that you can’t figure out how to use them is of no concern to the rest of us. The benefit of the current approach is that people who want to read the personal attacks can, and people who don’t can choose not to. Demanding civility means that you don’t think the rest of us are capable of reading what is actually said unless it’s written all polite-like, which is itself a personal insult. I responded in kind.
Your question was asked and answered, but then you had to go demanding that folks conform to your personal standards of “discourse.” You don’t hold that kind of sway, doubly so since you don’t identify yourself.
Comment by Beetle — June 19, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
Beetle, thanks for explaining that. I only wanted to play nice, and when you didn’t, I asked for your mutual respect (regardless of whether or not I choose to publish my name, which I don’t). I had no intention of insulting anyone’s intelligence and apologize if I did so. Thanks to those of you who contributed to answering my queries. I’m glad the new execs are well-qualified and wish them the best.
Comment by J — June 19, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
im otay, you’re otay! ice cream and lollipops all around! isn’t calstuff grand?
Comment by mano — June 20, 2006 @ 12:39 am
Third world people toiled for .001 cents a day to make those lollipops you weiner.
Comment by captain duh — June 20, 2006 @ 8:00 am