Update On The ASUC Drama
So, here is what has happened since Manuel Buenrostro issued Executive Order #7 (original post here).
Beetle posted his interpretations of EO #7 here. He came to a similar conclusion as most CalStuff commenters: Buenrostro’s EO is, for lack of a better non-profanity laced word, illegal.
Shortly thereafter, Dictator-for-Life Oren Gabriel issued two Executive Orders in his newfound capacity. EO #1 places Student Action lackey Alan Lightfeld as the Attorney General until the fall. It’s convenient that the AG would have a critical role in certifying election results along with the Elections Council. EO #2 places Chai Desai, who was last year’s finance officer, into the position again until the fall. Once again, Beetle is on top of his analysis, pointing out the key to this issue: if you haven’t been sworn in as President, you can’t issue Executive Orders.
At the same time, Vishal Gupta tried to withdraw from his appeal of Ratto v. Vakil. Here is the choice gem from his email:
Given the Order and the clear provisions of the Constitution, the Student Action Executive candidates understand that the Judicial Council cannot proceed with a hearing on the appeal on July 15, 2006 and the Student Action Executive candidates will not participate in any such hearing, as it would be a violation of the Order. If the Judicial Council takes any further action regarding Ratto v. Vakil, the Student Action Executive candidates reserve their right to pursue all available legal remedies against the ASUC, the Judicial Council, and its individual members.
Somehow I think this will come back to bite them in the ass - both withdrawing from the appeal and personally threatening the Judicial Council members with lawsuits.
Trying to foil Beetle’s assertions is SQUELCH! Sucks party member Simon Ganz, who has written Executive Order #8. It’s a comical gem, and worth a read. Hopefully you speak German.
In any event, I have finally gotten involved in this situation. I had tried to stay out of this, because, quite frankly, I just wanted this election to be over. In fact, I had discouraged Andy from filing his original suit. However, here we are, and with Andy leaving for St. Louis at the end of the week, I’ve filed two charge sheets against the Student Action Executive Orders.
Charge Sheet EO 7
Charge Sheet EO 1 & 2
When I hear back on these, I’ll let you all know.
In the meantime, at least one non-SA executive is ready to go to the trenches. Here is an exerpt from a recent email from EAVP candidate Igor Tregub:
Some of you may already be aware of events that transpired in the ASUC within a matter of hours today. For those of you that don’t, I will suffice it to say that the ASUC has entered a constitutional crisis with a rogue party overstepping its authority to illegally maneuver itself into office.
I have full confidence that ASUC officials expressly appointed to serve as impartial mediators of disputes - the Judicial Council, the Election Council, and the legally appointed attorney general - will work to resolve this crisis in the next few days. Until then, in order to avoid the risk of litigation for contracting with an ASUC voice that has not been officially recognized, I urge you to place a moratorium on correspondence with the external affairs office.
I will still ensure that the folks I am recruiting for Congress will, at the very least, sign up on the UCSA website and bring a fully paid check to the event. Any attempt to register members as a delegation, however, should be considered null and void.
The issue is obviously spiraling away very quickly. There are still quite a few wild cards left in resolving this situation. One question is: are we witnessing the last resort thrashings about of Student Action? Clearly, this is a step that they were not willing to take unless they absolutely had to in order to avoid a legal battle in real court. The other major question is: if the crisis plays out to the fullest, and the Judicial Council overturns the Executive Orders, who really is in charge? It really boils down to who the ASUC Auxiliary and university officials recognize.
Anyway, that’s about it for now. Obviously, there’s a lot happening, and we’ll keep you updates as soon as we here more.
constitutionally, when does/did manny’s term end?
Comment by Anonymous — June 27, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Constitutionally, it ended when the “Regular summer semester” began, but he issued an executive order (#5) holding executives in office until the final election results were released. When exactly that is is somewhat in doubt.
Are you going to be representing a party at the appeal, if a hearing occurs, Ben? (The one over the Ratto v. Vakil decision)
Comment by Beetle — June 27, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
how does this thing ever go to “real court” Ben? And, since when does ASUC law mean anything there?
Comment by Ian — June 27, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
I see no one is supporting SA. Surprise, surprise.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 27, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
For those that don’t want to read my Executive Order in a word doc. It’s on ye old blog: Link
Comment by Simon — June 27, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
The other major question is: if the crisis plays out to the fullest, and the Judicial Council overturns the Executive Orders, who really is in charge? It really boils down to who the ASUC Auxiliary and university officials recognize.
I think we have the answer already - to the Auxiliary and UC, the executive branch is the only one that exists.
Comment by Anonymous — June 27, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
I seem to remember hearing that that Chancellor had a magic “god” clause with regards to everything the ASUC does. Doubt he’d use it, but if the results of this election really drag on maybe he could waste a day forcing a compromise solution (I have no idea what compromise would make any sense at all, but I wouldn’t expect the chancellor to waste too much time fixing the ASUC’s dogfood)
Comment by Simon — June 27, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
Usually it’s done to avoid legal liability by throwing money at the problem, as was the case in No on 54. Here, however, if the University steps in, whichever way it leans will open them up to legal liability.
Comment by Beetle — June 27, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
simon ganz is awesome. now if only howard cosell was covering the whole thing…
(okay, that was a bit too obscure. the reference in the document to making the official language swedish, is, i assume, a reference to the woody allen movie bananas. during the coup in the beginning of the movie a sports broadcaster covers the coup as if it is a football game)
Comment by nuance — June 27, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
Can we begin referring to Student Action as a “junta” yet?
Comment by Fauntleroy Plimperton III — June 27, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
Squelch really needs to pick a color so that you can have magical awesome rallies that are ready to march on Eshleman Hall. I think orange is good, but Ukraine already took it. Let’s go with…canary yellow.
Comment by J Koo — June 27, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
Objection! Simon’s executive order disengranchises non-Swedish speaking students!
Comment by jlmay — June 27, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
Keep on fighting for what is JUST AND FAIR !!
a coalition of BCR/DAAP/Squelch would garner more support and maybe put more pressure on the J council to rule what is JUST and FAIR.
ps manny and SA candidates are a bunch of TOOLS !!!
Comment by Anonymous — June 27, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
We dirty non-swedes will get what we deserve!
(and yes, the Swedish line is a Woody Allen reference. From the movie bananas in which a revolutionary takes over the government of a small country and immediately goes insane).
Seriously though, I think this was a really bad move by SA. I totally understand where they’re coming from with their anger over the election, but I think it’s really short-sighted to basically intentionally try to break the ASUC constitution rather than waiting for an appeal they might’ve won anyway. This, much like Suken Vakil’s strange lies in the orginal hearing, feels like crazy Nixonesque over-kill that was completely unecessary.
Comment by Simon — June 27, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
PS: I doubt big rallies would get much done. I also don’t think the Judicial Council will need a ton of pressure. I think they’ll consider the matter carefully and try to find a solution, and hopefully SA won’t be too set in this new course of action to compromise.
Comment by Simon — June 27, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
It’s not the Judicial Council we’re worried about. It’s the University. In order for this to matter for the university, it’s gotta be PR or money. SA is going for money with the lawsuit threats. Without a PR push, the University will conveniently decide to deal with this the easiest way possible, by handing SA a victory through recognition.
Comment by Beetle — June 27, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
Ian, can you clarify your comment? I’m confused what your point is, or what you’re asking. Maybe Ben understands already though, in which case I can just wait for his possible response in this thread.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 27, 2006 @ 11:14 pm
A good point as always Beetle. Perhaps some non-blogosphere is a good idea, though I doubt rallies would work.
More likely talking to the people who actually have to recognize ASUC offices and asking them to wait for a fair judicial hearing.
Comment by Simon — June 27, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
Jeremy–Yellow’s a bad color for me. SQUELCH! is all over the black and white…because I made the t-shirts and that’s all I wear. By the way, if you want a “SQUELCH! too hung over to care since 1998″ shirt, I do believe we still have a couple…they might be vaguely more amusing/valuable now…potentially…just sayin…
Comment by Punch My Ballot — June 28, 2006 @ 12:02 am
manny is not even in fuc*ing Berkeley anymore. What a f’ing joke. “AS THE SA PRESIDENT, I DECLARE ALL SA EXECUTIVE CANDIDATES BE SWORN INTO OFFICE.” what the hell? which one of the SA jackasses acutally thought that would work. Followed by, “AS THE ILLEGALLY APPOINTED ASUC PRESIDENT, I WILL NOW ILLEGALLY APPOINT MY FRIEND TO LEGITIMIZE MY STATUS IN THE POSITION.” what the hell??
Comment by Anonymous — June 28, 2006 @ 8:28 am
You should have given my little bro a chance!
It is of no matter now; I have issued Executive Order 66, so all the opposition candidates can expect a visit from an Imperial trooper.
MWHAHAHA
MWWWhahahah
Comment by "Jesse Gabriel" — June 28, 2006 @ 8:43 am
Here’s a comment that couldn’t be posted earlier by “Berkeley Bacchus”.
Comment by Ben N. — June 28, 2006 @ 10:58 am
A good point, but two things:
There is no “yellow card” in ASUC elections.
And they very well might’ve have won their case on appeal, so you can’t say “They had no choice, all their options were used up!”
It’s more like, they thought they were going to lose, so they figured they might as well steal rather than win.
It’s also worth noting that “chalking” is not a big deal, but lying over and over again to the judicial council is. I really can’t understand SA’s actions. It would’ve been super easy to convince the judicial council that they just screwed up and hadn’t had time to get the chalk taken down and that it was an unfair onus to tell them to do it the day of the election. Instead they went into a huge web of lies and also tried to disqualify Igor with fake testimony.
If all they’d done was was chalk, then yes, it’d be accurate to say “Well they won by a huge majority and we should overlook this” but from the very start they tried to completely subvert the system, even though they would’ve easily won by just playing by the rules.
Comment by Simon — June 28, 2006 @ 11:28 am
How do you think SA got to the point where they felt comfortable skirting all the rules and generally being corrupt as hell? They’ve been getting yellow cards for years. Eventually something serious has to be done or else SA doesn’t take anyone, or anything, seriously. We’re seeing that now.
Comment by captain duh — June 28, 2006 @ 11:30 am
yes, “Berkeley Bacchus”, as long as were talking out of our asses, a big fine should do it. how about 320 million dollars to be distributed directly to the students, with 10% going to me for coming up with the number. and then these SA wieners can have their executive slate.
Comment by mano — June 28, 2006 @ 11:45 am
this is f#cking bullsh#t. i’m the most anti-affirmative-action ideologue in the world, and i’m voting for calserve next year.
Comment by chet (CEO) — June 28, 2006 @ 11:56 am
Calm down everyone and imagine yourself in SA’s position. You’ve just won by a landslide (in all but one race), and then you get DQ’ed due to something you (personally) didn’t do. You would be very pissed off and would do what you could to regain your position. I think a lot of us are letting our SA-hatred guide our thinking. Clearly I am in the minority on this blog operated by SA opponents, but just thought I’d share my opinion.
Comment by 2004 bears-united volunteer — June 28, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
Uh, yeah. It kind of sucks for them. When this leads to AN EXECUTIVE ORDER DECREEING HIS PARTY THE ELECTION WINNERS I don’t think we’re overreacting with SA-hatred.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
#27
It’s a give and take. The large party machine got them elected by a comfy margin, but it also carries with it greater liability than a small independent effort. They knew that when they signed on, when they paid their money into the SA coffers, joining an organization led by Suken, who torpedoed it all in the end.
Comment by some dude — June 28, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
I agree with some dude. They werent just a bunch of execs who said “hey let’s just call ourselves Student Action”. The party means you get access to massive dorm connections through corrupt RA’s, group mailing lists, pre made signs and posters, chalking armies (and apparently cans of hairspray), armies of sign holders and slate cards. This is why Independents have a hard time winning.
Comment by RepBast1984 — June 28, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
I agree that this whole thing makes the ASUC look quite a bit like a Banana Republic (sans bananas). At this point the question really is, who will the University support? I don’t think it should surprise anyone that the University would likely support the people that received the most votes. The least of those reasons being that, thats how democracy is supposed to work.
I don’t think you could call the ASUC a democracy if the people that got the most votes were supersceded by people who received a fraction of their support. And frankly, bitching about CHALK (for the love of God) only makes the concerns of the losers in the election seem all the more petty. If you cut through all the bullshit about “protecting the democratic process” what you guys are doing is saying that the people who won an overwhelming majority of the votes should be prevented from taking office because someone who helped them in the election didn’t tell the truth about how long he thought chalk stayed on the pavement.
That clearly fails the common sense test. And by the way, as a co-founder of the original BEARS-united (pre-Lieberman, not my fault I swear) I object to the name of a party we founded to promote common sense in a nonsensical student government being used to overturn the clearly stated will of the majority of voters.
Comment by Ian Richardson — June 28, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
Only disqualify people who wouldn’t have won anyway. That makes sense. If you look at it like a dictator, where the results are all that matter, then yes, it does look petty. Good thing we have a democracy, where process is important.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Hey Ian,
those “losers” as you say, or “winning recipients of the most votes among the candidates elligible to hold office” as I like to call them, never “bitched” about chalk. Rather, the Attorney General held Student Action accountable to the by-laws, which exist to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to express their vote. In case you wondered, since no one in Bears-United was ever that into reading the by-laws until this year, they’re the same by-laws that say that Andy Ratto can register Bears-United as a party name if he gets there before you do and can use it any way he wants.
Now here’s the real question, why would the founder of a party that spent most of its time criticizing SA suddenly become one of their only defenders in the midst of such an obvious abuse of power? Could it be largely based on the fact that you’re Jason Chu’s frat brother?
Comment by anonymous — June 28, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
We establish processes because we believe that they will lead to results that make sense (i.e. the people with the most votes will win). When the processes themselves create nonsensical results (the people with the most votes don’t win) they should be disregarded. And yes Beetle, democracy is about processes, processes that help to tell us what the will of the electorate is.
From your post it seems that you’re arguing that democracy isn’t about a majority of people deciding who they want to lead. Look at it like a dictator? That’s way over the top. No one has alleged vote fraud or any other rigging of the election, electoral fraud or that SA put guns to people’s heads to make them vote so you can’t honestly tell me that the results themselves are in question (which is what separates democracies from dictatorships). So yes, the results are what matters, thats how it is supposed to work in places where people vote for their leaders.
Comment by Ian Richardson — June 28, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
And, suppose they had put guns to folks heads? Would you still be spitting the same “people with most votes win” tune? Because the process is in place in either case, and you then have to appoint a dictator to determine which violations matter enough.
Luckily, in a democracy, it’s not a dictator, it’s the Senate. The Senate has put these rules in place, which say what it takes to get disqualified, not the Judicial Council, and not SQUELCH!.
The results are not in question if you look at it, yes, like a dictator, in the sense that you look at it without considering proper execution of process, but only considering achieving the “correct” result.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
I objected to the use of the BEARS-united name in a way that the originial founders would never have supported. I am well aware that the name was acquired legally and I never objected to that. I have always objected to stupid decisions by student government, SA definitely made their share of them in the past. But this time the stupid decision was made by the judicial council and the people (Andy Ratto, Ben Narodick, Igor Tregub, ironically all members of AEPi and none of whom I have any personal problem with) who filed the lawsuit AFTER the AG’s original lawsuit was resolved the first time. Yes Jason is in my fraternity, and you can expect that I’ll be telling him what I think about any stupid decisions he makes in his capacity as the duly elected EAVP.
My point is simple, the people with the most votes should win. That is common sense.
Comment by Ian Richardson — June 28, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Beetle, the rules in place say what it takes to get disqualified before the tabulation. The rules don’t allow for what you, many here, and four members of the Judicial Council are trying to perpetrate.
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
so if SA had been going around giving people $50 to vote for them, would you be cool with that? by your logic, if SA gets the most votes, they should take office, even if they were paying students to vote for them?
of course you don’t believe that. it’s obvious that some electoral violations are serious enough that they call the validity of the results into question, and the only remedy is to disqualify the candidate. it sounds like you’re just unhappy that your buddy committed such a serious infraction.
Comment by chet (CEO) — June 28, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
You know, that’s kind of Bush-Rovian. He’s on his way up.
Comment by k_radsurferboi86 — June 28, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
For questions regarding guns to the forehead and electoral fraud I refer you to my previous comments that none of that happened, no one alleges that it did and my allusion to the fact that I would view such actions as causing the will of the electorate to not be represented as it should be in a democratic election.
Now that this thread has degenerated into wildly off-base hypotheticals I’ll recuse myself from any further meaningless discussion. Flame on.
Comment by Ian Richardson — June 28, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Sideliner: Challenge! Find those rules. I’ve been paying close attention to them. The Judicial Council has, too. You, on the other hand, are an anonymous commenter who has asserted the existence of some rules. I’m interested in seeing which rules you refer to.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Good timing, Ian, because you completely missed my point. Yes, some violations cause the will of the electorate to not be represented. Some don’t. The decision as to which violations are which is left up to the Senate when it writes the rules. A dictator would look and declare which type of violation it is, and demand the result. A democrat would see to it that the process is followed in making that determination.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
Beetle,
ASUC By-Laws 16.1.1
Ballot tabulation shall not commence before the expiration of the Statute of Limitations and the close of all pending election cases before Judicial Council. This section does not prohibit the filing of new charges by the Election Council or Attorney General for Campaign Violations occurring after the commencement of ballot tabulation.
This year, this procedure was followed. The J-Council authorized the tabulation after closing all open Elections cases. Neither the AG nor the Elecions Council Chair filed any additional charges after the tabulation was complete.
By-Laws section 18.4
New Elections
1. Any student may petition the ASUC Judicial Council to void an election, on grounds of the integrity of the Elections Council, its mismanagement of the election, or the mechanism of the count, prior to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations stated in Article 13.4.2.
2. The Judicial Council shall review the case and submit its finding to the Senate.
3. 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.
4. The ASUC Judicial Council may not void an election on any other grounds or by any other procedure, as stated in subsection 3, above..
5. Only the ASUC Judicial Council may void an election.
6. If the Judicial Council voids an election, the Senate shall provide for a new election to be held within four (4) full semester weeks, or as soon as it is feasible.
Since Andy’s case was not a petition for a new election, it should probably not have been accepted by the J-Council. But assuming for the moment that it was (and that the four members who heard it and ruled on it constitute a proper quorum), the only outcome the By-Laws allow the J-Council to render in such a case is to order a new election if they find mismanagement or an unpunished violation. The wisdom of that provision is clear as we watch the current mess unfold because it was not followed.
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
Nothing in that says that folks are prevented from DQ after tabulation. One remedy the Judicial Council can do is void an election. They don’t plan on doing it. I don’t see why you think that means they can’t DQ folks.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Here is a question that no one is answering.
What if the Judicial Council violates the ASUC constitution in their decissions, which I have many reson to believe in this case?
Who then has a check on them? My guess is the senate but without the senate, then who?
I think this is what is happening to the ASUC right now.
Comment by common sense — June 28, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
Beetle, the By-Laws seem quite clear that only the AG or the Elections Council Chair can file charges after the tabulation. For Andy to be allowed to file late charges, students would have to be authorized to do so in 16.1.1 too. As specified, students are only authorized to file petitions for new elections after the tabulation.
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Oh, and one further point. I believe that when Andy filed his charges he had already graduated. I think that means that he lacked standing to bring them - he was no longer a student.
Common Sense’s question seems apt.
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
Again, you seem to be of the opinion that anything not specifically allowed in the by-laws is absolutely prohibited. The Judicial Council, thankfully, disagrees.
Andy was still a candidate in the election. Had charges been brought against him, he would have had to defend himself. It seems fairly obvious, then, that he must be granted student status in order to do so. Title VI defines student status, but sadly, does not specify whether summer counts as a “semester,” so things are ambiguous. But it is certainly clear that if Andy isn’t a student, then Manny isn’t and can’t be president, issuing EOs.
The Senate’s check on the Judicial Council is through appointment confirmation and impeachment powers. They are not granted any kind of power to overrule the Judicial Council. One could make the same arguments about a lack of a check on Manny’s EO powers.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Killing people is not in the bylaws. So they can do it…
Comment by Anonymity — June 28, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
Beetle, there seems to be little point in specifying proceedures in great detail (as the By-Laws do) if one can say (as you do) that things not specifically prohibited are therefore allowed. That seems like sloppy reasoning to me.
As for the J-Council, we’ll see if the opinion of four Council members stands.
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
if a council currently has 7 members
and quorum is a majority, meaning more than half
and half of 7 is 3.5
and 4 is more than 3.5
where the hell is “sideliner” [read: ASUC party member who is actively involved and not at all on the sidelines] coming from?!?!
Comment by anonymous — June 28, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
doesnt matter if he graduated. if he was eligible to vote in the election, hed have standing.
Comment by mano — June 28, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
It’s so easy to point out antidemocratic SA lackeys, party hacks and SA chalking/sign holding slaves on this blog
Comment by Anonymity — June 28, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
The by-laws do not specify much in great detail. Did you know that, using your logic, referenda can’t be on the ballot?
The Elections Council and AG are specifically mentioned because those are ASUC actors.
And yes, under the by-laws, killing people is allowed (but may violate some other campaign things having to do with safety). If you think the ASUC, rather than, say, the court system, should be involved in dealing with murder, you have bigger problems.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Beetle, you’re wrong about referenda, see the By-Laws article VIII
8.1 Definitions
1. Proposition
A Proposition is any Initiative as described in Article IX and/or Referenda as described in Article X which will be placed before the student body in an ASUC election. A Proposition may be a Constitutional Amendment, creation of a by-law, Student Fee Question, a statement of position of the Student Body, or any other poll that is binding or non-binding on the ASUC or any of its constituent parts.
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
Check out “Form of ballot” and get back to me.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
Let me just spare you the effort. Article XV describes the ballot in “great detail” but makes no mention of propositions. The reason I know this is because it came up in Ben’s now-limboed suit against the GA referendum, when the manner in which Jessica Wren put the referendum on the ballot, with the “abstain” option specifically tailored for it, may have affected the outcome. Here we see an obvious case where the Senate simply dropped the ball and failed to provide enough specificity, but the Constitution requires that the questions be put on the ballot. This forced ASUC officials to just wing it, because the ASUC Senate constantly and repeatedly fails to provide detail in places where it matters. To say that, because of the detail, anything else is illegal means that the ballot cannot include propositions, even if they can be “placed before the student body in an ASUC election.”
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
Form of Ballot is in the section of the By-Laws dealing with office races, so of course it refers to offices only. Other sections of the By-Laws (such as the one I pointed out) deal with propositions (referenda included as you can see from the definition in 8.1.1).
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
Beetle, authorizing that something can be placed before the student body in an election, means that it can be placed on the ballot. There is absolutely no other way to make something available in an election other than by ballot. To argue otherwise is sophistry.
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
I agree. The Judicial Council agrees. Everyone agrees. But it’s not in the by-laws dealing with the ballot itself. That’s why whining about the absence of something from the by-laws as a prohibition is stupid. Since you think the by-laws adequately deal with this, tell me, should there be an abstain option specifically listed next to yes or no? In what order should they be presented? What font? Margin size?
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
sophistry…that’s a good one. so who’s paying you, beetle?
Comment by sophist — June 28, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
Beetle, since all I know about these suits is what I read here, maybe you can explain how the abstain option could possibly have affected the outcome. And, why is it “limboed”?
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
I don’t know why it’s limboed. If you mean “what do you mean by limboed,” Jessica Wren was held in contempt, but Ben didn’t want a default judgment in his favor, because of the GA whining that would ensue, so a new hearing was supposed to be scheduled. I haven’t heard anything about it since then, so I call it “limboed.”
As you hopefully know, the proponents of the GA referendum deliberately made the ballot description vague and uninformative, according to Manny, of all people. As you also hopefully know, people tend to vote no on issues they don’t understand (go look at some newspaper coverage of confusing ballot measures in California, and folks talk about this all the time). That means that people who didn’t understand might vote no. But since the “abstain” option was specifically included, they would be more inclined to vote “abstain.” Since the majority (60%) of voters voted abstain, the small number (30%) of YES voters outnumbered the even smaller number (10%) of NO voters to change the constitution. If some of those abstain votes had gone NO instead, it could have affected the outcome.
I don’t think Ben has a case, I should note, because Senate screw-ups leave a great deal of discretion in the hands of the Elections Council, which you don’t think they should have, apparently. (Or I guess that rule only applies to the Judicial Council when it rules against your pals) But since it came out in the newspaper article later that Jessica had added the abstain option specifically because the ballot question was uninformative, questions of impartiality come up.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
Beetle, Article XV deals only with the offices ballot. Because the ASUC system for electing officers (Executive and Senate) is complicated, the form of the ballot for dealing with it needs to be more specific than for other ballot items. Hence, more detail there. But because that part of the ballot needs greater definition, does not mean that other authorized parts of the ballot need the same; and the absence of such detail does not mean that the document does not authorize it. It does in the sections I’ve cited. Had those not been there, you’d be correct, the By-Laws would be silent on placing referenda and other propositions on ASUC ballots; and they would not be allowed unless the By-Laws were amended. It is not silent, and thereby does authorize them.
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
There’s only one ballot. It’s the same ballot.
Regardless, the by-laws allow the Judicial Council to rule on elections violations, and the Judicial Council allows individuals to bring cases. Therefore, it does authorize individuals to bring cases, and nowhere does that authorization end. It is not silent, and thereby does authorize them.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
I guess I should have said that Article XV deals on with that component of the ballot devoted to contests for Executive and Senate office. If propositions are to be voted on (as in 2006), they compromise a different component of the ballot voters see. Because the component of the ballot dealing with election to ASUC office is complicated, it needs more detail in defining its form than the non-office component. That does not mean that the By-Laws do not authorize the non-office component of the ballot. It does so in 8.1.1 and the other sections of dealing with propositions.
Comment by sideliner — June 28, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
I’ve got a question for anyone that knows: What’s actually happening in the physical ASUC executive offices right now? Like, who’s all up in that beef? Is there anyone there? Does anybody know the logistics of this stuff? What happens when someone tries to sign a purchase order, or however ASUC executive budgets get spent? Is there some procedure in place for notifying the bank that a new person is authorized to access the account? Or is there like an ASUC employee who deals with the bank? If so, who is that guy? Can he just decide who to recognize?
Basically, my question is: What would happen if someone actually tried to govern?
Comment by Aaron — June 28, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
My understanding is that it’s really up to the ASUC Auxilliary.
Comment by Beetle — June 28, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
What’s next, Jcouncil (court) packing?
Comment by Anonymity — June 28, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
A couple of bad suggestions to make the current crisis less bad. I think it’s obvious now that transition and succession rules need to be rewritten, but than can’t happen until there is a government in place.
(1) JC stays SA’s appeal until the fall and in the interim appoints a “caretaker” government, consisting of people who are (a) around for the summer, (b) not too closely affiliated with any realistic candidates or parties, (c) preferably have some experience in the relevant office, (d) are prohibited, by order, from assuming the office on a permanent basis or campaigning for or against anyone to do so, and (e) whose terms expire on a date certain. Everyone is back in the fall (including the students and the ever-vigilant Daily Cal), tensions will have cooled, and this situation may be resolved through constitutional means by way of seeing SA’s appeal to the end.
(2) As far as I understand (and correct me if I am wrong), the SAO race is not affected by the DQ (because the candidate is independent). JC stays SA’s appeal, and certifies the SAO race only. SAO (as the de facto #5 in the line of succession) acts as a caretaker exec until everyone comes back in the fall and the crisis is resolved through the completion of SA’s appeal.
I know that both choices suck, and I really hate the idea of involving the JC in picking officers (even on a temp basis) or, for very personal reasons, the idea of the Student Advocate executing the duties of partisan offices, but short of SA folding, does anyone know of another way to defuse this?
Comment by Old Fogey — June 29, 2006 @ 6:52 am
4.14.5.1: Sanctions may be assessed against an individual for violating these by-laws at any time, whether the individual has filed for candidacy yet or not. Any sanctions imposed shall be accumulated only until the regularly scheduled ASUC election of that year.
Suck it sideliner. Suck it long. And suck it hard.
Comment by captain duh — June 29, 2006 @ 7:00 am
Old Fogey (#70: What are your reservations about option 2? The Stud. Advocate could just execute urgent matters without starting any of the ‘partisan’ projects.
Comment by Anonymous — June 29, 2006 @ 8:23 am
Why don’t you all just initiate a recall
Comment by Anonymous — June 29, 2006 @ 11:32 am
My reservation about #2 is not necessarily that the Student Advocate would do any partisan acts, but more that the person’s actions will be perceived as partisan no matter what he chooses to do or not to do. I always felt that the ability to stay above the partisan fray (obviously, with exceptions) has been one of the SAO’s more significant assets, and in this situation, it would be jeopardized. That said, I still think it would be better than having a government without an executive and with the Senate not in session, and the relative independence of the Student Advocate should at least inspire some confidence in both sides, even if the Student Advocate ends up taking some partisan hits from either or both sides. More importantly, it will allow the ASUC to sort out the process internally, without any intervention by the courts or, crucially, the University.
While functioning as an acting President, he can EO in the acting EVP, EAVP, AAVP, and SA. I think that prudence would dictate that the candidates that would be EO’d in would be subject to the same constraints as I proposed for my option #1.
Comment by Old Fogey — June 29, 2006 @ 11:34 am
Why do you believe a “line of succession” is defined for the ASUC?
More importantly, what are executives needed for right now? What actual harm is done by their absence?
Comment by Beetle — June 29, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Beetle:
I don’t believe that it is expressly defined. In fact, I don’t believe that the Constitution at all contemplates the scenario that the ASUC is faced with now. I think it is a much larger problem that Con Review should have its hands full with when the Senate returns, and I would expect to see a major constitutional amendment next year to clarify the line of succession, or at least procedures for what is to be done when all five executive offices are vacant, the Senate is not in session, and the JC is the only government body that is properly constituted.
That said, the question is, what do we do about this? You suggest that doing nothing at all is an option, but I disagree. If nothing is done, SA will simply entrench themselves in their offices over the summer, hire a bunch of interns when students arrive, and will be just about impossible to remove from office. However, their perceived illegitimacy will cripple their ability to do anything for the whole year. Even if SA could somehow be prevented from executing such a maneuver, the ASUC does need to have a person who can speak for it. As a timely example, if the ASUC were to be sued (by you-know-who, or even by a random person who slips and falls in the Eshleman lobby), who controls the ASUC’s defense? Surely not the J-Council. On the other hand, the “challengers” really don’t have a legitimate claim to be in office either, since the election results have not been certified or read into the minutes, and there are still serious unresolved questions about whether the original disqualification of SA was proper in the first place (I, for one, have major qualms with that decision, for reasons I stated elsewhere.)
In this situation, I would argue that you need a trusted caretaker to avoid the crisis. Ideally, the Constitution should expressly provide for a way out of this mess, but the ASUC “Founding Fathers” probably did not foresee this. I would hate for the “trusted caretaker” to be either the University or someone who could use the position to entrench themselves permanently. I think the JC has at least a leg to stand on when it reads the implied line of succession into the Constitution, and a sufficiently neutral party can at least inspire enough confidence in everyone to last until the fall. As I said, I would expect this issue to become a constitutional amendment next spring, so any ruling the JC would make in this regard would not become lasting precedent (because it would be overruled by the amendment.)
Comment by Old Fogey — June 29, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
How do you recall someone who does not hold the office in the first place? And from a practical standpoint, when is the last time an ASUC recall succeeded?
Comment by Old Fogey — June 29, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
In that case, there’s really no need for EOing in some interim executives for the other positions, nor will any such action prevent SA entrenchment in the offices, since SA seems determined to absolutely ignore the remainder of the ASUC.
The Constitution actually does allow for this kind of thing. It makes no difference, though, if SA is going to ignore it.
It’s worth noting, at least, that the senators from the 2005-2006 academic year are still in office, and, if you could find 10 of them around, could reconvene for a special session.
Comment by Beetle — June 29, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
a lot of the work in terms of setting up a functioning government especially when it comes to the executive offices is done during the summer. the longer the controversy goes on the more likely the asuc is setting itself up for a very difficult year.
it’s in everyone’s interest to see this confusion sorted out as quickly as possible.
Comment by nithya — June 29, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
Beetle: you may be right. I would argue two things. (1) SA may be convinced to go along with the plan because they don’t really prejudice their own position in the fall if they do. By then, this fiasco will not be fresh in people’s memories and they may stand a decent chance if they simply finish their appeal. SA must surely realize that, having won power in this way, they will not be able to get anything done this year. (2) Even if SA cannot be convinced to go along with this, the selection of an alternate slate of officers will provide a credible alternative, that has been selected through at least arguably constitutional means, for ASUC decisions to be made and for the ASUC to be represented to the outside world, which will alone prevent the entrenchment of the SA slate. As I said, I don’t believe that there is a single good way out of this… at this point, I believe that ASUC can call it a success if the transition can be somewhat orderly and its autonomy is maintained. Whether the JC chooses the caretaker government directly, or whether the Student Advocate does, at least it would allow the ASUC to function without allowing SA to proceed with this grab.
Comment by Old Fogey — June 29, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Also, how are the 2005-06 senators still senators? If that is indeed the case, then the special session may not be a bad way to go.
Comment by Old Fogey — June 29, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
It’s just how the senate terms are defined in the Constitution. They start the first day of fall semester, and last a year.
A caretaker government may yield the best result, but it’s on seriously shaky constitutional ground. There is no hint of the legality of such an action.
If you want a constitutional course of action, keep in mind that, under the constitution, the election results, if certified now, would put the SQUELCH!ers+Igor in charge. The concept of a “conditional certification,” where the winners of the election as it stands now are put into office until the issue is resolved (e.g. SA winning the appeal), possibly with some restrictions on what can be done with the offices, would make more constitutional sense, though it’s still pulled out of the Judicial Council’s ass. But appointment of officials by the Judicial Council or Student Advocate is, I think, a far greater stretch then temporary election certification by the Judicial Council. Of course, doing this would provoke SA, but I don’t see the Judicial Council as having the authority to take action in order to avoid litigation that has merely been threatened.
Comment by Beetle — June 29, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
I am not sure that I agree that a provisional certification (of either side), especially with restrictions on what can be done by the officers, is something that the Constitution provides for. It has all the problems of a caretaker government, plus it entrenches one side at the expense of the other.
The JC can, however, issue injunctive relief to preserve the status quo. I would argue that the assumption of office by either SA or the Squelchers would disrupt the status quo, where neither side is (yet) entrenched. To the extent that the JC can order mandatory injunctive relief, ordering in a caretaker government (directly or indirectly, depending on how much the JC wants to involve itself in politics) isn’t too far of a stretch. Unlike either SA or Squelch, those folks might actually have some shred of legitimacy to act on behalf of the ASUC until this mess is sorted out.
Comment by Old Fogey — June 29, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
See i told you people what would happen if we trust the ASUC. Pretty soon, with the executive disregarding the judicial, we’re going to have to abolish it.
Comment by DTI — June 29, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Well duh, thanks for bringing up 4.14.5.1.
If I’m not mistaken, the regularly scheduled ASUC election for 2006 began on April 25 and ended on April 27. And, of course, that provision does not negate 16.1.1 that provides that after the tabulation new charges may be filed by the AG or the Elections Council Chair. Andy’s charges were new, and he was neither the AG nor the Elections Council Chair.
Comment by sideliner — June 29, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
Is the “election” just the casting of ballots, or the counting and certification of those ballots?
Comment by Anonymous — June 30, 2006 @ 6:39 am
What’s going on?
Inform me, CalStuff!
Comment by Anonymous — July 2, 2006 @ 2:37 pm