(Let me reiterate: this is not news, this is pure opinion. The news on the decision is here, and you should read that before you read this. Beetle also has some analysis [1 and 2])

Don’t worry, I’m not gonna do what you all think I’m gonna do, which is, you know, FLIP OUT!

I’ll be honest - I think the Judicial Council decision has some serious problems. The most critical of these problems is a fairly flawed interpretation of double jeopardy rights, which is in part addressed in the dissent. The fact that this argument was allowed by the Judicial Council is problematic at best: SAES did not include it in either the appeal charge sheet or the appeal brief. We were basically given five minutes in the middle of the hearing to try to formulate a defense on a complicated subject that we had no reason to suspect would even be in play.

Part of the problem with this whole situation has been that, from the beginning, the Student Action Executive Slate has wanted this more. They easily spent $10,000 on the four campaigns, brought in lawyers and interested alumni to help them, and were willing to take this to any possible audience that might care enough to hear them, even in the face of two and a half months of defeat after defeat.

To be frank, SQUELCH! has not had this type of investment in the situation, and I think our campaign alone is evidence that this has been a fact from the beginning. Lauren and I both have real jobs with real companies, and our time and attention are often consumed by them rather than a student union that we won’t be members of by next May. John O’Connor, after working for a year in the AAVP office, made him convinced that the position he was running for was superfluous to the ASUC. We’re all involved with a number of different groups on this campus, and quite frankly, they’re generally more interesting than the ASUC. Ultimately, the Judicial Council has made its final decision, and SQUELCH! is going to respect its authority and not fight against it. An audience before the Rabbinical Council of America is a tempting opportunity to rally external support, but one I simply cannot accept.

And, let’s face it! It’s freaking student government - the fact that I’m even blogging about it is problematic in itself. ASUC officials have to sacrifices grades for public service, get drawn into drug problems, have the stress of student groups on their backs because their annual funding has dropped from $10000 to $9400, pressures from your party, failed relationships, and numerous other stressful conditions. To say that being an ASUC officer is a blessing and a burden is giving it too much credit - it’s pretty much just a burden.

It’s unfortunate that, in this situation, the candidates who have been elected were (and still are, according to this decision) found to have lied, cheated, and deceived the student government and the students in order to hold office. But let’s be honest - any time the results of an election have to be resolved by the judiciary branch, it is going to be extremely problematic. Personally, I think this whole string of events encourages what we’ve all seen in the past: major parties bending the rules and giving each other breaks to corrupt the “infallible voting public”. But, it won’t be until there is enough institutional knowledge within the ASUC and the student body that people will start voting against the means and the ends of candidates.

And, in the end, I do have faith in some of the SAES. Particularly, I wish my personal opponent, Vishal Gupta, all the best of luck in the next year as EVP. I never wanted to run against Vishal - I’ve thought from the beginning that he was the most qualified candidate from Student Action. He knows a lot about the ASUC and its processes, and he can do great things with the office.

Hopefully, this will be the last CalStuff post on the 2006 ASUC Elections. Cheers to having a 2007 election with as much drama and muckraking as this blog’s server will allow.

49 Little Bears said...