As the ASUC Turns
So, time to give all of you following the ASUC drama an update on what’s happening.
When we last left off, we had discussed the charge sheets being filed against President Buenrostro’s “I am above the law!” Executive Order #7 on June 27. That charge sheet was immediately accepted that night by the Judicial Council and upheld by the ASUC Auxiliary. As such, President Buenrostro issued Executive Order #8 on June 29, which is basically the same document as Executive Order #7 except that it “temporarily” gives the SA Executive Candidates “acting authority” instead of completely control over the executive offices. It also overturns the previously mentioned EO 7, 1, & 2, making the previous charge sheets moot.
Executive Order #8 was challenged on June 30 by Beetle, who has been posting his analysis on what has been happening as well. Beetle’s charge sheet was accepted by the Judicial Council on July 1, and a preliminary injunction was also placed on the EO. The hearing on the validity of EO 8 will be heard on Saturday, July 8.
So, after five more days, we are no closer to having executives than before. Despite the fact the SA candidate Vishal Gupta has renounced his decision to appeal Ratto v. Vakil, that hearing is still scheduled for July 15. This would be the last opportunity that Student Action has to change the current situation within the Association.
In the meantime, however, the executive race for Student Advocate was certified, and winner Andrew Garvin should be sworn in any day now. Since he would be the only active executive of the 06-07 election, it could be assumed that EO 8 is invalid because Garvin can act on behalf of the Association as its highest ranking elected officer. Garvin has also offered to lead negotiations between both sets of executive candidates, although the likelihood of this materializing is slim.
Now, some people were curious as to how the ASUC Auxiliary was handling the current situation. After speaking to some of them on the 4th floor of Eshleman Hall, it is clear that they, too, are not particularly pleased with the way Student Action is handling the situation. In fact, under contract they are obligated to follow the rules of procedure established in the ASUC Constitution and By-Laws to the letter, including the recognition of the power of the Judicial Council. It has gotten to the point that any action officially taken is not being recognized until ASUC Auxiliary Director Nad Permaul explicitly states its legality. This is theoretically one of the reasons that EO #7 was withdrawn.
Anyway, this situation is definitely well knotted up. The earliest we’ll see a resolution of this issue will be July 15, and I wouldn’t count on that resolution to go unchallenged either through the university or state court.
This just in: The Yoshua Guy from Sproul Plaza has just issued Executive Order #463 on behalf of god in which he declares that the ASUC is now to be run by a junta consisting of him, the Happy Happy Happy Guy, and seven other unnamed drifters from the Berkeley/Oakland area. CalSERVE has already filed a brief in support of Yoshua Guy’s executive order, provided that five of the seven drifters to be named are from “drug-addled drifter communities of color.”
Comment by Bonecrusher — July 2, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
What exactly does the ASUC Auxiliary do in this situation? On their website, in the about us section, it doesn’t seem as though they have any part in the drama that’s going on.
Comment by Calaholic — July 2, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
It is not that they “have any part” in this situation, but they are the official logistical/organizational arm of the ASUC, and for their functioning they need a clear stable political situation without any idiocy.
And anyone who know’s Dr. P knows that he does not have much tolerance for idiocy.
Comment by Eddy C. — July 2, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
Do they have control of the money? Because if so, their “part” is pretty obvious.
Comment by Beetle — July 2, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
The Auxiliary are the grown-ups. They’re the bureaucrats who turn senate proclamations and things into actual checks and operations, and I believe they’re University employees (another reason why the ASUC’s autonomy has always been more a nice idea than a reality).
Shameless Plug!
Barring any last minute changes, I should have an opinion column in the next Daily Cal about the current situation and what could happen to ASUC autonomy should SA file a federal lawsuit (which seems to be increasingly their only option since the Auxiliary refuses to follow the illegal EOs they keep putting out). The piece is about how this all happened and my opinion on what went wrong and where.
My goal was to provide an entertaining encapsulated view of the event and my own personal opinion to people who don’t read the Berkeley Blogosphere (though the Daily Cal’s site being down should limit its reach quite a bit). Here’s hoping for the article’s sake that there aren’t any more crazy developments between not and printing.
Comment by Simon — July 2, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Also, Ben, I don’t think your argument about EO8 being invalid because of Garvin being highest-ranking officer has any real basis in the Constitution or By-laws. But if there are by-laws that establish such, feel free to point them out.
Comment by Beetle — July 2, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
Ben - explain how this mess ends up in “state court” as you say. Does ASUC law really hold water there?
Comment by Ian — July 2, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
Ian. Suppose a contract dispute ends up in court. Do the terms of the contract really hold water there?
Comment by Beetle — July 2, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
Also keep in mind that our state constitution has its own protections (so it could go to state or federal).
I want to comment about the Auxiliary. WHO GIVES THEM POWER HERE? It’s wrong that the head of the Auxiliary should be deciding what goes or doesn’t go; whether or not ASUC has clear leadership at the moment, that kind of power should not be in the hands of the Auxiliary. The Auxiliary should shut up and wait–that’s the college experience and that’s what student government should be about.
Comment by hi — July 2, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
My understanding is that the Auxiliary is taking the “shut up and wait” approach. But they need to know who it is that has the power to tell them to spend money and such, and therefore it’s they who have the final power by deciding who to recognize. Since they are waiting for the Judicial Council to make thar ruling, it looks like things are working properly, and they aren’t interfering with the ASUC.
Comment by Beetle — July 2, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
Seriously, I don’t understand what more you could want from them.
They haven’t done anything. I suppose if you were Student Action you could claim they’ve done something by refusing to follow Manny’s orders, but seeing as how they were blatantly illegal, I think the Auxiliary has acted like the calm, professional adults they are.
Autonomy has its limits, and the Auxiliary is a vital and necessary part of the ASUC.
Comment by Simon — July 2, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
Beetle -
I was just throwing the Garvin suggestion out there as an interesting concept. The Constitution explictly states that the EVP should temporarily succeed the President if he/she is unable to perform the duties of the office. It could be argued that the structure of the ASUC Constitution implies a line of succession: Pres - EVP - AAVP - EAVP - SAO. With SAO Andrew Garvin being the only 06-07 sworn into office so far, I feel he is technically the most qualified person to fulfill the temporary duties as the situation stands.
More importantly, I think it’s time for an “summer order of succession” by-law.
Comment by Ben N. — July 3, 2006 @ 12:06 am
Unless there is an explicit order of succession, that’s not going to fly–but yeah, some changes should be implemented after this.
Disqualifying a whole slate that was (at least regarding a few of the positions) overwhelming elected should be avoided AT ALL COSTS–if that happens there is something deeply wrong.
Comment by hi — July 3, 2006 @ 1:17 am
Sound familiar?
MEXICO CITY, July 2 — Election officials declared Sunday that they could not immediately determine a winner in the tightest presidential race in the country’s history. Minutes later, the two front runners each declared victory, setting in motion an electoral crisis.
Comment by Anonymonius — July 3, 2006 @ 1:32 am
Just like Bush-Gore. Not particularly like SA-Squigor
Comment by Beetle — July 3, 2006 @ 9:02 am
There are no parallels here - the judiciary in Mexico and the United States did not throw out the only organized party in the election. Bush did not assume authority: every count and recount (even LAT and NYT courts) confirm electoral victory. Then American voters had the clear choice in 2004 and chose Bush, again!
It is hard to imagine a bigger mess in the ASUC. What are the odds of this wrapping up before late August? The J-Council has got to address some of the consequential issues and bring in the Student Advocate and other parties to get things in order for the future.
I suppose the incentive created here is to dodge imputation of censures by creating numerous parties of one.
Comment by Paul — July 3, 2006 @ 10:37 am
I resent your implication that SQUELCH! was not organized this year.
We even had T-Shirts and Facebook groups this time around.
Comment by Ben N. — July 3, 2006 @ 10:45 am
If Nad Permaul is going to be making final decisions on what actions the Auxilary will be taking regarding the constitutional crisis, then the non-SA candidates should be worried. He is very close to alot of previous and current Student Action officials, and if it came down to it I would not be suprised if he sided with them.
Comment by anonymous — July 3, 2006 @ 11:05 am
Rampant and organized cheating and then attempting to lie about it to the Judicial Council in order to obstruct justice by a whole slate that was going to be(at least regarding a few of the positions) overwhelming elected should be avoided AT ALL COSTS–if that happens there is something deeply wrong.
:-)
Comment by Andy R. — July 3, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
Frankly, the “rampant and organized cheating” you are talking about is typical student government stuff that hardly affected the election. We aren’t talking about voter fraud; we’re talking about chalking too close to the ballot boxes. Hopefully you don’t think chalking is actually THAT effective…
And the lying, you have to admit, from a polemical standpoint was hardly that bad, considering the Judicial Council even wrote that it took place in the form of an argument and that he was representing the slate as counsel. We aren’t talking about candidates lying about their eligibility or lying about committing voter fraud; none of the candidates in the slate even lied.
From the standpoint of an incoming student especially, the emphasis should be on getting things done AND IN ALL CASES hoping that the will of the voters will be honored. The way this case is stringed together it just doesn’t add up; the focus on upholding the will of the voters is not there, and that’s not good for anyone involved (J-Council, candidates, students, Auxiliary, ETC.).
Comment by hi — July 3, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
I don’t see how lying as a form of argument as counsel for the candidates is a mitigating factor.
But okay, you say that this stuff hardly affected the election. Is there anything that does affect the election? Are there crimes for which candidates should be disqualified? And if so, who draws the line? Remember, you can’t answer that last question with “A non-partisan body formed to deal with these issues.”
Comment by Beetle — July 3, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
ahhhh hmmmmm. “getting things done”. now where have I heard that language before?
is this “standpoint” really that of an incoming student, “especially”? or is it the “standpoint” of an illiterate student action operative? the mystery deepens.
Comment by mano — July 3, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
Chalking is effective enough that it warrants lying about it in front of the JC.
Comment by some dude (SD) — July 3, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
yes, I am also interested in “getting things done” with incoming students. especially the 18/F incoming students.
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 3, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
Be careful chet, some might be 17F
Comment by Anonymous — July 3, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
check their drivers license first
Comment by commodore anonymous — July 3, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
HOLY CRAP, the Daily Cal site’s finally back up!
It’s been what, 2 months now?
Comment by jlmay — July 3, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
Well, I do think chalking is THAT effective. Oren, Vishal, Jason, Joyce has a nice ring to it. So much so that I think having four two-syllable candidate names is the key to victory in many of these races. Say it with me in a mantra: Oren, Vishal, Jason, Joyce; Oren, Vishal, Jason, Joyce…
After my serious Senate choices, I picked the names that had catchy sidewalk phrases, “Vote Vivienne”, “Jen for Sen”, they did pretty well (though being Asian helps, I suppose).
In any case, go Beetle, blah, blah, blah, I’m waiting for EO9, the, “well, you see, I can give statements that circumvent the by-laws because I think they’re unconstitutional, and I can make EO’s violating the Constitution because I’m the last President, so nyah, nyah!”
Comment by J Koo — July 3, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
this may be an aside, but…
has an SA slate gotten disqualified before? if so, why?
Comment by curious? — July 4, 2006 @ 10:22 am
actually, has any slate gotten disqualified before?
Comment by curious? — July 4, 2006 @ 10:23 am
As far as I know, no slate has ever been disqualified.
I dont even think I’ve heard of many (if any) individual winning candidates getting disqualified.
Comment by jlmay — July 4, 2006 @ 10:51 am
DAAP got DQed then unDQed. You can read about it here.
2001 saw some craziness. I was just looking back at some of the stories, including this one, which includes:
“If the election is not resolved before the start of the summer session, the senate will appoint interim executive officials, Quigley said.”
Gee, why didn’t they think of that this year?
Comment by Beetle — July 4, 2006 @ 10:54 am
Gee, why didn’t they think of that this year?
Probably because the late start to the elections themselves, then the normal J-Counsel case resolutions arising from them meant that the tabulation wasn’t conducted until after graduation. Who would have been left to call a Senate session to address it?
Comment by sideliner — July 4, 2006 @ 11:06 am
Is there any way the senate can convene in the event of such an emergency? Are they even already sworn in? The first thing the senate does after resolving this dispute will definitely be tons of ammendments to the constitution for one to prevent a constitutional war like this from even happening, and secondly just to even make sure they can come in and mediate this kind of thing. Thats why we’ve got 3 branches of government and not just 2 headbutting eachother.
Comment by jlmay — July 4, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
Oh and Simon, nice op-ed peice and thanks for being one of the first people I’ve seen actually note that there are some good people in SA too.
Comment by jlmay — July 4, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
The old senators are still in office. The new terms haven’t started yet. The old senators could convene and do stuff, though.
Comment by Beetle — July 4, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Does anyone know if they’re doing anything about this? And is Anil around to call a session of the Senate? I find it strange that the senate’s being very quiet with all this turmoil surrounding the foundations of the institution.
Comment by jlmay — July 4, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
But Beetle, who would call them into session, preside, etc.? Is there a quorum of the old Senate in the Berkeley area?
Comment by sideliner — July 4, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
GOOOAAAAALLL!
forza azzurri!
Comment by Anonymous — July 4, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
fucking bullshit. goddamn italians.
Comment by mano — July 4, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
i hate italy
Comment by jlmay — July 4, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
Italia! Come Grande!
Comment by Ben N. — July 4, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
The Senate can call its own special sessions with the request of five senators, without the Prez or EVP. It takes two weeks, though. It’s probably something that should’ve been looked into earlier.
Comment by Beetle — July 4, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
Go Italy! I was in Rome when Italy played the USA, so I have to root for them.
Comment by Morbo — July 4, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
What, exactly, is the Senate going to do? Everything is working like it is supposed to, except for Manny being a tool, and the jcouncil is able to deal with that with their own authority. What role does the senate have in any of this? And do you REALLY want a body with SA in it having a say in whether or not SA should be punished or who should have acting authority? If you want to see this muppetry worsen, invite the senate to the party.
Comment by captain duh — July 5, 2006 @ 5:58 am