Student Action Takes ASUC Election Dispute to Berkeley City Council
This Tuesday, the Berkeley City Council will consider Action Item 42, a motion to recognize “…the election of the four Student Action Executive officers in a free and fair ASUC election and supporting their appeal against the attempts of the ASUC Judicial Council to deny their victory by judicial machinations.” This item was submitted last week by District 8 representative Gordon Wozniak as an emergency item requiring urgent attention from the City Council.
The text of the motion reflects, at best, an incomplete knowledge of the situation and the ASUC or, at worst, a strong collection of defamatory language that could be fodder for a lawsuit against Mr. Wozniak. The motion makes some very substantial claims that are blatantly false - for example, Wozniak submits as evidence a list of election results that suggest that Andy Ratto could have personally benefitted from his case by placing him second in the race for AAVP, while John O’ Connor finished 2nd in that race. Some candidates are completely omitted from the vote count. Wozniak goes on to claim that Andy Ratto is attempting to “win in the ‘courts’ what was lost at the ballot box.” This is not just blatant speculation, but also false. An even more obvious difference is that Wozniak claims the SAES was acquitted of campaigning within 100 feet of the polls; that, too, is false.
The question must be asked - why would Wozniak submit such a measure? The most commonly speculated reason I’ve heard so far is that Wozniak had been influenced by staff member Robby Kaufman, who has been an outspoken member of Student Action and was an integral member of Oren Gabriel’s campaign this year. It also must be pointed out that Wozniak is apparently running against UC Berkeley student Jason Overman, and if the ASUC pays Wozniak patronage, it makes re-election a much simpler endeavor.
Ultimately, it seems the viability of this motion passing is not strong. My sources have told me that District 7 representative Kriss Worthington has been contacted by numerous incoming ASUC senators, and that the overwhelming message is against the Wozniak measure. Others have told me that many city councilmembers are very hesitant to get involved with student politics, especially if that means acknowledging and working with the powers of the UC Berkeley administration. This measure could easily backfire against SAES and Wozniak, as this could be the fourth forum in three months that has rejected SAES’ claims to power.
The Berkeley City Council is meeting Monday @ 5 PM and Tuesday @ 630 PM. All students are encouraged to attend and address the city council. I feel that it is important to let its members know that, while we appreciate their interest, they have no reason to interfere with the remaining autonomy of the ASUC.
(How sad is it that I have to use both my ASUC and City of Berkeley tags for this post?)
I was told Robby was Oren’s campaign manager - anyone know if that’s correct? Regardless, I hope the measure fails miserably.
Comment by Ed Martinez — July 22, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
I wonder how the city felt about Prop 187.
Comment by Beetle — July 22, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
wtf? it is none of the city’s business what goes on in the ASUC. The SAES & Wozniak are nuts.
Comment by s — July 22, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
What happens if the City Council votes for Wozniak’s measure? It’s not like they have any power over the ASUC. Is the SAES simply looking for symbolic recognition, or do they think the Berkeley City Council has any actual ability to put them in office?
Comment by Morbo — July 22, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
Hey, they got Bush impeached, right?
Comment by Beetle — July 22, 2006 @ 10:22 pm
I don’t know which is funnier, that Gordon Wozniak thinks it is appropriate for the City Council to take the time to address a dispute at a college student government or that he attempted to do so with an bill that shows how obviously misinformed he is about the situation…
Comment by Andy R. — July 22, 2006 @ 10:37 pm
Shut up Andy, quit trying to win with the comment section what you lost with the ballot box!
Comment by Simon — July 22, 2006 @ 11:03 pm
WOW Student Action really is trying to steal… I mean win this election By Any Means Necessary.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 22, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
Guys, as much as everyone is against student action, this whole deal is really not fair to the whole slate. Regardless of what you say each one of them worked their asses off to win, and they did win. Its time we let them do their jobs and move on. As much fun and games all of this might be to everyone, this decision will greatly effect each candidate and they’ll remember this for the rest of their lives, so I say let the results stand and let ASUC serve the students.
Comment by Travis — July 22, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
Yes, lets let the results stand. Current results have SA disqualified, by the way.
Many things affect people and are remembered. I don’t think the fact that something affects people and is remembered means a great deal in itself as to how we should act.
Comment by Beetle — July 23, 2006 @ 12:09 am
Ben,
Stop freaking out about shit that doesnt matter like the city council voting on a measure such as this. Wether it passes or not, it wont make a difference on the final outcome.
By the way. You got beat pretty bad on the EVP election. Maybe that’s why you are so bitter against SA. Most of the votes that you ended up getting were transfered after Vishal hit quota.
Wouldnt it be nice to be EVP without having to win an election?
Comment by Anonymous — July 23, 2006 @ 1:30 am
First of all the Berkeley City Council has no place interfering with the ASUC process.
Second of all it is ridiculous how Wozniak, who has been one of the most anti-student Councilmembers is trying to use this proposal to get Student Action support.
I have no position either way on what the Judicial Council should decide, but it is my hope that SA people will get past their self interest and recognize that it was Wozniak that has been trying to crack down on greek and student life and has been supporting the landlords in ripping off students.
They need to think about who would be the best person to help students in the city, and it ain’t Wozniak.
What is also absurd is that Woz is trying to target his campaign to students and hopes he can fool them into voting for him.
We all go to UC Berkeley, the best school in the world, and we arent stupid enough to be fooled into voting for someone who doesnt help us.
The politicans need to recognize the problems with this proposal and see past the partisan and self interested reasons for it and vote it down.
Comment by anon — July 23, 2006 @ 6:21 am
There may be fewer more impotent places to get something in government accomplished than the Berkeley City Council (barring the United Nations). The best case scenario here is a nice few paragraphs in a DC article.
Comment by Paul — July 23, 2006 @ 6:29 am
Do any of the other ASUC parties plan to use all this drama as a campaign point next year?
Comment by ed — July 23, 2006 @ 9:52 am
Someone should go the meeting and tell the council members how much the SA executives pay to be on the slate, and how SA has spends much more money than any other party. I can’t believe that the city council in Berkeley, if they really understood how ASUC elections play out, would support a party that basically buys the election every year.
Comment by commodore anonymous — July 23, 2006 @ 10:34 am
SA execs don’t pay to be run, they pay for the costs of their campaign.
Comment by Anonymous — July 23, 2006 @ 10:45 am
They pay for the costs of not only their campaign, but for parts of everyone else’s campaigning in the party as well.
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 11:13 am
We should let them win because they’ll remember this for the rest of their lives?? Are you for real? This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on this blog. Lauren and Ben will remember this for the rest of their lives too, why shouldn’t they get to win? I bet Napoleon remembered Waterloo for the rest of his life. Should the British have let him win??
You SA anony-bots are getting more idiotic every day. I think you all ought to stop blowing Oren and Vishal, all the jizz is turning your brains to mush.
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 23, 2006 @ 11:16 am
damn it, berkeley citizens demand the right to vote on the matter! wozniak must amend the resolution to place the question on the ballot alongside the impeachment referendum in the upcoming election.
Comment by mano — July 23, 2006 @ 11:43 am
here is a suggested plan - sign up to speak, and then use our 2 minutes or whatever it is that i get to just laugh at them (literally) we can even yield time to others to laugh at them?
if this sounds good to anyone, let me know!
Comment by mano — July 23, 2006 @ 11:46 am
No. The political nature of this, an official resolution being considered by the city, gives it, if not absolute privilege, something close to it. Don’t be ridiculous.
Comment by reason — July 23, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
the fact is, the SA execs had the most votes. They should represent the ASUC. Ben is always complaining about stuff being unfair, but if he wasnt an arrogant prick participating in dildo races, maybe he would have won outright.
Comment by hey dude — July 23, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
the fact is, the SA execs cheated, and the penalty for the level of cheating in which they engaged is disqualification.
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 23, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
the fact is, the SA execs had the most votes. They should represent the ASUC. Ben is always complaining about stuff being unfair, but if he wasnt an arrogant prick participating in dildo races, maybe he would have won outright.
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
The fact is, the SA execs cheated to get the most votes.
Perhaps if Ben had spent more time cheating and less time critiquing the system through humor, he could have more trouble sleeping at night.
What, exactly, is your problem with vibrator races? (and please do note the distinction between vibrators and dildos…I know that said distinction has been a very important part of my life thus far.)
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 23, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
I’m a little drunk (at least I have an excuse), not “special” so I mesed the last one up, let me try again
Ohh, you must be “special”. Let me explain it to you very simply: THEY LIED, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
How much is all this drama affecting ASUC’s bottom line?
Comment by ed — July 23, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
Let me get this straight. SA should get the exec posts because they got the most votes, even though they lied. Bush, even though he got the most votes, shouldn’t be president because he…lied.
Comment by Mike Davis — July 23, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Ed:
If this measure succeeds, its pretty bad for whatever autonomy the ASUC has left. Political deals like this one have been made repeatedly and have chipped away at autonomy for so long that its brought us to the current situation. This is just another step closer to the edge of the cliff.
As far as the overall effect is concerned, it would be nice to get the offices set up. It’s not absolutely necessary that we be allowed to start with the process right this second, but the more time passes the more daunting a task it sets us up for. I would also assume that it’s making students just a little bit more disgusted with the ASUC every day…hell, every time any new drama happens, I personally throw up a little bit in my mouth.
Does that properly address your question?
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 23, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
As a student who’s been here for 3.5 years, I’d LOVE to see the ASUC collapse, or start the year with no government. Just for the entertainment factor!
Comment by Morbo — July 23, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
As a student who’s been here for 3.5 years, I’d LOVE to see the ASUC collapse, or start the year with no government. Just for the entertainment factor!
Comment by Morbo — July 23, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
I think the real liars are the SQUELCH! Candidates. I voted for all the squelchers one year, and then Ben or someone else gets in office and is a complete bore. If you’re going to be racing dildos during campaigning and then be all professional when you get in power, that is false advertising. Even though none of the SQUELCH candidates got enough votes to win, most of those votes were probably people who expect them to race dildos when they get in office and have monkeys as interns. I highly doubt they will.
Comment by jack bauer — July 23, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
again they are actually VIBRATORS
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
if the asuc didnt operate, it would only fuck the “bottom line” of student groups. the asuc itself would have a big ass budget SURPLUS to take over to next year.
Comment by mano — July 23, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
as for wozniak’s resolution, that whole charade is not a threat to asuc “autonomy”. it is laughable. apparently wozniak is not just a nutsack, he is a stupid nutsack:
the last thing SA can promise him is that they will campaign on campus. yeah right. and even if they do try to campaign, they’ll only help Jason by raising awareness of the existence of a student candidate.
the woz is getting played for a chump by a student! Awesome.
Comment by mano — July 23, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
The fact that the city council is involved, completely threatens any existing autonomy for the asuc. also, keep in mind we are talking about the city council that is trying to impeach bush. with them, i think anything is possible, no matter how rediculous it seems
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
Wow first they move to “impeach Bush”. Now they move to essentially impeach the jcouncil’s decision. wow.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 23, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
Jack Bauer, I campaigned on the fact that I drink to excess and hook up in exec offices and I plan to continue to drink to excess and hook up in exec offices (whether I win or lose, by the way). If I win, I just also intend to cut exec budgets, fight for students rights, give the finger to programming, and just generally rock your socks…because that’s what I do, for I am a socks rocker.
I do regret to remind you though that John Waste, barring a sudden assassination attempt on Iggy, won’t be taking office, depriving the entire campus of monkey slaves and saving AC Transit from being replaced with stealth helicopters. I cry a little every night about this loss.
Calaholic–if you’re in Berkeley and would be willing to reveal your super secret identity, I would be willing to make you the best damn margarita you’ve ever had. Could anyone honestly refuse that offer?
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 23, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
i don’t know, you and me together with alcohol could spell the end of the world as we know it
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
Let Student Action know that the reason why they are in this situation is because they treat the people that helped them like garbage. Yes, you know what I mean.
Comment by Anonymity — July 23, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
#40
What are you talking about? They are in this position because they lied at a Judicial Council hearing and I sued them over it and it was so obvious they lied that the Judicial Council found them guilty. I’ve never helped them in any meaningful way and they have certainly never treated me like garbage. This situation certainly isn’t about any old vendettas or revenge.
Comment by Andy R. — July 23, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Well the whole reason why people don’t like them. Not you, Andy. One of the people who testified was someone who a certain executive had screwed over.
Comment by Anonymity — July 23, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
person in question “no more asians” guy?
and Punch my Ballot,
i’m glad to hear. I guess I’ll be more specific then: How does Ben N. represent Squelch? With a last name destined for comedic glory, he strikes me as a stiff bore unworthy of the Squelch name or the votes that come with it. I mean let’s face it, people vote Squelch mainly because you guys/girls are SUPPOSED to be funny!
Comment by jack bauer — July 23, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Bauer, I just wanted to let you know, you’re annoying
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
I seem to recall Ben running specifically on a “not funny” platform.
Comment by Beetle — July 23, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
What about no more asians?
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 23, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
Have you ever met Ben…?
Comment by Morbo — July 23, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
What’s with all the personal attacks on Ben?
For weeks SA’s only argument has been “We got the most votes!”
Now the arguments are:
“We got the most votes!”
“Ben Narodick is power-hungry and did all this to get into office.”
“WE GOT THE MOST VOTES!!!!!!11″
Ben isn’t responsible for any of this. Apparently you guys like to imagine him having closed-door meetings and smoking cuban cigars while the Judicial Council grovels at his feet, but he really only got involved when SA refused to wait for their appeal and tried to completely disregard the ASUC constitution. Absolutely none of this has to do with Ben or Laura or Igor or Andy or John O’Connor being power hungry and trying to “steal” the election. I also find the idea that they lost because they were “arrogant” or “big jerks and everyone knows they’re big jerks!”
They all expected to lose, and they did, then SA got itself disqualified and tried to break the rules.
Comment by Simon — July 23, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
edit: to finish an unfinished sentence:
I also find the idea that they lost because they were “arrogant” or “big jerks and everyone knows they’re big jerks!” pretty silly.
Comment by Simon — July 23, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
Ben’s definitely the least funny person I’ve ever met. Oh wait… that was Keifer Sutherland.
And speaking anonymously; should this actually be a move cooked up by SA and the SAES, then I’m really sad to see all these events to undermine the process happening. And this isn’t even coming from some rabid SA-hater, I was a big campaigner for SA this past year, I believed in what they were doing and I wasn’t particularly happy with the JCouncil disqualifying them; but these repeated attempts at circumventing the JCouncil without even yet hearing the appeal decision really make me afraid for what I devoted all my time and energy in these past elections for. Now I’m not sure who exactly in SA is running all of this, and I certainly know many people in SA who (at least in my friendship with them) would never do all this; but really its just scary that things could be done like this and that SA is really just shooting themselves in the foot and I’m almost disgusted with the level to which this has risen.
Comment by Anonymous — July 23, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
(comment deleted by author)
Comment by Josh M. — July 23, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
Next year no one should come to the post-election clean up, cause, you know, the winners got the most votes.
Comment by some dude (SD) — July 23, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
SA: Pleeeeeease can we win? We have ten grand for the campaign!
Mindless Students with No Concept of the Appropriate Machinations of the ASUC Who Vote for Friends Because, Well, Hell, What Else Can They Do? Actually Spend Time Thinking About It?: Sure!
People With At Least a Fleeting Concept of the Appropriate Machinations of the ASUC: No.
SA: Pleeeeeeease?
PWALFCAMASUC: No.
President Big-Britches Finally Wearing His Balls on the Outside After Failing to Go up to Bat for Students’ Rights as the Administration Trampled on Them All Year: I demand it! Rabble rabble rabble!
SA: See, even look at the lawyer. He’s in a suit! Look at the suit!
Big Person Court: Yes, the suit is very impressive, but I’m in a robe. No.
Berkeley City Council: You know what we should ban? Corporations. Yeah! No more corporations!
Berkeley City Council: Let’s ban republicans too! Gosh, I sure don’t like them.
Berkeley City Council: Yeah, and gophers! Stupid gophers. Ate all my wheat grass this year.
SA: But–but— Ben Narodick is a Communist!
Nixon: Don’t be moving in on my gig, turkey.
Berkeley City Council: Aw, look at the little college students. Someone get the camcorder!
Comment by k_radSurFeRboi86 — July 23, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
CalSERVE: HOW DID WE NOT RUN ANYONE THIS YEAR! WE WOULD HAVE SWEPT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICES! WAHHHH!
=*(
Time to keep on fighting for our useless issue of gender-neutral bathrooms!
Um yeah in all honesty I would have voted CalSERVE this year.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 23, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
#48
Im not saying Ben is behind all of this, just that if he took the election process more seriously (I’m not saying he’s unqualified) he could have won outright, but instead he acted as a pompous jerk
Comment by hey dude — July 23, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
He took it seriously enough to respect voters and to read what the students of Cal wanted. He didn’t go all nazi about getting votes because well that’s just flat out annoying. Plus he gave voters what they wanted: someone who didn’t take themselves too seriously. And look at what happened SA has lost all respect for the ways that they campaign and the standards that they hold themselves to. While Ben has gained respect from a lot of people (except the few like you who just don’t get it) and has showed, out of those who ran, he would be the best for the job.
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
Hey Dude–given that your “pompous jerk” argument relies on pretty shaky ground, are we now clear about the difference between vibrators and dildos? Here’s a hint, one of them “vibrates”and is thus capable of racing.
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 23, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
he probably doesn’t get that, like he doesn’t get anything else
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
Cameron (#40): You wouldn’t have voted for CalSERVE any more than I would have. In case you forgot, neither of us go to Berkeley anymore.
Lauren (#29): I am unclear as to how you think that the City Council passing a resolution determining who they will recognize as the legitimate officers of the ASUC would have ANY impact on ASUC autonomy. If the Regents or Academic Senate were doing that, then your point would be more obvious. However, the Berkeley City Council’s resolution has no more impact than another (unrelated) student government passing a resolution in support of SA on ASUC autonomy.
Also, on #38, I would expect no less! Next time I am in B-town we should go drink to excess together…Maybe even in Eshelman….I haven’t done that in a long time!
And as for Ben’s comedy, I am not a huge fan of haikus. Sorry, Ben, you are a great guy, but not the funniest I know.
Comment by Matt Bunch — July 23, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Some dildos vibrate. Squelch was racing with phallic plastic vibrators…vibrating dildos.
Everyone is right!
However, those were pretty shitty vibrators. I suggest Squelch invests in some seriously better toys if they plan to improve their romantic lives.
Comment by good vibes — July 23, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Andy Ratto would never have sued SA if CalSERVE had been next in line. Andy hates CalSERVE even more than he hates SA.
CalSERVE doesn’t win seats through DQs. They couldn’t care less who wins the exec seats. They probably just want the situation resolved as soon as possible so they can start fighting for their groups and their issues. CS doesn’t get along with Squigor or SA, so why should they care? Either way is bad for them.
Comment by commenting — July 23, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
Matt- the ASUC’s autonomy is undermined everytime someone outside the scope of the ASUC becomes involved in ASUC issues. Basically, the ASUC should be dealing with any issues internally and solving them through internal methods. When people outside of the ASUC get involved, it starts to chip away at the ideals of being self-governing. Unfortunately, this has been occuring for a while and people are so concerned about what is going on right now bc involving the city council is, some would say, chipping away at the very last pieces of ASUC autonomy in existence.
And I think we’re all getting a little too serious with the personal attacks. Everyone should drink and be merry instead.
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
I also like how people here try to blame this debacle on specific plaintiffs of the lawsuits rather than the disingenuous nature of Student Action’s behavior.
Comment by k_radSurFeRboi86 — July 23, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
56/57-
obviously no one “got it” cuz Ben lost and “punch my ballot” didnt get anyone to punch her ballot
Comment by hey dude — July 23, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
hey dude, you’re annoying too
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
Matt Bunch - Don’t bet that cameron wouldn’t have voted for calserve. Alot of sa people were very dissapointed in the slating this year. SA sure didn’t accomplish anything this year, so what’s the argument for keeping them in power? People worked for SA because it meant gains for students. This year, SA running the ASUC meant nothing. If you have the choice between a 2 parties that accomplish nothing, most people would vote for the one that appeals to something.
And, yeah, that whole gender neutral bathrooms thing? that was moronic. Kind of like the whole greek social fund… oops… i mean greek philanthropy fund.
Comment by nuance — July 23, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
Just incase you haven’t noticed, Cal’s greek system is less social than just about any other Greek system in the country. Not to mention that the $ for the phil fund does actually go towards helping people, which doesn’t involve socializing, but if you volunteered you’d know that.
Bottom line:
The greek phil fund actually does A LOT of good.
Comment by Calaholic — July 23, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
Nuance: A lot of SA people are upset with the slating EVERY year. Jake Kloberdanz went to Bruins United when SA slated Misha. Many SA insiders were upset that same year because two anti-SA third party senators were slated for executive offices (Misha from APPLE and Rocky from Fresno Party…which was essentially a revival of ZINSA, if you have been around long enough to know what ZINSA was). To complete that slate, they had Pammy, an unknown ASUC outsider, and Clee, who many claimed wasn’t serious enough to be EVP. Before that, Daniel Frankenstein being taken in by SA upset some party loyalists. He had earlier been a part of APPLE, a party built specifically to take SA down. More recently, the Manny, Anil, Sharon, Jason slate pissed a whole lot of people off. Or do you not remember Billy Wang?
My point is that people get upset when they don’t get slated. Their friends also get upset. It happens every time SA slates somebody.
Still, typically SA still gets elected. And they do a good job. Despite the difficult nature of getting projects accomplished, they manage to have a surprising number of successes. Many more than CalSERVE managed in their time in office.
I am sure that if you looked to see what Manny, Jason, Anil, Sharon, their Chiefs, and their staffs did this year, you would be surprised by their accomplishments. Remember, not everything they do makes headlines.
Comment by Matt Bunch — July 24, 2006 @ 12:16 am
And as for the Greek Philanthropy Fund, it has existed on campus for quite some time now. It was around way back before I was involved with Student Action. And it has done a lot of good for a lot of students.
Gender-Neutral bathrooms shouldn’t be a newsworthy thing. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. I don’t know why everybody is hung up on them!
Comment by Matt Bunch — July 24, 2006 @ 12:18 am
the greek phil fund doesn’t do a lot of good for students. it does a lot of good for those who directly benefit from the charities that each group supports!
Comment by Calaholic — July 24, 2006 @ 12:44 am
“Still, typically SA still gets elected. And they do a good job. Despite the difficult nature of getting projects accomplished, they manage to have a surprising number of successes. Many more than CalSERVE managed in their time in office.”
Sounds like more of the mindless trolling: “SA gets things DONE!!!11! SA DONE! DOne done!”
Matt Bunch, quit perpetuating the myth that the ASUC actually does something worthwhile, besides raiding our pockets.
Comment by some dude (SD) — July 24, 2006 @ 5:24 am
The ASUC divies out money to the many student groups on campus, if nothing else. They also put on the book swap, and negotiate with the university on various student issues. So while it may appear that the majority of the ASUC’s governing involves governing its own existence, there is some useful work being done.
I don’t buy the argument that this commotion in the city council seriously threatens ASUC autonomy. Whether they decide one way or another, they actually have no powers to force the ASUC into doing anything. Life will go on in the ASUC much as it did before, no less autonomous because the ASUC’s finances and governing will still be independent of the University and city. This is ceremonial, not productive.
Comment by also anonymous — July 24, 2006 @ 7:08 am
ZINSA is “Zinsa Is Not Student Action” for anyone that cares.
Anyone else remember where Robbie Kaufman came from?? He was appointed to the Judicial Council, then lied about not being affiliated with any of the asuc parties. His roommate was then Student Action Senator Devin “shut up underrepresented bitch” Andre. The senate voted him down, and he cried. Good going, again, Robbie.
Comment by captain duh — July 24, 2006 @ 7:57 am
Lying? Done!
Usurpation of power? Done!
Making an ass of yourself and backing down off ridiculous power grab? Done!
Making a big embarrasment even bigger and taking it to real court? Done!
Playing Gordon Wozniak for the chumpy nutsack he is? Done!
done done done!
what’s next?
Comment by sa rulez d00d — July 24, 2006 @ 8:38 am
I agree with Matt Bunch’s comments… Student Action has done a lot for the ASUC since my freshman year.
Notice how Matt isn’t ranting about the J-Council or the current controversy — he is just defending SA’s name and its history, since everything SA has become a target for attack through this ordeal. It’s important to realize, regardless of your position on this controversy, that every slate is different from one year to the next.
Matt, why did you have to graduate
Comment by bobby gregg — July 24, 2006 @ 10:25 am
he is ranting about the j-council’s current actions on my page in comments
Comment by Calaholic — July 24, 2006 @ 10:33 am
no kiddin…
I would just say that it’s difficult for a body to conduct a “power grab” when they have no proactive means to accomplish such a thing. The Council cannot initiate actions, they can only respond to those controversies brought before them. Once the controversies are before them, ASUC law guides their rulings.
Finally, I have a question: with what would they use this usurped power? This would imply they have an agenda, but like I said, they have no proactive means to establish policy, sponsorship, etc. Perhaps there is no agenda; perhaps they just want to exercise their Constitutional responsibilities.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 24, 2006 @ 10:53 am
I think he was talking about SA, not the Judicial Council.
Comment by Beetle — July 24, 2006 @ 11:14 am
he did call the j-council a power hungry group who screwed over SA
Comment by Calaholic — July 24, 2006 @ 11:27 am
Matt: My point on the greek philanthropy fund is as follows:
It does do a lot of good, but…
The student body as a whole is paying for a small special interest group to run charity benefits. The greek community would be runnning the events either way - It’s part of their mission (and a very respectable thing - this isn’t meant as an attack on the greek system). So, the ASUC, by paying for the charity drives, is just feeding money into the Greek system.
It’s like when state legislatures pass lottery bills, claiming the money is going to education. Sure, the money from the lottery is most likely going to education, but a similar amount is being shifted out of education, so the net increase in education funding is negligible.
In this case, the ASUC is merely pumping money into something the greek system would have to pay anyway.
What do i think should happen to the fund? It should be opened up to a general purpose ASUC philanthropy fund, which organizations apply for grants from. Applications would be weighted both on the strength of the application and the past successes/failures (ie an event by a greek chapter that consistently made money should be heavily funded).
My big problem with the GPP is that it is a special subsidy for a small portion of the community.
Comment by nuance — July 24, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
That’s not true. There are many chapters on campus who depend on the phil fund bc without it, they can’t put on those events. Also, there are chapters on campus who are not able to put on their events bc there isn’t enough money in the phil fund when their event comes around. Thar is why it trully is so important
Comment by Calaholic — July 24, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
calaholic: but plenty of student groups want to do philanthropy as well, but can’t afford it. My point is why should the asuc prioritize greek students over any other students? I have no problem subsidizing philanthropy, but I do have a problem with give-aways that only support a small segment of the population, especially when the is the whole claim SA runs under (that they support every student)
Comment by nuance — July 24, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
No Bunch I actually would have voted for CalSERVE if 1) I was still a student and 2) If I was in Berkeley. I really think SA got what was comign to them ever since certain incidents.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 24, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
Then the people in SA should try harder to give the other groups more funding, not take $ away from one of Cal’s larger groups just bc you consider it’s funding a give-away. With that thinking, isn’t any money that any group recieves a “give-away” then??
Comment by Calaholic — July 24, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
wow i really need to proofread my posts before i hit “say it!”
Comment by Calaholic — July 24, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
calaholic: The problem is its a large pool of money targeted at helping philanthropic causes (or so it’s claimed). If that’s the case, why should greeks be the only ones to get access to the money? If they were the only ones who could provide the service, then sure.
But for some strange reason, I doubt that’s the case. Plenty of groups at berkeley can raise money. So they should get a shot at it too.
Comment by nuance — July 24, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
it’s a greek phil fund and not an asuc phil fund because the asuc can sponsor all those other groups during the normal spring budgeting.
frankly all the sisg funding is the asuc philanthropy fund since its going to special interest student run service groups, with any number of causes.
nuance and caloholic–
i think you’re both bringing up moot points.
gpf sets up a different protocol for greek orgs to fund projects– instead of it coming out of contingency or done on a case by case basis during the spring budgeting. i think that there is some legal jargon over why greek orgs are not officially asuc sponsored orgs… but frankly i’m not sure if anyone knows the full deal… something to the effect the asuc can sponsor the events but not the entire organization…
Comment by nithya — July 24, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
nuance,
The black recruitment and retention center receives about $38,000 per year. Compare this with the Greek Philanthropy Fund of $10,000. I think the percentage of blacks on campus is about 5%, while Greeks are about 12% . You claim to despise the Greek fund because it is a “special subsidy for a small portion of the community.” By this logic you probably shouldn’t like the $38,000 doled out to the retention center either. And if you do, then you’ve simply negated your earlier argument. My point is simply that of course there are special interests on campus, and the job of the ASUC is to disperse money in a manner it thinks will help the campus most. This inherently involves disproportionate dispersion. If the job of the ASUC was to fund every student equally, then they would simply give you your money back.
Comment by jack bauer — July 24, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
Maybe it’s just me, but I think it’s totally apples and water bottles (not apples and oranges, which are at least both fruit) to compare funding for the Black Recruitment and Retention Center, which is needed *because* of the underrepresentation of blacks on campus, with the Greek Philanthropy Fund.
Comment by Jim Fung — July 24, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
hey guys… can someone remind me what the exact charges were that disqualified SA members? thanks
Comment by Anonymous — July 24, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
The ASUC can’t fund social greek organizations because they discriminate in their membership, and their outreach for membership, baseed on gender.
There’s also an argument that says the RRCs shouldn’t be funded because this same provision prohibits the funding of groups that discriminate in their methods of outreach according to race/ethnicity, but it has never been brought before the Council. And no one complains because they’re ok with what the RRCs do, or the backlash would be far too great to bear.
Comment by Mike Davis — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
Anonymous,
As I recall, the original charges were brought by Attorney General Nathan Royer against the SA slate for chalking within the 100 foot campaign free zone around several of the polling sites. He asked for enough censures to ensure their disqualification. The Judicial Council heard the case, but determined that the violations were not egregious enough to warrant disqualification, and so only issued three censures to each SA candidate.
After that, the J Council certified that all outstanding election cases were resolved, and authorized the Election Council to proceed with the tabulation. One week after the tabulation, Andy Ratto filed a suit claiming that Suken had lied to the Judicial council during the chalking charge hearing when he stated that the chalk should only remain on the sidewalks for one day. The Judicial Council agreed that Suken had lied, and that the only option they had was to reverse their original decision and enter a default judgment in the first case, thereby disqualifying the SA Executive slate.
Comment by sideliner — July 24, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
Jim: how come the more money you give to the BRRC, the more Renita Chaney tells blacks to not come to Cala nd the fewer blacks there are?
Comment by Anonymity — July 24, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
When’s the J-Council going to release the ruling?
Comment by Anonymous — July 24, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
I think I want to stab you in the face.
Comment by hm. — July 24, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
I think the GPF is a good thing. I think it needs reform and to be more closely regulated through cooperation with Greek Leadership. There are several more intricate parts of this discussion like autonomy issues/why the Greek Community isn’t OSL-registered student groups/the political motivation of the fund/the quality of philanthropy events put on by some Greek organizations/whether deciding what a “quality philanthropy event” is should be the job of the ASUC.
Most importantly: why has this become a subject of discussion that just distracted everyone from the actual, timely topic? Lame.
And just in case you wondered, Nithya’s points of this subject are apt.
Bunchie–I love you, I miss you, I owe you a beer and a detailed answer, but I had a long day and I’ve been drinkin, so later…cool?
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 24, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
Lazily returning to an earlier topic because I’m bored:
I very much agree that Student Action has accomplished a lot of good things. I know more Calserve people than I know Student Action people (though almost everyone I meet in the ASUC I like), but since Freshman year I’ve always preferred Student Action because they propose basic things and do them, whereas I was always put off by CalSERVE’s creepy third-world nation esque run a candidate of every race and creed system.
I always had the impression (perhaps the wrong impression) that CalSERVE focused on getting a representative from every minority group elected and less about actually accomplishing something with student funds. So from that point of view, I’ve always preferred SA because they were practical.
If they win this whole big mess I expect them to run a decent, practical student government. Obviously I’d prefer a government that spent money a little differently (I think the executive offices are very bloated), but I think people categorizing this election as Student Action getting what’s coming to them for years of evil are a bit off-base. Afterall, this is student government. Slates and people change every year as everyone graduates. This is more about one group of people breaking the rules and then trying to cheat their way out of the consequences when other, legitimate options were already available (just waiting for the appeal).
Comment by Simon — July 24, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
SA runs white and Asian people and CalServe runs one person from each minorty group. Why can’t there be an organization that just runs the best people for the job. I for one and tired of SA because you can perdict every year who they are going to run for president-White Jewish Frat boy. Its time to change it up people. It is ashame the world around us is changing and we still operate based on the segregated party system
Comment by Red Envelope — July 25, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Well not that I ever defend SA but Manny isn’t white or Jewish
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 25, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
100!
Comment by bobby gregg — July 26, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
How do you know that the best person for the job isn’t a white Jewish frat boy most years? Oh sh*t, I just heard synpases exploding throughout Berkeley. Must bow down to altar of political correctness. Must stop oppressing. Must understand that my whiteness is a barrier to true knowledge. Must. Re-educate. Now!
Comment by chet (the virgin CEO) — July 26, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Jesse Gabriel, Daniel Frankenstein, Misha Leybovich, Manny Badrostro, Oren Gabriel…you may have outliers, but its a hard trend to ignore.
Don’t forget about the token “outsider” from AAA, and the hot girl.
Comment by captain duh — July 26, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
The miniskirt campaign?
Comment by Anonymous — July 26, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
are you implying the Joyce is asian or hot?
Comment by recent cal grad — July 26, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
Sometimes the miniskirt campaign is a senator. ahem.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 26, 2006 @ 5:44 pm