Editorial On Ratto v. Vakil Appeal Decision
(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.
“Don’t blame me, I voted Narodick.”
Comment by bobby gregg — July 29, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
m@n w@T a fukin disgrase. dun w0rry Ben we will smashT abolishT da Asuk dis year.
if any1 who wsnt convinced b4 of da need to get rid of da asuc still h@s any doubts after dis fiasco den u r ret@rded. for da rest of us, t1me to get workin on aboloshin da Asuc.
“if u are in da ASUC get rdy to be crushT”
Comment by smashT — July 29, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
Awww, the Rabbinical Council thing would’ve been awesome. Then Students for Justice with Palestine would’ve declared SA the winners and we could’ve settled both the ASUC election and the question of Palestinian/Israeli statehood with a single judicial council hearing!
“Shit, we better stop firing those missiles into Israel. We can’t afford 3 more censures!”
Comment by Simon — July 29, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
wait, serving in student government is where drug problems and failed relationships come from? sweet, i officially deny all personal responsibility…
anyways, my quest to hook up in the Senate chambers/[rest of] the exec offices just got reinvigorated. Oren, Vishal, Joyce, Jason, get that lysol ready, because I like a challenge and consider breaking and entering a turn on…
Comment by Punch My Ballot — July 29, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
First of Ben, who are you to say things regarding the ASUC are superfluous? As a matter of fact I was almost convinced that maybe hey some good will come out of this and potentially the new executives would be just as good as the SA slate if not better. But you ruined it, not the JC’s. You are calling being part of the ASUC a burden? So you nor anyone who shares your position on the ASUC being a burden should have been in office in the first place
You were on the right track and you just lost me… I thought better of you as a candidate Ben
If I am mistaken on your stance correct me please
Comment by not a SA supporter... just not one of bens fan either — July 29, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Umm… isn’t responsibility supposed to be a burden?
Comment by Beetle — July 29, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
#4, I worked in the ASUC for four years as a member of the Judicial Council. Based on sheer numbers, I don’t think anybody can deny that I was dedicated to the ASUC. And I can tell you that the job is certainly a burden when you are actually doing things that matter (especially when in conflict with the interests of some others). I feel that it was very rewarding, but yes, the responsibility was also a burden.
Don’t feel disappointed in Ben, he handled this entire situation with maturity and respect. And come on, he is part of Squelch!
Comment by bobby gregg — July 29, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
haha alright
im just saying.. there are some people who want to take pride in what the ASUC has to offer…so it would be disappointing for those of us to know that there are people who were in the ASUC who didnt want to be there
Comment by not a SA supporter... just not one of bens fan either — July 30, 2006 @ 10:41 am
if what you say is true, then in a few months, take issue with the senators who just sit on their asses and do nothing bc for them, the hard part is over. they won the election and so, no matter how they perform, can now put on their resumes that they were senators at cal
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 11:23 am
OK, I’ll clarify.
I’ve served for two years in the ASUC, and I call it that - a service. I proudly worked for students for two years. I don’t regret any part of that work in any respect.
But the positions are not glamorous. They are stressful, painstaking, and generally thankless. Even those who get executive stipends often don’t get to keep a majority of them, using the money to keep their armies of interns happy and repay their campaign expenditures.
I just feel it’s amazing that not one SA person that I’ve ever talked to seems to reflect this. In fact, most of the time, the SA people I talk to always use words like “position”, “power”, “office”, etc. - but not “service”. In conversations with Oren Gabriel, he has said that his favorite part of serving office is the campaigning. What about the work you are supposed to do on behalf of the people that you campaign to? Isn’t that what “student democracy” is all about? This type of enthusiasm for this kind of work is frightening, if, for no other reason, that often those who want the power the most are often the least deserving of it. I could be biased because I fucking hate campaigning with a passion, but I digress.
I’m not saying that the ASUC is not a great organization. In fact, the ASUC is a great organization, and has the potential to be much better. I am saying that people who are trying to serve students through it should have a better perspective of what is facing them.
Comment by Ben N. — July 30, 2006 @ 11:30 am
“his favorite part of serving office is the campaigning.”
Ben, I worked ona campaign for an executive andshe felt the same way.
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 11:40 am
EO: ASUC smashT!
Comment by Manny BuenrostRODENT — July 30, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Ben,
I am glad that you pick and choose what sa people you talked to to make your assumptions. You know very well that everyone in SA thinks differently and will give you different opinions.
Now let me give me my take on the work that executives do. The most important work that is done is the work that is rarely seen by students. It is not the glamorous events or the projects. It is the policies that you help shape with the university. These are policies that will help students for many years while the projects will be remembered but only help for a short period.
For this reason alone, I was dissapointed that we had no executives for two months in the summer. There is a lot of unfinished work with lower sproul redevelopment and there was no asuc president to work on it. Unfortunately, because this work is not visible, it was not seen as important by many students.
Comment by Manny — July 30, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
perhaps, if your most recent actions had not been as transparent as they were, there might have been a more efficient resolution to that problem
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
Ok Manny. Name a university policy that you helped implement that will be beneficial for students in the future.
You could mention the Multi-Cultural Center in Heller Lounge, but you would have to explain how covering up the university’s failures to live up to its side of the agreement is good for future students as well as the fact that most people either resent the MCC as it stands or don’t even know about it.
You could mention bringing Cheese & Stuff to the Bear’s Lair, but you would have to explain a) that this “improvement” has brought an increase of revenue to the Bear’s Lair - which it hasn’t, since they pay rent that isn’t based on revenue sharing and b) what role you (not the ASUC Auxiliary or Tom Cordi) had in that process.
You could mention the Lower Sproul Redevelopment Plan, but you and I both know that the university has made zero tangible progress to that this year.
You could mention the fight against the Career Center Fee, but let’s be honest, it would’ve failed without the ASUC’s help, and you’ve come here to talk about new policies that have been enacted, not policies that you fought against. Think constructively.
You probably aren’t going to mention the decreasing number of dead days, the complete lack of a fight you put against the new Student Code of Conduct, or the University Speech Codes that may still be enacted.
So, Manny, what exactly is it that you say you did here?
Comment by Ben N. — July 30, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Wait, he got the RSF fee increase passed, and decided that it was okay for the university to trample over ASUC elections. That counts, doesn’t it?
Comment by Beetle — July 30, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
didn’t you unilaterally extend your own term into the summer? isn’t that how you were able to issue your illegal executive orders? if there were no executives, who issued EO7 and EO8 ?
maybe what you meant to say was that “we had no competent executives for two months”. but, then again, it doesn’t look like we’re going to have competent executives any time soon.
Vote anybody but SA in ‘07.
Comment by chet (the virgin CEO) — July 30, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Sorry for the crappy quoting
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
The Code of Conduct is generally being revised constantly. You’re right in that I believe the last official version was passed in 04, but there is another version coming up soon, and in my experience SA has done extremely little on lobbying for students’ rights on this subject.
Comment by Ben N. — July 30, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
I’d actually really be curious to read Manny’s response in defense of his presidency.
What did you do?
Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
Lower Sproul Redevelopment:
Now a university priority due to our efforts to lobby the university (you know very well this was not on their radar before the year started). It is currently in the development phase and the ASUC and GA have been working with university stakeholders to get the concept designs finished by the end of fall 2006. This will hopefully be placed on the university capital campaign or some other fundraising effort.
Career Center Referenda:
This would HAVE passed without the ASUC and the Graduate Assembly opposing it. The university was very confident about its passage that they underestimated the sway that students could have in a proposition. Why was this constructive? Well, I don’t like opposing propositions but the university did ignore our concerns and tried to push this through.
RSF Referenda:
I understand the arguments that people have for and against it, but when you consider the situation the RSF was in and their decrease in Pell grant recipients using the facilities, I feel like it made the RSF more affordable and accessible to all students.
University’s View on the ASUC’s Role in Referenda:
This year we set a precedent that any future referenda proposed by the University will not be developed without student approval or input. Why? Well, the university did spend money on the career center referenda and it failed miserably, while the referenda that were supported by the ASUC passed.
Cheese N’ Stuff:
Like most student union development efforts, it is not the ASUC Executives doing this on their own. Accomplishments here end up being collaboration between ASUC Auxiliary staff and ASUC executives.
Gelateria Naia Lounge:
Well, here I can take more credit although not all the credit. The push and concept for this came from work over the summer. A lot of work for this was accomplished by students in the OP staff (mainly Jillian Putnam-Smith) and Tom Cordi. But it is clear that without the OP pushing for this, it would have never happened.
Student Code of Conduct and Dead Days:
Ben, you know we don’t have the influence to change every policy that we work on. For the student code of conduct I can guarantee that input was provided to revisions and that this was worked on as needed. But like many other policy work, there is no finality.
Multicultural Center:
At some point you have to think of the bigger picture and do what you feel is right. The multicultural center is something that I believe is needed on campus and at some point you have to wonder if all this fighting is really beneficial to students. By the way, I do not consider this my accomplishment but the accomplishment of a group of students of which I was a part of. These include Anil Daryani, Justine Lazaro, and some current senators.
I can keep going with other things but I can guarantee that I have no regrets with what I worked on this year. Sure there were scandals in the ASUC but none of these were initiated by any of the executives. I am so glad that in my role as president, I only responded to controversies but never initiated any myself.
Another point of frustration was how much some of the events in the ASUC, were criticized as money wasters by Lauren and Ben during their campaign. If they only did their research or even talked to some of the students in the OP staff, they would have known that in the Dance Marathon, From All Perspectives Show, and even the Marriage Event on Sproul, very little student fee money (if any) was spent.
Comment by Manny — July 30, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
didn’t you respond to a controversy by creating one when you issued your EO’s??
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
The mess had been created. There were no executives to run the ASUC as I was not around berkeley by that time. I was hoping that the J-council would have a hearing sooner but when they did not schedule anything until July 15th, then something had to be done.
Comment by Manny — July 30, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
you i just got what the difference in our thoughts is: i believe people should act fairly, unbiased and honestly. you believe people should act in whatever way is easiest to get what they want, no matter what the consequences are.
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
right is right, wrong is wrong, sometimes there is grey, but here there is none. you did what you wanted to do by putting your party in office through an EO. sure in your world it solved the problem, but did it address the bigger issue or do anything to aid it?? NO!
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
Manny, the hearing was scheduled late because SA was moaning about the Council having a “small minority” of 4 Justices. You may not know this, but two members flew in from LA and DC that weekend JUST to hear the appeal. The Council was doing its best to respect SA’s requests of more attendance, even though quorum was already met at 4. Don’t be so ingrateful man.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 30, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Pretty sad list of accomplishments. Although this really does have more to do with the weak role given to the President in the ASUC. The AAVP and External VP have all the actual negotiating roles. The President is there because someone figured we needed a President.
Comment by Kevin! — July 30, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
what’s this Marriage event?
Comment by Berkeley Graduate — July 30, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
Hey, I never said this was all that was done, just what I typed in 2 minutes.
Now to say something about Bobby, I agree with mostly everything he has said and have a great deal of respect for him because he has helped the ASUC tremendously.
Comment by Manny — July 30, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
So, will anyone volunteer what he or she would have done instead last year? We’re talking about ASUC President here, not…King of UC Berkeley. The authority only goes so far and if a new gelato lounge is the limit, so be it.
Comment by also anonymous — July 30, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
i would have created a tequila tuesday event in eschelman every tuesday night.
Comment by Calaholic — July 30, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
I clearly remember Manny supporting and endorsing the Career Center Referenda. WTF are you talking about now?
As President I would have…duh… not tried to suck out more student money to be wasted on some stupid office relocation.
Comment by some dude (SD) — July 31, 2006 @ 5:29 am
Uh, hey, Dude, you might want to check this out: http://www.asuc.org/documentation/view.php?type=bills&id=580 .
It’s okay, I’ve got a shitty memory too.
Comment by also anonymous — July 31, 2006 @ 7:37 am
The Code of Conduct revision is 2004 was not something to write home about. Among other atrocities, it severely curtailed the role of the students’ representatives (SAO, attorneys, and others) before a hearing panel. Direct interaction with the panel is now permitted only if the panel so permits. (Previously, the representatives were able to speak as a matter of right.) See an op-ed on the issue at http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=13526.
That said, SA had nothing to do with the negotiation over the new Code of Conduct. That role belonged to the 2002-03 and 2003-04 Student Advocates, neither of whom were SA members. (Rafeedie had a very infamous break with SA right before the election, and Madan had not even run in an election by then.) I would hesitate to blame either one of them for this outcome, however. Manny is right in that ASUC can only do so much to prevent things like this from occurring, and in that particular instance, the University was determined to reverse the SAO’s earlier advances that were made from 1998-02.
Comment by Old Fogey — July 31, 2006 @ 8:21 am
Manny, you’re party created the mess/scandal, therefore you created the mess.
Comment by Anonymous — July 31, 2006 @ 9:11 am
yo, has anyone ever taken a poll on the worst ASUC president ever?
Comment by chet (the virgin CEO) — July 31, 2006 @ 9:35 am
Why not let the only smart, reasonable person of the ASUC exeuctives now lead the way for 06-07: Andrew Garvin. The student body doesn’t care about new dances, or a new ice cream bar, they care about their rights and their protection. The External should do her thing, + the SAO + the speaker of the house (chair of the senate or whatver) can toot his horn by saying “please direct your comments to the chair” to feel good, but seriously - let the smart people do it.
Comment by CalSophomoreGearingUpForSenateRun — July 31, 2006 @ 10:19 am
The External Affairs Vice President prefers male pronouns, I think.
Comment by . — July 31, 2006 @ 10:58 am
Wally Adeyemo. No contest, no question.
Comment by captain duh — July 31, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
Are you sure you’re not the Supreme Commander of Duh?
Irami Osei-Frimpong or Andrew Wong would easily lap Wally in the race for worst president (in the last 15 years).
Comment by Joan SAppleSERVE — July 31, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
34
facebook
Comment by some dude SD — July 31, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Luckily we can all still join the Fuck Student Action facebook group.
http://berkeley.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204488991
Comment by Your friends, The Trees — July 31, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
Andrew Garvin is my hero. Oh yea!
Comment by Anonymous — July 31, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
It’s “gelato”, dumbass! GELATO!
PS: tell andrew to join the “Fuck Student Action” facebook group…
http://berkeley.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204488991
Comment by Your friends, The Trees — July 31, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
seriously,
we need more dead days for finals.
why don’t we all work on that instead of complaining.
Comment by Anonymous — August 1, 2006 @ 1:38 am
has anyone noticed that the ASUC president has been white, and male, for the past god knows how many years? lame.
Comment by Anonymous — August 1, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
#47- or not. Obviously you haven’t been around for long.
Starting with last year, Manuel Buenrostro was Latino. Two years prior, we had Kris Cuaresma-Primm who was a Filipino from Hawaii. Only two years before that was Wally Adeyamo, who was Black. If you go back not much further, we have had Asian presidents in recent history as well.
While you are correct that we have not had any recent women elected president, think before you speak next time.
Comment by Old Reader — August 1, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Old Reader is quite correct. If you look at the past 10 years, only 4 have been white and male (the Gabriels, Misha Leybovich and Patrick Campbell).
2001-2002: Wally Adeyemo
2000-2001: Teddy Liaw
1998-1999: Irami Osei-Frimpong/Preston Taylor
1997-1998: Sharon Yuan
#47 is correct about the predominance of men though.
Comment by Joan SAppleSERVE — August 2, 2006 @ 11:33 pm