ASUC “Gets Back To Work” - And Why It Still Won’t Be Working
The Daily Cal ran an article today about the delays that the Student Action execs have to overcome this year in office. It’s pretty irremarkable, but there is one choice quote.
While the events of the summer have put strain on the ASUC system, whether they will impact legislative reform remains to be seen.
“With so much heated controversy about this year’s elections, I’m pretty confident that senators will work together so that such a crisis will never arise again,” said incoming Student Action senator Curtis Lee.
All due respect to Curtis, but I’m not going to hold my breath. This is the problem that Beetle has alluded to recently, and I’ve observed in the past two years. During the last ten years, there has been an “election scandal” every spring. But Student Action, in their dominance at the polls, has no reason to change the system. Why would they? It’s been working for their candidates for so long, the elections might as well be fixed. Any tampering with the system, especially to keep candidates and parties more accountable to the rules, is against their best interests.
This isn’t just a random theory - it’s a fact-supported trend. The abbreviated timeline:
2001: The entire Student Action party is thrown out of the election for posting false campaign literature in a 5-4 Judicial Council decision. After suing in Alameda County Superior Court, the Judicial Council overturns its previous decision. Student Action sweeps the election.
In response, Student Action attempts and fails to block the nomination of an Attorney General last year because the candidate had actually tried to enforce rules last year as the Elections Council Chair. They also amend the election by-laws to “encourage free speech” and make campaign finance reform a joke by restricting what is considered “campaign material”. This allows for increased dominance for the major parties that can afford to throw thousands of dollars at a campaign. One SA member who voted against the measure was thrown out of the party.
Another notable change was that the disqualification requirement became five censures, instead of three. Clearly, the Senate worked that year to make the rules “more functionable”.
2002: The ASUC switches from paper ballots to computer ballots. Student Action mandates that, due to the new measure, the dorms and dining commons receive more polling placers that are also computerized. A meaningful voting reform becomes another institutionalized encouragement to run political machines and coerce freshmen into voting for people they haven’t heard of before.
2003: CalSERVE sweeps the executive offices, promising reform. Instead, no meaningful revisions of the By-Laws are made, and CalSERVE fights vehemontly against online voting.
It’s important to note here that CalSERVE is just as implicable as SA is in fighting against progress to the by-laws. In fact, CalSERVE and SA never file election suits against each other, and have been in some sort of non-aggression pact for some time. Apparently, enforcing the rules is the enemy of the government.
2004: First, Student Action candidates are accused of sending out spam emails, but then-candidate Misha Leybovich claims that an email sent to almost a hundred student groups “was the result of a computer virus” and is given a lesser penalty. SA is also charged with campaigning in the dorms, but gets off of that charge. Then, DAAP is disqualified from the ASUC Elections. Then-President Misha Leybovich issues an Executive Order to retroactively bend the rules and allow DAAP back in the race. The meaningful reform by Student Action from this incident: campaign violations are given flexible censures. This makes it nearly impossible for people to be disqualified unless they do multiple intense violations. Breaking one or two rules is okay, but more than that, and we’ll need to talk.
2005 - Following a year where Zach Liberman stole the election limelight, Student Action votes against a measure to form a committee to reform the By-Laws - the motion passes 11-9. Online elections are finally passed after efforts from independents and third-parties like SQUELCH!, but only after the bill is gutted by CalSERVE and politicized by Student Action.
2006 - We’re off to a typical start this year. It’s time to see who’s right: Curtis Lee, or history?
Yep. I already got some spam from the “Christine Lee” stand-in of 2006.
1: I don’t really care about their (Student action related) bullshit.
2: not as hott as Christine.
3: it’s summer, give us a fucking break.
Comment by some dude (SD) — August 3, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
Awww… poor Student Action.
By the way, you might consider the possibility that Curtis Lee actually means gutting the Council’s ability to enforce the rules for truthfulness in future elections.
Comment by recent cal grad — August 3, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
I’m sure that’s what he means, but the reality is that it’s up to the Judicial Council to determine to what extent it wants to be a player, as I don’t think SA has the balls to remove campaign violations altogether.
Comment by Beetle — August 3, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
I think one of many flaws in the current system is that it is very dependent on Andy Ratto.
Don’t laugh, I’m serious. Not only are the rules weak and the punishments inconsistent and shitty, but for violations to actually be enforced, someone like Andy Ratto has to run around taking pictures of chalk and making a stink since neither of the big parties do it. The AG doesn’t exactly have his own investigators.
Actually, I don’t know why I even said that. I mean, it’s true, but the system is so completely and utterly broken that it’s like saying the problem with genocide is it’s expensive.
Comment by Simon — August 3, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
Well, there’s usually someone who does that job. Mike Davis, Paul LaFata, etc. It was Andy’s turn this year.
I seem to recall the AG advertising for his own investigators this year.
Comment by Beetle — August 4, 2006 @ 12:13 am
This means that next year SA and CS will work together to fight independents wanting law and order in the ASUC campaigns.
Comment by Anonymous — August 4, 2006 @ 3:51 am
is ‘irremarkable’ a word?
Comment by Anonymous — August 4, 2006 @ 8:28 am
As someone who was involved at the time, your 2001 summary ranges from incomplete to inaccurate.
A) SA did file suit in court in 2001, but unlike this year, the case was never heard. Also unlike this year SA was persuing its appeal in J-Council at the same time and never abandoned those efforts.
We won on appeal because one of our witnesses was unable to testify at the first hearing because the J-Council was running so late (one thing that definately will not change) that he had to go because it was a Jewish holiday and the sun was setting. Upon hearing that testimony in the appeal, the J-Council changed its ruling.
B) The bylaw changes after that election were most definately not SA’s. SA did have a separate reform package, but a coalition of Apple, Cal-Serve and Independents decided that since getting SA thrown out almost worked for them once, why not try to make the bylaws even more punitive for the next time.
Thus, while they increased the number of censures to get thrown out (3 to 5) they increased the number of censures one could get for a campaign violation disproportionately more. They also took out a lot of the J-Council’s discretion in assessing censures (think mandatory sentencing).
BTW- Don’t believe me, just look at the name of the election’s bylaws… Quigley-Heilig… the same pair of former AG’s who tried to get SA thrown out the year before.
C) One other thing of note, in the SA version, there was one key provision that got taken out by the “reformers” in the final version. Namely, we had a provision that established a firm statute of limitations. Until all election cases were completed and all appeals periods passed, results could not be tabulated. After results were tabulated, no more cases would be allowed.
This was for the simple reason that we knew that have election results out there and then having somebody challenge to have the winner thrown out would just cause all sorts of chaos. Hmmm… guess SA isn’t wrong about everything after all.
I know it is fun to just go off on a blame-SA kick, but a little look in the mirror by some of the more self-righteous of you may be in order, particularly those of you planning on being involved next year when another set of reforms will surely be on the table.
Comment by mcw — August 4, 2006 @ 9:12 am
anonymous - it is now
MCW - First of all, I think it needs to be made explicit that any info from me on 2001 is obviously second hand.
That being said, you are painting a pretty incomplete picture yourself.
A) I don’t care what guise is used - taking a student government election to any county or state court is just wrong on multiple levels, and shows an absolute lack of faith in the system as well as an attempt to coerce and strongarm the Judicial Council into action.
B) My impression is that there were multiple by-law reforms that year. I’m saying that SA’s major contribution was the loosening of campaign finance reform rules. You’re saying the major contributions of other parties made the penalty for breaking the rules more intense. I don’t see where we are contradicting each other.
I’ve edited the part regarding the change from 3 to 5 censures.
C) One effort to streamline the elections process does not redeem SA for five years of problematic behavior in the Senate, Executive Offices, and the campaign trail. I’m not blaming SA for the problems that exist in the ASUC - many of them have been institutionalized for years if not decades - but I’m certainly calling them out for hardly trying to fix them.
Comment by Ben N. — August 4, 2006 @ 10:44 am
Why are the parties responsible for suing each other in case of violations? The parties have to work together once elected, and they both know that if they sue, they will get sued back…the result is a vicious cycle of lawsuits. Basically it’s mutually assured destruction: if Student Action tries to sue CalSERVE, CalSERVE will sue SA back, and neither side wants to be suing the other.
This is why independent, nonpartisan monitors like the AG are charged with the responsibility of ensuring election rules are followed. The candidates don’t have to police their opponents. That is just ridiculous.
Comment by hah — August 4, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
The parties, unfortunately, are the only ones who have the resources for policing the elections, since they certainly aren’t going to approve funding for the Attorney General to police them. That would require some kind of stance on principle, and this is Student Action and CalSERVE we’re talking about.
Comment by Beetle — August 4, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
There’s a difference in trying to spy on your opponent to charge them on every count you find and being completely complicit with each other and agree to disrespect the organization you are trying to get a position in. It’s the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable expectation - between cooperation and monopolization.
Comment by Ben N. — August 4, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
I know this is way out in left field and that we are talking about CalSERVE and SA, but what would happen if we all really raise the bar and hold the parties and senators and execs- hell why not the whole ASUC, to a higher ethical/moral standard??
Is there anything in the ASUC that makes sure that all branches are held accountable for their principles or actions??
If not, I think this should brought to people’s attention because how stupid will everyone look if it’s publicly made known that they are against something that in theory is similiar to an “ethics committee”? how can you be against that? if you are, it would appear that you have something to hide.
Comment by Calaholic — August 4, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
an ethics committee would be a great idea… but yeah, good luck.
Comment by bobby gregg — August 4, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
However, an ethics committee’s powers could easily be abused for harassing Judicial Council members for unfavorable rulings. There would have to be some rules to protect them against this kind of thing — Judicial Council rulings are issues of jurisprudence rather than issues of ethics, even though the matters ruled upon often are ethical in nature.
Comment by bobby gregg — August 4, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
With that comment, Bobby, the idea of an ethics committee suddenly became more attractive for SAlSERVE
Comment by Beetle — August 4, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
very true which is why the people on this “committee” would have to be very unbiased, honest, and trustworthy people who we all know will be working to help the process not hinder it- yes, hard to accomplish, but if done i think it could really help and is definately needed
Comment by Calaholic — August 4, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
confused…
Comment by Calaholic — August 4, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
The parties have resources to police the elections? What kind of resources? Student Action’s bajillion volunteers don’t know the rules at all (as evidenced by this latest debacle). CalSERVE isn’t exactly overflowing with people or money…they ran 6 candidates and weren’t even on Sproul at all.
As far as I know, the parties just take pictures with cell phones or digital cameras if they happen to see a violation (which is rare, it’s often hard to catch people violating the rules). These pictures are then used as protection in case of a lawsuit against their own party (deterrence, to bring us back to the mutually assured destruction analogy). Being observant and taking pictures is something the AG and the Elections Council could do pretty easily for not very much money…both already receive stipends and funding.
Also, all of you who are so mad about parties not policing each other…why aren’t you out there taking pictures and filing lawsuits? Unlike the major parties, you’ve got nothing to lose if you aren’t a candidate. If you want some legitimacy, volunteer for the AG’s office.
Comment by hah — August 4, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
why are you so sure none of us haven’t??
Comment by Calaholic — August 4, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
Not so fast mcw. Andy Katz didn’t testify until it became apparent that the decision of the Council giving SA 2 censures and thereby disqualifying them might be changed if he introduced “new” testimony. I don’t even recall him being in town, or even on the witness list, or even offered as an “oh man I wish Andy where here” witness for the original hearing.
But if introducing “new” testimony (which absolutely contridicted the whole argument of SA at the original hearing, and was so absurdly convenient given the basis of the decision that it didn’t even pass the straight face test) wasn’t enough to get the 5-4 ruling changed, SA also browbeat one of the members into changing their vote. And just to make sure, SA used their mole on the Council to confirm that he did. That’s why the Council changed it’s mind, which is to say went 5-4 against SA to 5-3-1 in their favor. (One member was so disgusted with what happened they refused to participate in a decision, and it was all I could do to keep them from resigning on the spot.)
As for C, that SOL provision was taken out because I told folks the Council would be hearing cases whenever it damn well pleased and that provision would be DOA. Whatever pragmatic arguments you’d like to make aside, the Council had/s the procedural authority to determine what cases it will and will not accept and the language of the SA proposal intruded on the Council’s procedural autonomy.
Comment by Mike Davis — August 5, 2006 @ 12:39 am
In the elections of Spring 2004, for the 2004-2005 school year, SA did sue CalSERVE over participation in a free-palestine rally. They were seeking disqualification. Many of CS’s candidates do not have much money, and the organization itself does not have any money … i believe the situation for SA is a bit different ….
Comment by Anonymous — August 6, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
I was under the impression that it was LaFata who did that, not SA. But then, I don’t quite recall if LaFata was part of SA at the time.
Comment by Beetle — August 6, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
SA didn’t sue… Paul LaFata did.
Comment by Ben N. — August 6, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
SA had nothing to do with the CalServe/DAAP SJP suits… I was on the Council for that.
Comment by bobby gregg — August 7, 2006 @ 9:33 am
i believe evan bloom (an Sa candidate and soon to be senator) was heavily involved, as was devora … who worked in sa’s office
Comment by Anonymous — August 7, 2006 @ 11:11 pm