“Why Can’t We Nominate Someone Who Likes Us?”
The above question was asked by several Student Action senators wondering to themselves why they had to appoint a very depressed looking Jessica Wren to the Elections Council Chair last night.
EDIT: There was a picture of Jessica Wren here looking like she was ready to go postal on the ASUC Senate, but the Daily Cal has decided that we can no longer use their pictures on this blog without a photo release that I assume we would need to pay for. Explanation will be posted shortly.
Many senators were complaining to the Daily Cal that Jessica, well, just doesn’t like them. In fact, this is probably true. But this is a problem that has been growing for some time in the ASUC: finding people to fill appointed positions within the organization that don’t hate Student Action. Generally speaking, these people are filtered out by the following criteria:
1) Lack of motivation. Hey, is that bowl cashed?
2) Jaded at the organization. Mostly speaking, individuals on this campus don’t know what the ASUC stands for (ask 10 random freshmen) or work with organizations who think that the Association is a general bureaucratic mess that’s good for group funding every April. Why would they want to run elections? Then, the dominant party in the Senate tries to steal student fees and grills every nominee on their friends and Facebook buddies. It’s not a flattering process, and it doesn’t encourage applicants.
3) Lack of experience. Honestly, elections here are a $50,000 a year enterprise. I’m not qualified to run them, and I’ve been here for four years.
4) Lack of compensation. Wren will work approximately 300 hours up until this election (20 hours a week/15 weeks) for a $1500 stipend. For those of you Mass Comm majors, that’s $5.00/hour, if you keep all of your stipend.
So, for Student Action, in the stead of having a Elections Council Chair who is impartial, they are going to get one who probably hates their guts. Don’t worry, she’s just representative of the rest of the students on this campus.
What this really means is that the Senate should probably be expanded to 25 members, with those “highly motivated” individuals taking positions like Attorney General and Elections Council Chair while having restricted voting rights. This is a flawed solution, but I think it works better than the current system.
And, to all our loyal readers, remember: when looking for ASUC Elections gossip, come to CalStuff! April fun is just around the corner!
UPDATE: Jessica Wren, upon posting that she hates my last-year counterpart of myself, also claimed that the Daily Cal’s picture of her is not accurately portraying her beauty. Thoughts?
Poor guy. Looks like she’s going to bite his tongue off.
Corrections:
1.I hate everybody in the ASUC, which doesn’t negate the fact that I am the only person qualified to run that $50k enterprise.
2. The contentious facebook picture does not indicate bias on my part in any way. Again, I hate everybody, there’s no bias there.
3. I’m cuter in person, though the ASUC does make me depressed. I’m sure I’d just got done rolling my eyes when that picture was taken.
4. The ASUC also drives me to drink, so get ready to party.
See Beetle’s analysis http://www.beetlebeat.blogspot.com/ although yours is good, too, Ben.
Comment by jessica! — January 25, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Shoot, I will run the election for $45,000, pocket $43,000, and still carry out the necessities to run a fair election.
Comment by yikes — January 25, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Hilarious. I do use my teth…when appropriate.
Comment by jessica! — January 25, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
er..teeth
Comment by jessica! — January 25, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Why are the Student Action senators so self-important?
Comment by ed — January 25, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
I remember the Election Council folks being an altogether humorless bunch in my experience. I think dealing with the idiocy of the elections process is a real strain on the soul, not to mention meticulously documenting flagrant bylaw violations only to have the Judicial Council either chicken out of actually imposing any sanctions or back down after being threatened with litigation.
I feel for you, Jessica. And I think both pictures are cute.
Comment by matt — January 25, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
I doubt that there is any advantage (or disadvantage) to be had if the EC chair likes or dislikes anybody, since the AG, SG, and JC retain the really consequential power. Even the most hate-filled EC can still run a fair election.
Comment by Paul — January 26, 2007 @ 7:10 am
Just remember, SA spent $20,000 on personal lawyers to sue the ASUC (read: to sue the student body, you and me) and then stuck us with this bill. Vote them out of office this semester. Vote anyone but SA.
PS Jessica is hot.
Comment by anon54 — January 26, 2007 @ 11:33 am
anon54, we didn’t get stuck with the bill in the end.
Comment by anon55? — January 26, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Who the fuck cares about the ASUC? IT is a waste of time, money, and effort. CHECK THIS: UC BERKELEAY STUDENTS, YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT, NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK, STOP PRETENDING LIKE THE ASUC MATTERS! JESUS, THE ONLY ONE WHO CARES ABOUT THE ASUC IS THE ASUC! FUCK YOU GUYS FOR WASTING MY TUITION MONEY
Comment by DANNY K — January 28, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
The great amount of ASUC cash goes to Student Groups, Publications, and Operations. In essence, the ASUC is a way of taking fees and distributing them in a democratic way to student groups.
Of course, there is stupid spending. I’ve always thought it ridiculous that SUPERB gets so much cash. And the Exec money sure seems to go down a hole, from my perspective. But if you’ll peruse http://www.asuc.org/documents/asuc20052006finalproposals.pdf you’ll see that it’s mostly just allocation.
Comment by Kevin! — January 29, 2007 @ 11:02 am