CalASUC

2002-07-18T18:37:00.000-07:00

It's amazing how long people can hold grudges for what are often erroneous misunderstandings. Take, for instance, Deenihan's quiz where he says that he is not on speaking terms with Wally because"Wally protested the Darrin Bell cartoon". If KD had ever talked to Wally or Justin about it, he would know that they were at the protest mediating in order to keep the post-9/11 situation from blowing up. Of course, KD would rather jump to conclusions based on his own bias...

2002-05-20T20:46:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears that I am disliked by the extreme right and the extreme left. I must be doing something right.

2002-05-16T21:46:00.000-07:00

Some other bloggers need to make up their minds.

If we are dealing in pure legal theory, then no, the Daily Cal doesn't owe anything to the student body and vise versa. Of course, if people didn't read the Daily Cal, then advertisers wouldn't pay for ads and it would go out of business. In economic terms, students don't really get the Daily Cal for free...they pay for it in the opportunity cost and the ad views that they provide for the newspaper. They also pay for it in the below market rent that is afforded them by the ASUC. This results in the ASUC losing the opportunity to give that space to student groups who are not independent and who are exactly the groups the ASUC is supposed to be serving in the first place. Of course, going by this legal theory, there is absolutely no reason at all for the ASUC to give this space to the Daily Cal and deny office space to groups it actually sponsors.

But of course, in an open society the press does have a duty to the public especially when, as in this case, it is directly subsidized by public monies. Democracy cannot function without a free and independent press. It's a little bit of a different situation on a campus where the Daily Cal is a virtual monopoly. If I want to read a real world newspaper, I can choose from the New York Times, the WSJ, the LA Times, etc. If I want to read about Cal news, I pretty much have to read the Daily Cal. That's fine if the public chooses to create a monopoly by only reading one newspaper. That isn't the case here. The Daily Cal doesn't charge for its product because it knows that most people wouldn't pay to read it and instead makes up for that revenue with a massive rent subsidy provided by the ASUC. It's ability to survive is contingent on government subsidy, not unlike the US steel and textile industry (massive tariffs). Now we're treading a little bit closer to dangerous ground - that newspaper now owes something tangible to the student body. That's the danger of accepting public subsidies...you become directly accountable to the public through their elected representatives. It also opens you up to having those subsidies cut when the public through their elected representatives think that their subsidy is not in the best interest of the public.

You can't argue that the Daily Cal owes nothing to the student body and that the student body should subsidize them at the same time. Government money almost always comes with strings attached - as it should.

In this case, the ASUC must weigh the continued subsidy of the Daily Cal against their ability to provide for student groups they sponsor. Since the Daily Cal is itself independent of the ASUC, the only argument that can be made on the Daily Cal's behalf is that it is a quality paper that benefits the student body more than the student groups who would be able to use that whole floor for office space. So, the quality of the publication goes to the heart of the matter. For those who believe that it has descended into a tabloid quality paper who uses its public subsidy for petty personal vendettas, you can see why they might want to end those subsidies.

This argument also overstates the impact of kicking the Daily Cal out of Eshleman. It may indeed survive as a truly independent publication, in which case it is a win-win situation.

2002-05-15T23:23:00.000-07:00

Just to clear up some apparent confusion...Prez Wally never supported the Senate bill to raise the Daily Cal's rent.

As a side note: Wouldn't it make the Daily Cal more independent if it were out of Eshleman? As it is, it relies on artificially low rent set by the ASUC for its current office space. That doesn't sound independent to me.

2002-05-15T19:24:00.000-07:00

The Store Operations Board has begun the final steps in making the 6th floor available for student groups. All the other blogs have this story completely wrong. First, this has nothing to do with the Daily Cal printing offensive cartoons. The Daily Cal of course will milk this angle for all it is worth, but, in reality, including that sort of language was a stupid move on the part of a couple senators was withdrawn in committee. Second, Wally did not wait for the Daily Cal to cease publication to begin the proceedings. In fact, the ASUC auxillary served the Daily Cal with a preliminary eviction notice last semester, though it was not reported in any publication that I have seen. Even so, this is not something that Wally will even deal with while he is on the SOB. Lease negotiations have always occured over the summer, there is nothing stealthy about it.

What this is really about is twofold. First, the Daily Cal pays a ridiculously low rent for the space it occupies. It pays $7,500 a month for about 10,000 (I'm estimating) square feet of prime office space in an area know for very high rents. That works out to less than $1 per square foot. Ask other area business what they pay for rent and you'll find figures that are five to ten times higher. Second, every year, the ASUC turns away many many groups seeking office space and forces those lucky few to share office space with 5 or more other groups. There is always a cost benefit analysis that one has to do in assigning office space. In this case, the question is whether we should give away office space at a deeply discounted rate to a school newspaper that has repeatedly shurked its responsibility to the student body or should we allocate that space to deserving student groups. In 1995, when the Daily Cal moved into Eshleman, the ASUC desperately needed the money, now they don't.

Just a note on Calstuff's interpretation: He says that Wally has lost every battle so far, though he only lists One Campus. I'm begginning to think that Kevin gets all of his news from what he reads in the Daily Cal and from what he hears from his Apple pals because he really has a very limited view of what happens in the ASUC. No suprise that Kevin still doesn't think Wally does a good job representing students - not that one should expect different. I am dissappointed that Kevin hasn't been able to trascend his humble ASUC beginnings and get a firm grasp upon the goings on of the ASUC. Here's a starting point, a lot more things happen outside Eshleman than in it (and that goes double for the Senate where meaningless has taken on a whole new definition).

2002-05-11T22:57:00.000-07:00

For ProgCal, who apparently doesn't understand the meaning of the word "proposal". From dictionary.com:

\Pro*pos"al\, n. [From Propose.] 1. That which is proposed, or propounded for consideration or acceptance; a scheme or design; terms or conditions proposed; offer; as, to make proposals for a treaty of peace; to offer proposals for erecting a building; to make proposals of marriage. ``To put forth proposals for a book.'' --Macaulay.

A proposal is something that someone has put up for consideration, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not is has or will be implemented. Since the articles he posted talks about the "the proposal" it's a wonder that he still says that "the proposal" never existed. I think ProgCal needs to watch that School House Rock cartoon about how a bill becomes a law...a bill would be a kind of "proposal" whether or not it is enacted into law.

I guess this is a huge hint as to the real identity of ProgCal... his English is very limited. Probable IQ <50.

2002-05-10T20:36:00.000-07:00

Prog Cal has a problem with Tony Falcone making appointments to the Academic Senate. Apparently he thinks that it doesn't matter that the students elected Tony to this post in part to appoint members to the Academic Senate. Prog Cal says "Mr. Falcone apparently believes that the Academic Senate appointment process is a good way to pass out the spoils of office. Thank goodness his recommendations were lessened in committee." What he really means is, "Shame on the voters for electing Tony Falcone to be the Academic Vice President. Thank goodness that we have enough seats in the Senate to make sure our people get appointed to those posts. Forget democracy, what about us...you know, the ones who lost the election."

2002-05-10T20:30:00.000-07:00

One of the bad things about Student Action dominating every election for the past seven years is that the other parties fight tooth and nail against funding the executive offices. It all comes down the fact that the other parties really don't believe in democracy and think that students are brainwashed fools for electing Student Action candidates year after year (23/28 in the past 7 years not counting SAO).

Senator Olin, after hearing the election results had this to say, ""This is a sad day for the students—except for the 150 students Student Action really serves," said Co-op Senator Michael Olin." He didn't even make the perfunctory statements about "will of the voters" and such. There's a reason for that...he doesn't care about the will of the voters or about the thousands of students who vote for Student Action year after year. And if he can deny those duly elected officers funding...all the better.

2002-05-10T20:22:00.000-07:00

Progressive at Cal does a light speed back pedal. After telling me several times that the bell curve for grading was never a proposal and how dumb it was for Michelle Huang to say she would fight a proposal that never existed, he posts an article talking about that very proposal. I've always admitted that the bell curve didn't have much chance of being enacted. Progressive at Cal though has always maintained that the proposal never even existed. Looks like Prog Cal was wrong again.

I do think it is hilarious that Prog Cal quotes the Daily Cal to show that his own point was wrong. It's Jasper Rine by the way, not Jasper Rian. He was winner of the distinguished teaching award in 1997.

2002-05-10T02:25:00.000-07:00

For Progressive at Cal: Jasper Rine, chair of the Committee on Teaching from 1999-2001, proposed creating more stringent grading standards including use of a bell curve for grades. Chair Rine pushed the proposal for almost two years without gaining much traction outside of the Committee on Teaching.

2002-05-09T23:40:00.000-07:00

Blogtown boy makes good: Congrats to Kevin who was offered a spot as a columnist with the Daily Cal. Hopefully he'll up their respectability. I wonder if he'll think of a catchy title like Sex on Tuesday.

2002-05-09T19:41:00.000-07:00

Shame on you Progessive at Cal...more to come.

2002-05-08T12:50:00.000-07:00

For Calstuff: You are half right on Puja Sarna. Her victory last year was mostly due to her ability to use people to her own advantage and then promptly drop them when they lost their utility to her.

2002-05-06T01:54:00.000-07:00

Election prediction: Tom Bates is going to crush Shirley Dean.

2002-05-06T01:06:00.000-07:00

Correction: In an earlier post, I said that Steve Sexton wrote the original article on the latest One Campus meeting with administrators. I was mistaken, Mr. Sexton did not write that article, though he did write the follow up column and the original article was actually not that bad. I should have had both articles in front of me while writing.

2002-05-03T23:24:00.000-07:00

It turns out that Steve Sexton is showing a pattern of exaggeration. You'll remember Steve as the Daily Cal report who claimed that Student Action had tried to block people from getting newspapers when in fact they were only handing out flyers that were insulting to his paper. Well, it turns out that the intimidation he suffered at the hands of MSU was also greatly exaggerated according to this letter from Shoaib Kamil. Does anyone see a pattern? Anyone who has a problem with Mr. Sexton or his newspaper better keep their mouths shut or their name will be the next one dragged through the mud. What's that adage..."Don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel". Looks like Richard Nixon wasn't the only one to keep an enemy list.

Quoting from Mr. Kamil's letter, "The Daily Cal must stop using UC Berkeley's premier publication as a medium to express personal vendettas." Here here.

2002-05-01T23:16:00.000-07:00

Bayblog reports that we probably won't know the election results for a while. I'm not going to address the charges that are being made about the election because, frankly, they are irrelevant. No one has accused anyone of fraud, stuffing the ballot box or any other action which would undermine the election so the charges are not relevant to this situation. The only thing that Jen Lee seems to be saying is that the ballot was confusing, a ballot which she was able to see BEFORE the election (every year there are people that are confused by the preferential ballot).

What I will address is the legitimacy of this democracy. One of the values of a democracy is openness and transparency. Even in Florida we knew what the vote count was and what the issues were. In honest, open systems the votes are counted and everyone accepts the will of the voters and either assumes an office or goes home to cry in their soup. In third world countries, dictators take weeks to count the votes all the while misplacing or finding votes to assure their own election (the really good ones find way to do it much more quickly). No one is saying that is happening here, but what they are saying is that legal wrangling and post-election posturing are more important than what they majority of the voters want. Is Jen Lee suing because she thinks that some voters were deprived of their rights? No, she is suing in the hope that a tortured reading of the ballots will catapult her into the presidency or maybe it's that until they actually count the votes she will still have a infinitesimal shot at being elected. In any case, it's about her not the student voters. The voters be damned. This is the second year in a row that the legal system has been hijacked to effect a preemptory coup d'etat. It is only preemptory because the rightful winner has yet to take office.

Here's a novel concept for the ASUC to try. After the election, let's actually count the votes and let the votes speak for themselves. Ah, simplicity.

2002-05-01T22:54:00.000-07:00

Calstuff has a pretty good column on Wally's presidency. The usual deficiencies are still there though. For all of their talk, the people in Apple and Cal-Serve don't really understand what the President does and what the office is all about. Not that I blame them, Apple has never had an exec and it's been a while since Cal-Serve has been in the top spot (even if you do count Preston "Prime Time" Taylor). Make no mistake about it, the Presidency is not about leading a group of 20 egotistical and childish senators or even putting on a million projects, its really about what happens behind the scenes. Mostly it's about how the President works with the Administration to advance student interests. And in that regard, according to high ranking sources within the Berdahl administration, Wally has a rapport with the Chancellor that has not been matched by any President in anyone's memory. That rapport has not been crafted by aceding to every demand made by the Chancellor, but has been made while rigorously advancing the interests of the student body. We also should not forget the biggest event in the past year and the one which President Adeyemo will be most remembered for: his leadership after September 11th. Wally successfully used his position to lead the student body in a period of national crisis. Few students at the September 11th memorial will forget Wally's speech (which many say was the best of any speech at the ceremony). Hhhmm, maybe a NATIONAL CRISIS was the reason for One Campus being delayed.

Another common problem of Wally's critics is to forget their own complicity in Wally's bunker mentality. When you have people taking very personal (and even racist) shots at you on a daily basis, you probably aren't going to have a good working relationship in the future. So one could hardly blame Wally for knowing that certain people, the Daily Cal included, would never give him a fair shot. Once he figured that out, there was no reason to be complicit in his own assassination.

With all that said, it doesn't suprise me at all that those people who have hated Wally in the past have now written the epitaph of a failed presidency. One wonders how many elections it will take before they know that they themselves are wrong and have been defeated.

2002-05-01T22:34:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to give a shout out to my new favorite blog (I bet those words with come back to haunt me.). As usual it appears as if he knows a lot more html than myself. The Albatross Perch.

2002-04-30T16:22:00.000-07:00

Note for Calstuff on Steve Sexton: Reporters are not supposed to involved themselves in stories. Their opinions and biases shouldn't even be mentioned in a story and that includes writing a post-story opinion piece decrying the very person(s) you claim to cover in a fair and accurate way. In this case Mr. Sexton both wrote the opinion piece and published his opinion as fact in the original article. I also don't agree with Calstuff's definition of a hitpiece. Given that the main point of the piece had already been addressed in a newsopinion article, Mr. Sexton's piece can only have one motive: to attack Wally and his term just as he and his paper have been doing for years to other Student Action administrations. Mr. Sexton really bends the whole article to suit his interests. Take the following passage:

Next week, when elections results are released and likely a slew of other Student Actioners assume the posts of Adeyemo, Fryday and others, will they also feel a sense of entitlement—that they are entitled to lead the campus and speak for the students while never talking to the students themselves?

First, how does not talking to the Daily Cal, who have a vendetta against the party, equate to not talking to students? Second, why do these morons have such a hard time with the concept of a democracy? Yes, people feel an entitlement to lead after they are elected. They go out and tell students their ideas and then students say who they want to lead.

The blocking of the Daily Cal bins was also greatly exagerated. Mr. Sexton erroneously claimed that people were being blocked from getting a newspaper when in fact there were only people standing near the Daily Cal boxes handing out literature.

Would it be fair for Ken Starr to write a journalistic piece on Bill Clinton? I don't know why Kevin would argue the point given what he has written about the Daily Cal's coverage in the past. I seem to remember him writing at one point about how certain Daily Cal articles read like Apple press releases. I guess I'm not suprised, this coming from a person who thinks its perfectly ok for a party hack to publish supposedly unbiased articles under a psuedonym designed to disguise the biases of the author.

2002-04-30T08:50:00.000-07:00

Steve Sexton writes another hit piece on Wally and the other execs in the Daily Cal today. This is the same Steve Sexton that came forward accusing Student Action of blocking distribution of the Daily Cal in an attempt to disqualify the Student Action party in the last election. For a reporter, Mr. Sexton is remarkable in admitting his biases, just read the article and you'll see. His arrogance in believing that talking to the Daily Cal goes hand in hand with being receptive and open with the student body is par for the course. In reality, most of the campus is fed up with the Daily Cal and couldn't care less about their petty political fights.

As for the merits of his argument, there are private meetings all the time on campus and the press has no right to attend those meetings. Does the Daily Cal have a right to sit in on meetings of the Chancellor's staff or on departmental meetings? The answer is obvious, but that doesn't stop the Daily Cal from continuing the war.

2002-04-29T11:12:00.000-07:00

For the other two blogs who don't like what I write...If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. To quote a movie, "You can't handle the truth."

2002-04-28T21:23:00.000-07:00

Gabe Green denies having anything to do with the ASUC Watch Ad. When I originally asked him about it, he blocked me, so I logged on under another name. Here is the text of that conversation:

joansappleserve1: hey, sorry if i gave off the wrong impression...i write for an online blog and wanted to ask you a few questions...if you don't want to answer that is fine, but i thought you like a forum to express your political views
AiR ZOnK81: i don't know what your'e talking about
AiR ZOnK81: have a nice day
joansappleserve1: you're name is gabe green isn't it?
AiR ZOnK81: if you don't stop harassing me, i will file a complaint with aol
AiR ZOnK81: now be gone
joansappleserve1: i'm not harassing you.
AiR ZOnK81 signed off at 9:11:30 PM.

Of course, he didn't really log of, he just blocked me again. Of course, this is Gabe Green's aim name as listed on the web. By denying that he knows anything about the ASUC Watch Ad, Mr. Green behaves in the same shady way he accuses a certain political party as acting. Looks like Mr. Green already knows the game, throw out wild accusations, lie about the facts and then avoid talking to anyone about your actions. Gabe Green, hypocrite of the week.

2002-04-28T20:24:00.000-07:00

Kevin of Calstuff asked me to find where he wrote about a speech he wrote for Congresswoman Tauscher in which he wanted to get a dig in on Wally. When I finally found it, I found something pretty disturbing that I had totally forgotten about. This was the biggest outrage of the last campaign that no one ever heard about. Here is the link followed by an excerpt:

My website is nearly complete, and is just about ready for the personal
inspection of Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher. She gets final say. Also
wrote a statement from her to be read at the Disability Rights Rally to
be held in, you guessed it, Berkeley. It's a pleasant bit of pablum.
Strangely enough, arch-political rival Wally 'Honky' Adeyamo will be
speaking as well. I tried to think of some way to 'zing' him, but was
unable to.

I hesitate to say that referring to Wally as "honky" is racist, but it is damn close. During the last campaign, Arian White of the Self-Serve party referred to Wally as an "Uncle Tom" and worse. This spread to people in Apple who, for some reason, thought it was ok to disparage Wally with racial comments. And we aren't talking just about whispering between friends, these were epithets that were yelled regularly on Sproul Plaza. Apparently, Wally didn't act black enough for the people in Apple and Cal-Serve. Maybe Wally is a little more uppity than they like their black people.

2002-04-28T15:54:00.000-07:00

Thought I'd jump on the anti-Jen Lee band wagon. Jen has always been a strange one in the way she plots her course, but now she has really gone off the deep end. Her lawsuit ensures that ballots will be tallied even later then they were in last year's fiasco. Here are a few ideas to strike back: 1) Remove her from chair of FiComm. I'm sure there wouldn't be much opposition to this, though someone would have to step up and get working on a budget. 2) Write a resolution in the Senate to officially censure her. Not much punitive effect except to further demonize her. 3) Recall her (or at least collect the signatures). A recall election would be a much better idea than spending the money for a new general election. Though just the threat of being recalled through collecting signatures would be enough of an embarrassement and could be combined with either or both of the other two.

They can say what they want about the Student Action slating process, but SA didn't even consider running Jen Lee after her interview. For Angry Clam's benefit: SA also didn't consider running James Gallagher (who later endorsed Jen). To quote one SA insider, "Gallagher showed in his interview that he is dumb as a brick despite his reputed GPA."

2002-04-28T15:44:00.000-07:00

I meant to post this earlier, but blogger ate my post :)... Progressive at Cal thinks that Prez Wally is arrogant from what looks to be a few misinterpreted statements and actions. First, everything printed about Wally in the Daily Cal has to be seen as part of an ongoing 3 year long war between the Daily Cal and Student Action. Wally is plainly very flippant when speaking to their reporters and I'm sure he would be the first to admit this. Second, I doubt he said that he hand picked this year's slate... it simply isn't true. Wally got some of what he wanted, but he didn't get a lot of things that he originally wanted. Third, I'm not suprised to hear that Wally would nod off during a meeting in the middle of elections. He was getting a maximum of 2 hours sleep a night for 2 weeks, I don't think anyone should expect him to be superhuman in that regard. When campaigners push themselves to the limits like that, their health does suffer. Fourth, whether Wally was the one who read Kevin Deenihan's subprofile or not is an open question. If it was Wally, given what Kevin has said about going after Wally (including conjecture on using a speech he wrote for a Congressperson to get a dig in on Wally), it doesn't suprise me that Wally's first reaction would be to block Kevin's IM.

2002-04-18T22:49:00.000-07:00

Calstuff correspondent S.W. (?) reveals that the Judicial Council is considering doing away with the statute of limitations. Sounds like a real case of a runaway jury. I don't normally like to play the blame game, but in this case the Apple and CalSERVE minions are reaping what they have sown for over a year. They have been the predominant protectors of an out of control Judicial Council that has not only overstepped its bounds but that has also behaved in such a manner as to bring extreme disgrace upon themselves. The Senate protected certain members so that they could do their bidding in fighting Student Action on the legal front. This culminated in the Senate reappointing Julie Cho who is perhaps the biggest instigator and most unethical person in the ASUC in the face of overwhelming evidence of her wrongdoing and bias. In theory, the Judicial Council should be an arbiter of last resort who steps in when the ASUC is in serious trouble or there is some vast inequity. In reality, the Judicial Council has become the very source of that instability and trouble. Fortunately it is not too late, every member of the Judicial Council should be impeached and replaced and the Senate should start from scratch in appointing new members. In the long run, it may be the only way to save itself from the Runaway Council.

2002-04-16T20:15:00.000-07:00

Nolofree attempts to use a bulldozer to shovel words into my mouth about the post below. The proof is in the pudding though. My point was not that I thought the rules are stupid (though I do) but that the parties must think that because they are signing an agreement which basically calls for the rules to not be strictly enforced.

The biggest problem is that the rules are drawn up in a vacuum with little input from those who are actually involved in executive campaigns. Senate candidates really have no idea what it is like to run an exec campaign (a good one will have 5 people working for them)...and so they are pretty much writing by-laws without knowing what happens in the real world. In the real world, when you have 200-300 people working on a campaign, it wouldn't be unusual to have (conservatively) 15 different minor infractions of the rules. Is this because the parties haven't tried to follow the rules? No, there is no reason, strategic or otherwise, for candidates or volunteers to intentionally break the rules (most of the time). Under that system though, 15 infractions disqualifies you roughly 4-5 times over. Are these intentional? Well, it depends, do you think that Cal-SERVE intentionally didn't write "titles for identification purposes only" on their flyers last year (they handed out the flyers for a couple hours, realized their mistake and stopped, resulting in one censure)? Do you think that Student Action intentionally posts over student group flyers and if so, why in the hell would they do that?

Nolo also makes another accusation - that enforcement of the rules favor independents. This is clearly not true. The independents are the ones that break the rules most often. Two cases in point, Dave Nabti (DQed in his first indy run) and Kris Primm. The balance has nothing to do with who wins or loses, it has to do with people f***ing up the process by filing charges for every minor infraction that occurs. Under a zero tolerance system, only those who don't campaign or campaign very little would ever get elected (they would be the only ones left standing). This doesn't favor party candidates over independents, it favors serious candidates over non-serious ones. I think a better system is one in which candidates who actually campaign (though sometimes imperfectly) are elected over ones that sit on their ass all day hoping the judicial council will pave the way for their victory.

Read what I wrote, "It isn't a perfect system, but it's a lot better than some of the alternatives." I stand by that. Of course the system should be changed to something different, but absent that there are other values which I believe are more important than zero-tolerance enforcement of the rules. A fully democratic government is one of those. And in this case, candidates shouldn't be disqualified from an election for a few honest mistakes by their staffs.

2002-04-16T18:26:00.000-07:00

I'm back. This election has been exceptionally boring. Pretty much everyone is getting along and I normally only post when I get see something stupid going on.

NoloFree has a post in which he accuses the three major (well, 1 major and 2 minor parties :)) of violating election by-laws by agreeing not to file charges against each other. The specific by-law states, "Obstructing an investigation by the Elections Council or the Attorney General." Apart from the debacle that occurred last year from parties making countless charges and countercharges, Nolo's argument is ridiculous on it's face.

First, private citizens are under no obligation to file a charge even when they know a violation of the law has occurred. What this means is that if you see someone smoking pot in your dorm, you don't have to turn them in. You also don't have to turn in your parents, brother, sister, friend or enemy for any crime or infraction. Imagine if we had to report the aforementioned everytime they were speeding or ran a stop sign. Second, people in the ASUC and generally are not required to cooperate with an investigation unless they have been ordered to by a judge or court. And even then they can plead the fifth. This doesn't mean they can lie or mislead investigators which is what the by-law refers to. Hopefully Nolo has never noticed any illegal activity which he hasn't reported because if he has, under his logic, he'll be going to jail for a long time.

What this agreement really says is two-fold. First, the election rules are dumb and all the parties know it. Why else would they all agree not to pursue charges? It's tacit acknowledgement that the rules really don't have much of an effect on the election. Second, they agree that it's almost impossible to run a large campaign without violating the by-laws. Imagine that you have 200-300 people trying to follow some pretty technical and sometimes hard to follow rules. Could you ensure that these people would never violate any of the rules? What if you tried really hard? Be honest and keep in mind that the campaign period is two weeks long and that informal campaigning can begin months before. Whenever a group of people is doing anything for thousands of hours on end often with little sleep, they are going to have a quite a few screw ups.

Of course this agreement means the balance which was destroyed last year has returned. The rules are there to prevent major problems, not to punish minor behavior. Parties try hard to follow the rules but they won't be tossed if they violate them by accident. They know that they cannot act with impunity. If the violations are systematic or they don't try to prevent them in the first place, the AG will probably come calling. If the punishment wasn't so harsh (disqualification), I would advocate zero tolerance (perhaps community service for by-law violators). It isn't a perfect system, but it's a lot better than some of the alternatives.

2002-04-11T21:38:00.000-07:00

New prime suspect in ASUCWATCH mystery: A post on the queer.berkeley.edu message board from April 3rd by Gabe Green appears to have almost the exact same language as the ASUCWatch ad in the Daily Cal on 4/9. Strangly the post has been deleted. What is the extent of the involvement of Queer Council? It would be especially interesting to see if they used ASUC funds or Daily Cal ad credits to purchase the ad, since it is doubtful that an individual would put up $600 of their own money for an ad. If this can be tied to Peter Gee or any other ASUCers, it could spell trouble for those involved. CalASUC will be watching this story to uncover the conspiracy.

2002-04-09T18:52:00.000-07:00

Very long diatribe against Student Action in today's paper. I'm a little suprised that someone would spend $600+ to put an ad in the Daily Cal about SA. Most of the facts are true, but the conclusions drawn are flawed. For instance, the ad talks about how SA was against spending limits then draws the conclusion that the reason for the opposition was that SA wouldn't be able to funnel money to it's groups. First, the spending limits are for something like $10k which the Senate has only allocated once in the last two years, so the reform is pretty meaningless. Second, there is this assumption that Student Action gets votes by giving out money which isn't really true. Student Action gets votes by drawing candidates from a wide range of communities and then having a unified organization. Student Action was also sweeping elections long before the offices began to recruit mega interns. This is the typical tact though, if Student Action opposes it, it isn't because they have a legit reason, it is because they are grasping to hold onto power. The reforms mentioned are so meaningless that Student Action probably should have supported them just to deflect criticism instead of making principled stands. After all, in this ASUC anything with the stamp of reform is good no matter what the underlying issue is or how bad the proposed solution.

They also dredge up the 35k for coops thing which is sorta bogus because it was plainly unintentional. But it does raise a good point about parties taking credit for any project they are even remotely involved in. Of course they fail to mention how the other parties do it too.

The really funny thing about the conclusions drawn are that if they are true, then Student Action is the most feckless political machine the history of mankind. If the Student Action calculation is that they will only do what is in the best interest of getting re-elected, then how many missteps can we count? Well, first off, pissing off the campus newspaper is probably not a good move...

In reality, the reason Student Action often takes a different view from most others in the ASUC is that it has the most institutional memory and knowledge of any party. While the other parties are on this mutual masterbation fest of reform, Student Action actually thinks about these issues and the real effects they will have and talks to people who were involved in the ASUC years ago. And then people in the other parties complain the no one has any institutional memory. Does this mean that Student Action never makes a calculation related to its elections prospects? No, but they are very few and almost always related to elections by-laws which everyone has a purely political stake in. A party with the electoral strength of SA doesn't really have to worry much about political calculation, and, in my opinion, has been able to concentrate a lot more on the issues than on politics.

That said, please email me if you know who this guy is. calacuc@yahoo.com

2002-04-09T11:20:00.000-07:00

The big news is the Salam Rafeedie wasn't endorsed. If there was a credible alternative she would probably lose. But there isn't, so she'll probably squeek by unless less than 50% of the voters pick her.

2002-04-09T11:12:00.000-07:00

The Daily Cal endoresement are out. Big suprise, no Student Action candidates are endorsed. They are even sort of honest about why they didn't endorse Jesse Gabriel, "His grasp of the issues is sound, but his loyalty to his party exceeds his loyalty to the student body." In other words, we don't want a President who we think will want to kick us out of Eshleman (who knows if he does or not). The Daily Cal over the past few years has a record of less than 1/3 of their endorsees getting elected, which is pretty much less than random guessing. Given the way the Daily Cal has been able to manage their own finances (they are in major financial trouble), their inaccurate reporting and the esteem with which most of the campus hold them (for various reasons) the Daily Cal endorsements don't really mean much.

2002-04-08T12:38:00.000-07:00

http://www.readsatellite.com/culture/culturelogo.gif

2002-04-08T00:21:00.000-07:00

Brilliant column as usual from Bryan Ritchie. He faults the ASUC for Eshleman Hall not being seismically sound, when the ASUC plays almost no role in the issue. Seismic retrofitting / rebuilding is handled by the University, thank The Lord.

Here is a quote, "More generally, however, it is a slap in the face that the main building on campus allocated for student use is one of the most dilapidated and dangerous buildings on campus. If a major earthquake struck during the weekly ASUC Senate meeting (perish the thought), there is a chance many wouldn't survive, effectively compromising our student government."

I doubt that many people would be concerned about a compromised student government if a major earthquake struck. People would be too busy helping to dig people out and making sure that there was adequate food and water to go around. Bryan's humor about the potential death of ASUC officials doesn't really strike me as funny since it isn't that unlikely if a major quake struck the San Andreas fault running under Memorial Stadium. Of course, then we would have lots of other things to worry about...like how we could get the Daily Cal up and running so their poorly written and researched stories could be picked up nationwide.

2002-04-07T17:35:00.000-07:00

Nolo reports that Student Advocate to be Salam Rafeedie "compared Zionists to murderers, rapists and thieves." And further reports that "according to Kevin "CalStuff" Deenihan, Salam was talking about how she would represent all students fairly, which is where the comparison came in."

Sure, one defends murderers, rapists and thieves, but does one associate with them or hire and promote them within an office? Yet another window into the soul of our future Student Advocate. Don't be suprised when staff considered to be zionists aren't working in SAO after Salam officially takes office.

2002-04-07T17:30:00.000-07:00

SQUID an agent of the Satellite?: The mass email from SQUID along with flyers denouncing Student Action may be the work of agents of the Satellite. Clues, #1 Last summer, the Satellite used a Squid as a logo on it's website masthead, #2 It is well known that Satellite peeps harbor a grudge against SA. More are detailed in this post on the Satellite message board.. It doesn't seem out of the question that Satelliteers would pursue such an undertaking, but links between the spammer, Nathan Boley, and Satellite have not been found.

2002-04-05T17:38:00.000-08:00

Angry Clam doesn't know a whole lot about the ASUC, so when he writes about it, it reads a lot like historical fiction. A Student Action member was the one who originally called for funding BCR when it was not funded. Various Student Action officials have continued to lobby and get more funding for BCR. If Angry Clam thinks that people in SA look to Joe Henchman for advise on how to vote, he should probably change his name to the Idiotic Clam. Facts are facts, the FiComm chair is responsible for proposing the budget (this is not an open debate). Every draft budget that Student Action officials have proposed has included a generous increase in funding for BCR. To prove his stupidity, Angry Clam claims that BCR used to receive about a quarter of the funding of Cal Dems. Nothing could be further from the truth. BCR began receiving funding soon after court decisions allowed it and one year before Cal Dems. BCR funding has always been equal to or greater than Cal Dems funding (even before the Hench was on campus). Angry Clam is off in his own little world on this one, someone needs to buy him a clue.

2002-04-05T14:19:00.000-08:00

I have to take exception to AG Mario calling the Apple Jello Wrestling flyer unethical. Why is it the AG's job to comment on flyers that even he agrees are legal? The AG is not the watchdog of ASUC elections, his job is to uphold the rules. If he thinks there is a violation, he should file a charge, otherwise shut up about it. This is the kind of thing that has been happening to Student Action for years, and it needs to end. Elections should be decided by voters without comment or interference from overeager government officials.

2002-04-05T14:08:00.000-08:00

One of the reasons I am back is to expose Angry Clam. I wrote the following letter to him in regards to his endorsement of Joe Henchman:

Dear Angry Clam,

Your assertion that Joe Henchman was instrumental in bringing BCR in line with Cal Dems funding is laughable. First, BCR never received less than Cal Dems. Second, Mr. Henchman was a chief of staff to a Senator who wielded no power at all. Third, it was members of the Student Action Party that put BCR on the path to ASUC funding and that have pushed for their funding (funding that SA members argued should be higher than Cal Dems) from the very beginning. Student Action members have chaired FiComm for the past several years and have included large increases for BCR every year in their draft budgets. The one exceptional year was when Ivan Jen requested a very low amount thereby precluding the ASUC from funding them any higher than the amount requested.

On this issue, I believe that Joe Henchman has fooled you as he has other groups. Henchman preys on the ignorance of student groups and tells every group he ever visits that he is fighting for their funding. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Joan SAPPLESERVE

After we each sent one reply, he wrote the following:

Don't have to, I'm not interested in SA propaganda. Furthermore I don't particularly care if I'm accurate or not. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a propagandist and a pundit. My site is for my views, and, while I do occasionally run letters, publishing is at my discretion and I loathe SA so much that I honestly don't care if I lie about them or not.

--
Apparently Rory feels the need to be a pundit and a propagandist, but does not feel the need hold himself to any ethical standard. So remember, you heard it here first, Angry Clam doesn't care if he lies, so take him with a grain of salt.

2002-04-05T14:01:00.000-08:00

I'm back... after reading all the mindless drivel that passes as ASUC blogging, I'm back to protect truth, justice and the American way.