Don't mess this up!
-Kevin Deenihan, Emeritus Home Archive Extended Help CalStuff! Disclaimer: Calstuff and/or the opinions expressed are not affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley. Recent Guest Posts
Tenants' Rights Weekby Jason Overman Search Powered by: Contact
FaceBook CalStuff! Allen L. About IM Andy R. About IM Ben N. About IM Cooper N. About IM Syndication
Site Feed (ATOM)
Comments Feed Add to LJ Friends Berkeley Blogs
CalJunket With humor. Cal Patriot Blog Conservative Blog UC Berkeley Livejournal Discussion Forum California Patriot Watch Self Explanatory Brad DeLong Econ Prof The Bird House Cal Prof on everything Cal Politik Rants & Raves Beetle Beat Full Time Whiner "Frat" Life Cal "Frat" Boy Cal Tzedek Jewish Students Blog Personal as Public
Soft Boiled Life Hilariously Un-PC. Cal Alumni/ Squelch Blogs
Kedstuff Remember him? I Fought the Law Optimus Primed Zembla With Cuteness Ne Quid Nimis With Photography |
Monday, October 06, 2003
GA: A New Hope
Have I been looking at the GA/ASUC's tactics the wrong way this entire time? I've been preceding on the assumption that there was no way the UC Administration was going to allow the no-on-54 reimbursements. Maybe I'm wrong! Word on the street is that they're still considering whether or not to allow it. (Same source tells me the amount needing reimbursement is in the 'thousands.') The crux of the matter is the UC regulations on student governments. They're not entirely against this spending. Essentially, students are allowed to lobby against political matters of an educational nature. But when I say they're 'not entirely against it,' what I mean is that they're a hopeless mess of interpretations. Some lobbying is allowed. But it needs to be educational. And viewpoint neutral. And it can't be political. Heck, it even looks like if 54 was a bill in the legislature it'd be more legal to lobby against it then the proposition version. Why should that be? Go through it yourself... nothing is clear. Anyway, the sum of this is that you could plausibly argue for or against the anti-54 spending. On balance, it leans against the spending, especially because of the vague nature of where the money actually went and the more-illegal fact of Eshleman being used to lobby against 54.... but this is not the point! The point is that if UC declares that the regulations DO protect the GA/ASUC spending, they can probably get away with it! That might be why the ASUC/GA has been so zealously compiling those Court decisions-- if UC declares that the spending is legal under their guidelines, all of them become a lot more applicable. Then all you have to worry about is a possible PLF lawsuit, which can probably be fended off with some adroit rebranding of the GA as more of a student group then a government and labeling 54 as a threat to Graduate Student research needs. It would probably work! Not only that, but you get the added bonus of having the University acknowledge that this kind of politicized spending is basically fine. Is this what the ASUC/GA has been pushing for behind the scenes this entire time? It's the only way that their actions make sense to me. Email This Post! |
Advertisements
Cal Magazines
Heuristic Squelch Humor Mag California Patriot Conservative Hardboiled Lefty/Asian mag. Bezerk Comics Mag In Passing Bloggish Cal Newsites
Daily CalifornianStudent Newspaper Daily Planet City Newspaper Berkeleyan Faculty/Staff news Newscenter Administrative Announcements Indybay Hard Left News East Bay Express Alt-weekly Cal Other
UC Rally Committee Stand nineteen feet tall! Be united! Be tough! Be proud! CyberBears GO BEARS! ASUC Cal's Student government One Cal's Student Portal Berkeley Bookswap Good Deals |