Calstuff
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 Week
by Jason Overman
Search

Powered by:
Contact
Email Calstuff
FaceBook CalStuff!
Allen L.
 About
 E-mail
 IM
Andy R.
 About
 E-mail
 IM
Ben N.
 About
 E-mail
 IM
Cooper N.

 About
 E-mail
 IM
Syndication
Site Feed (ATOM)
Comments Feed
Add to LJ Friends

Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Subscribe with Bloglines
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
# posted by Kevin @ 5:20 PM

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!

Home
Advertisements
Advertising Policy

Place an Ad on Calstuff



Get Firefox!

Cal Magazines
Heuristic Squelch
Humor Mag
California Patriot
Conservative
Hardboiled
Lefty/Asian mag.
Bezerk
Comics Mag
In Passing
Bloggish
Cal Newsites
Daily Californian
Student 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

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com