Here's the Daily Cal's account of the upcoming 54 lawsuits.

Lets look at this strategically and legally, to the best of my understanding. Unfortunately, I'm no lawyer.

The Graduate Assembly is looking to achieve two goals. The first is to institute the legality of its political spending. The second is to prevent the Chancellor from instituting oversights and such over GA/ASUC spending.

As I've already gone over, I believe that the GA actually has a strong case to have their spending approved. This stands on a couple of reasons. The first is that organizations have basically free rein to spend however they want, so long as there is a refund mechanism and equal funds available to opposing groups. The second is that Governments do have the right to engage in lobbying on student matters. 54 did have a lot of application to student matters. So the University would have to prove that the GA is, first, an official student government, and two, that the spending is illegal. Mr. Kashmiri's enthusiasm aside, this is not a sure win for the GA, but it's pretty strong.

There are caveats. The same guidelines specifically order Governments to

However, an allocation to the same organization for purposes unrelated to the University's legitimate purposes (for example, an allocation specifically earmarked for direct financial support of a particular political party, candidate or election campaign) would be impermissible.

You can tell how strong it is by how the University refused to block it. If it's illegal, they have to block it. Why would the University give a 'do-over' for $35,000 in illegal funding? Unlikely

But here's where the second goal is, and where the strategic element comes into play. What the Graduate Assembly has consistently refused to consider is the Chancellor's ability to go Nuclear. Here's the relevant passages:

Chancellors are responsible for the fiscal soundness of student governments. In the discharge of this responsibility, Chancellors may make audits of the finances of student governments, exercise control over expenditures of their funds when and to the extent necessary to maintain financial solvency of student governments, and where necessary may take action to ensure that any activity under control of student governments is operated in accordance with sound business practices consonant with University policies and procedures applicable to such practices.

There's also

Chancellors have authority to authorize or discontinue student governments as official units of the University of California, responsible for representing student constituencies comprising either the student body as a whole or particular segments of it. Chancellors may also assign to such student governments specified powers and other responsibilities concerning student affairs.

This gives wide-ranging powers to the Chancellor, rights that do not appear to be constrained by anything else in University policy. Even should the GA win this case to allow their spending, there appears to be little constraining the Chancellor from taking punitive actions: removing powers, cutting funding, and anything else that he might desire. Or to take the ultimate step: making student group fund assignation belong to some University-controlled Committee. How could anyone stop him? A lawsuit on free speech grounds? Possible, but the Chancellor could also argue that the recent state of the ASUC's finances are awful enough to merit a University takeover. The GA is already unclear on how they seek to overturn the University's move to tighten controls on funding. On what grounds? As the GA's press release notes, the ASUC Auxiliary already exists, establishing that the University is entitled to funding oversight. I dunno.

So the GA appears to be making a bet that the Chancellor doesn't have the balls to go nuclear-- or that if he does, they'll be able to block this on Free Speech grounds, or on the Memoranda of Understanding. And they're also betting that negotiations will bear fruit if enough pressure is behind the University accepting the GA's demands. It's a workable strategy, but a dangerous game, with very high stakes should the GA lose.

It makes me the most uncomfortable that the GA is effectively using the ASUC's funding as a pawn in this game. Should the GA lose, it's the ASUC that will feel the brunt of it, with loss of fee access or funding oversights. It's the ASUC that's already feeling the brunt of it. That the ASUC and GA leadership are virtually indistinguishable doesn't mean that the ASUC shouldn't disassociate itself from this. CalSERVE should hedge their bets. Make it clear that the ASUC is entirely separate from this in order to ensure that the ASUC will not bear the brunt of University wrath should the worst-case scenario occur. It won't hurt the GA's legal case or negotiations, and will provide a fallback should the GA lose. No loss and considerable gain.

It also makes me worry that the Graduate Assembly is so confident of victory. Perhaps it's just a show of confidence for the press, but Mr. Kashmiri has never admitted the possibility of defeat. This is not sound strategy. With stakes like these, it's vital to have backup plans for worst case scenarios and to adequately assess the stakes, EG, protecting the ASUC's independence outside of the GA's plans. Presumably the GA's legal team has done this, and I'm not privy to it. Email This Post!