Guess ASUC Election Results

I am holding a contest to see who can most accurately guess the results of the Spring 2004 ASUC Elections. Only entries for executive offices will be accepted.

Results will be tabulated on Tuesday @ 7pm, so please e-mail all entries to me before then. Be sure to include your name in the e-mail.
Winner gets his name mentioned on CalStuff and all of the glory that comes associated with such a distinction. Also, perhaps some sort of monetary award or dinner at IB's can be fundraised... No promises about that though!

Here are my two cents:

President: Jake
EVP: Christine
ExVP: Pammy
AAVP: Rocky
SA: Dave

All four of the new CalStuff gang are up for election to the all powerful Senate positions. Best of luck to my fellow correspondents!Email This Post!

Black Berkeley Enrollment Decreasing
KTVU has quite an interesting article on minorities (specifically African-Americans) at Berkeley. The article is headlined, "African-American Admissions Drop Dramatically At UC Berkeley". Here are the details from the article:

This fall, being black at Berkeley is likely to become even more of an anomaly. As of late spring, 98 black students had registered for fall enrollment out of an expected class of 3,821...

What is even more interesting that the decline in blacks at Berkeley, is the reaction of some of the people quoted in the article. Here are a couple of quotations from people of note:

Renita Chaney: [CalSERVE Presidential Candidate]
Fewer black students mean fewer people to call on for help on community issues, says Chaney. Still, she'd be reluctant to encourage black freshmen to attend this fall unless they're looking for a challenging environment.

"If it's activism or some kind of fight they're looking for, then come here. But if education is what they're looking for, then don't come here," she said.

Ward Connerly: [UC Regent]
Don't go there thinking, 'I'm going to be looking around for other black kids,"' says Ward Connerly, a part-black UC regent who led the fight to drop race-based admissions. "Go there and recognize that it's going to be one of the greatest experiences of your life. You're there to meet new people. You're there to learn. You're not there to engage in this racial, 'Mirror, mirror on the wall' kind of thing."

Of these two viewpoints, I find myself agreeing much more with Connerly. There is a certain delicious level of irony in the executive director of the Black Recruitment and Retention Center telling blacks not to come to Berkeley.

If this year's results do speak to a trend, then it is a regrettable one. Ideally, colleges across the nation should model the diversity of the population. This is not diversity for the sake of diversity. I just mean that people of all ethnicities should be receiving an equal pre-college education, and hence attending college in roughly equal numbers. There is something occurring that is leading to less and less black students being accepted into UC Berkeley. It should be a goal to figure out where the problem lies, and attempt to come up with a solution.

I have heard nothing about the "multicultural center" to be opening soon on campus, according to the article. I'm curious what role an institution like that can play in reaching out to minority students. Email This Post!

Election Results to be Tabulated on Tuesday

That's the word coming out of the signatories meeting today. No news yet on the suits I filed.

If election results are tabulated on Tuesday, I will probably withdraw both of my suits. Hopefully the J-Council will clear up some of the information I have been getting with a timely e-mail.Email This Post!

Like ASUC elections, except more pathetic

The wonders of Cal bureaucracy have risen to new heights…

Anybody here remember that thing about this being Chancellor Robert Berdahl’s last year here? Well, it turns out that Bobby B. was President Primm’s motivation for the ASUC Enabling Act leading to term extensions. The SF Chronicle is reporting that UC officials are months behind on the selection procedure schedule, and that Berdahl is preparing to stay on in his position beyond the previously agreed terms for as long as he is needed.

Maybe the computers that the UC officials are supposed to be voting on keep crashing at inopportune times… or maybe the League of Women Voters is dragging its feet on the independent collection and tabulation of all the votes…

I guess the question that has to be asked is that why, even given the large number of applicants for the job, has this process taken so long? The selection committee was named in January, and a successor was supposed to have been named in April. Meanwhile, the proceedings have been kept so secretive that no one knows how far behind the selection committee is, nor does anyone have a definitive timeframe for the new selection.
Email This Post!

Meeting Thursday to Help Resolve Election Stalemate
Potentially some headway in releasing election results will be occurring tomorrow. An executive candidate for a major party confirmed that there will be a meeting on Thursday with the parties, the judicial council (possibly), the ASUC lawyer, and possibly a lawyer for DAAP.

The goal of the meeting is to try to come up with an agreement so that votes can be counted. One way to help make headway at the moment might be to only count some of the votes. Potentially, the executive votes only would be tabulated and the executive officers could be announced, while saving the senate results until all legal issues have been finalized. More on this after the meeting. Some results could be out as early as Friday, if not soon after.

P.S. I realize that CalStuff has seemed kind of like ASUCStuff at the moment. The ASUC elections are big news at the moment, but there will be plenty of other non-ASUC news being reported over the summer, so check back often. Also, once the election results are out, then we can all go back to blissfully ignoring the ASUC throughout the year. Email This Post!

Long Promised Site Updates Coming
There have been rumors swirling around about some updates to CalStuff (and by rumors, I mean I have mentioned it previously.). Consider your hard-working CalStuff staff slaving away to make all the needed updates and changes. We will be working to update the sidebar and add more links, publishing contact information and introductions for all us new guys, and creating a bunch of other good stuff. There also might be a shift to the use of the blogspot based commenting system. (Anyone with any experience with that commenting system compared with what we are using now, let me know which you prefer.)

The reason I am informing you, our readers, about this, is that CalStuff might be temporarily unavailable over the next couple of days. (Although, this is actually rather unlikely.) This is also your chance to make any suggestions in the comments about anything you wanted changed/added/deleted. On the other hand, we reserve the right not only to completely ignore what you have to say, but to actually do the exact opposite.

CalStuff 2.0, coming soon...!
Email This Post!

Continuing backlash of the Berkeley Intifada

The East Bay Express Article about Berkeley’s “overwhelming anti-Semitism” continues to get attention nationallyas well as locally, though not much of the attention it is getting has anything to do with the article.

Now, I think I may have jumped to some conclusions on the article. At first, I didn't think the article hit its mark, which was to portray show that Berkeley is an anti-Semitic campus. But the truth of the matter is that the intention of the article was to instigate pointless and bigoted arguments about everything that is remotely related to Israel/Palestine, which it has.

Now, just for any doubters of you, Berkeley is NOT an anti-Semitic campus or area. Examples that destroy any arguments to the contrary presented in the story:

- Only extremist campus groups are mentioned in the story. Moderate groups were never interviewed, or were hardly mentioned.
- With the exception of the Daniel Pipes protest, extremist activity by SJP and other anti-Zionist groups is decreasing since the heyday of 2002. In fact, at one of the last SJP rallies of the year, there were maybe two dozen students or so. Definitely a show of support from the student community.
- Most on-campus protestors for the Palestinian cause are not students on campus. Kind of like LaRouche tablers.
- If the UC Berkeley campus is anti-Semitic, how can oppressed students like Daniel Frankenstein and Jesse Gabriel, two students mentioned in the article, rise to such prominence in the ASUC and other campus organizations?
- The administration has been nothing but supportive and protective of the Jewish community on campus, bringing in special speakers and professors to please this particular community.
- Micki Weinberg, the victim in the East Bay Express story, ran for Berkeley City Council and nearly beat a strong incumbent in the overwhelmingly liberal South Berkeley area.

And, to destroy any “next step” in this process, Berkeley is DEFINITIELY NOT an anti-Palestine or anti-Muslim campus either.

- The Berkeley Middle Eastern Studies Department is one of the finest and heaviest-funded in the country, and is overwhelmingly pro-Palestine
- SJP and similar groups have gotten away with murder on this campus, particularly with the conviction-free lockdown of Wheeler Hall a couple years ago.
- SJP rallies can bring more attention and people than the majority of the other groups on campus, and Muslim/pro-Palestine groups are often among the largest on campus.

It’s impossible to say that feelings pro/anti-Zionist to any extent don’t exist on campus. Obviously, in a student body with 32,000 people, there are going to be closed-minded individuals who are racist, prejudiced, etc. But this stance is not prevalent or institutionalized. So, in conclusion, the East Bay Express article is blatant yellow journalism, and we all just need to stop giving it the attention we are giving it.

Thanks to correspondent KD for contributing to this entry.
Email This Post!

Two New Suits Filed with J-Council

I filed two election’s related suits recently with the J-Council.

The first is against the Elections Council and it argues that they are violating Article II.I.A of the ASUC Constitution by not tabulating the votes of the election.

The Constitution clearly states that executive officers must be sworn in by the start of summer sessions, which falls on May 24th of this year. Title 4 Article16.1 of the Association’s by-laws is preventing that swearing-in from happening. We are asking that the by-law be declared null and void and that a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the Elections Council to the tabulate the votes of the spring election of April 2004 at the earliest possible moment before the deadline.

I filed this suit on behalf of my party, BEARS-United.

The second suit I filed on my own and it is against the current Executives Officers, and in particular Kris Primm for the Executive Order he issued extending his own term and the terms of his fellow execs.

1. Article II.II.C of the Constitution permits the President of the Association to issue Executive Orders for the purpose of taking “actions which are urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the A. S.U.C. until the Senate can again meet.”

However, Article II.II.C does not permit the President of the Association to issue Executive Orders that violate the Constitution itself.

This past Saturday May 22nd, 2004 the President of the Association issued an Executive Order, Executive Order # 4, that extended the term of his office and the terms of the other executive officers of the Association until such a time when new officers are ready to be sworn in.

The President’s Executive Order violates Article II.I.A of the ASUC Constitution, which states that executive officers of the Association are to be elected during the spring semester and are to begin their terms on the first day of summer sessions following that election.

2. Article I.III of the ASUC Constitution states that in orders for members of the Association to retain their offices they must be registered students of the University. And while that requirement is loosened for the summer semester, the constitution explicitly states that if officers of the Association are to retain their positions over the summer semester they must intend to be registered students for the following Fall Semester.

The defendants in the case, the current officers of the Association, except for Student Advocate Madan have graduated from the University and do not intend to be registered students during the fall semester.

The President of the Association issued an unconstitutional executive order extending the term of his office and the terms of the other executives. If these officers are allowed to serve during the summer semester they will be in violation of Article I.III and should thus be immediately ordered to vacate their offices.

I asked the council to issue an emergency preliminary injunction for this one, I should know sometime soon if that request has been approved.

BEARS-United v. Elections Council.doc
Me v. Exec Officers.docEmail This Post!

ASUC to Subsidize OSL?
A week ago I reported that the Office of Student Life (permalinks fixed!) will be charging 40 dollars per student group to register with OSL. The Daily Cal followed up with an article giving more details on the increase, which contained this interesting nugget of information:

First-year student groups currently receive $200 in ASUC funding to cover start-up costs, [ASUC Executive Vice President Taina] Gomez said. But some of that money may end up covering the new registration fee instead of helping organizations pay for supplies, she said.

This brings to mind a couple of interesting questions:
*Do I really get 200 dollars of ASUC money just for getting three other signatories and starting a student group? And can I start more than one group... more than ten?
*What is to prevent student groups from disbanding every year and reforming with a new name to get the 200 dollars every year? (The Students for Democratic Reforms in Zimbabwe, to make up a club, could become the Democracy in Zimbabwe Club the next year, and then Students Supporting Zimbabwean Democracy, to keep getting that 200 dollars.)
*There are over 800 groups currently recognized by OSL. How many of those are getting ASUC funding at the moment? How many are getting more than 40 dollars?
*Does the creation of these new fees by OSL mean that student groups are going to be getting the 40 dollars from the ASUC and then just passing it on to OSL? Seems like it would be easier for OSL just to send the ASUC a request for however much they need to cover up their budget shortfall. Or, what about the University itself? Allowing for student groups to flourish (including through providing sufficient funding for OSL) should be the campus administrations highest priority. There must be some spare change lying around somewhere to throw at OSL.
*What does OSL need this roughly 30,000 dollars for? (800 groups times 40 dollars per group) Was their budget cut, or are they planning on increased costs for next year?
* Do student groups want all these new services being provided for them? From the Daily Cal article:

This year it increased services to groups by adding leadership workshops and online leadership resources.

Next year the office plans to increase their support in event planning and group development. The office also plans to launch a fully automated reservation system, which will give students the ability to complete administrative tasks online, [Marcia Gee Riley, director of Student Group Advising] said.

Are OSL groups actually going to these workshops and using these services, or is this just an example of useless school bureaucracy expanding for the sake of expanding, without providing student what they want? Personally, I'd prefer the minimal OSL services necessary (assisting in booking campus classrooms, but not leadership workshops, for instance) in exchange for being to start a student group for free. What about the rest of the clubs on campus? Anyone know what the sentiment is on this?

Anyone with answers to any of these questions, speak up in the comments.


Email This Post!

Berkeley in the News

For those of you who have had your fill of ASUC Election stories, and find yourselves with free time since our comment sections are temporarily down, here are two articles you may find interesting:

There’s an article in the latest East Bay Express with the headline "Berkeley Intifada", claiming that the pro-Palestinian presence on campus is evidence that the tradition of tolerance is lost at Berkeley. The only problem is that that is a complete contradiction; the fact that there is such a large and active pro-Israel group on campus proves that there is both tolerance and equality of opportunity for both groups. Wait – that isn't the only problem in the article. Neither the pro-Palestine or pro-Israel groups are represented fairly or accurately, the inflammatory nature of the writing is painfully obvious, and it unjustly paints Berkeley in an extremely poor light. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The article does feature interviews from several prominent Jewish leaders on campus, including Daniel Frankenstein and Jesse Gabriel. It’s worth a read-through.

Also, check out this article by Haas Dean Tom Campbell, a former five-term Republican state senator, in today’s Los Angeles Times. He attacks the USA PATRIOT Act in defense of the motion, unanimously passed by the UC Berkeley Faculty Senate last week, taking a stand against it and any future enforcement of it on campus. I can understand anyone condemning the Patriot Act, but kudos to an outspoken Republican for doing so.
Email This Post!

DAAP's case against the Judicial Council has been assigned to Judge Maxine M. Chesney, a Clinton appointee and former prosecutor, of the U.S. District Court of Northern California. She's a Cal almuna ('64) and a Boalt graduate ('67), as well.

Her docket appears here, dated to June 2nd, with no mention of DAAP's case. Those election results are looking even further off...

Thanks to CalStuff correspondent AC.Email This Post!

Comments are down because enetation won't let us delete some of them. This has nothing to do with DAAP's use of the comments as evidence in their appeal.Email This Post!

DAAP Files J-Council Appeal, Election Results Delayed Yet Again

Update: DAAP's appeal has been rejected by the J-Council. But the council has agreed to re-hear DAAP's case this Saturday at 4pm.

This one ought to be very entertaining and full of awkward offensive moments. DAAP's appeal, among other things, charges Chair Mike Davis with assuming "supernatural powers." They also charge, several times, that since they are students of color they were wrongfully persecuted.

An entire slate of the most outspoken representatives of minority students has been thrown out of the student government election. The aim of the attack has been to limit the political power of minority students at Cal. (The disqualification has already had a substantial negative impact on the racial climate on campus as the attached internet chatroom discussion indicates.)

Calstuff aficionados and fans will be happy to note that the attached internet chatroom is none other than the comments section from our post about DAAP's disqualification. Some of the comments they cite as evidence though are by people, such as Angry Clam, who are no longer on campus.

This will probably push back election results another week because DAAP is not allowing the results to be counted while they are still in appeal. Will anyone be around next week to hear the results?

More Analysis on the Appeal Forthcoming...

DAAP Appeal.doc
Appeal Rejection.docEmail This Post!

Daily Cal Returns
The Daily Cal website is back online. You can now read their article on the tragic death of History Professor Reginald Zelnik. Email This Post!

Emergency Service Vehicles at Evans Today
I got a report that there were fire trucks and ambulance at Evans around 12:30 today. Does anyone know what was going on or what they were responding to? E-mail me at andoatnp@hotmail.com, or drop a line in the comments if you know what happened.

*Update* The word from multiple sources is that apparently nothing happened. [If, on the other hand, there was something going on that I am just unaware of, then shoot me a line.] Email This Post!

Another update:

The two rumors are really one and the same, where "on Hearst" means "near Hearst (field or gym)". In any event, there was only the one accident on campus yesterday, and that was the one that took the life of Dr. Zelnik, a very esteemed professor in the history department here. Dr. Zelnik was one of the leading authorities of Soviet Russian history, as well as a key figure in the Free Speech Movement. The staff of CalStuff offers its condolences to his friends and family.

Oakland Tribune Article
UC Berkeley NewsCenter Article

There are some questions that are left unanswered in these stories. Are there going to be criminal charges in this case? While a police presence is expected for an incident like this, there was a very large police contingent surrounding the area, and that would suggest that there may be criminal charges filed of some sort. It seems strange that a professor could be oblivious to a truck moving in reverse, especially with the reverse-warning beeps that all of these trucks are supposed to have.

Even the Daily Californian article, while very raw, had some interesting facts. If you read the eyewitness accounts, it seems like the professor saw the truck coming at him (quickly?) and tried to brace himself before he was pulled under the truck. Then, the truck apparently ran over him a second time?

*** Breaking! ***

There were apparently two automobile accidents this afternoon in the Berkeley area.

The first one occurred, in the mid-afternoon on Hearst, apparently involved a large truck striking a professor from the history department. The professor sustained some substantial injuries, but is expected to recover. UPDATE: This didn't happen.
The second, and more breaking, story is that there seems to have been another accident, involving students, on campus in the South/Wheeler/Moses Hall area at approximately 6:50 PM. A heavy police presence prevented much in the way of collecting information, and further investigation was hindered by the information lockdown from the UCPD. A large number of medical personnel, as well as the use of gurneys, were confirmed by eyewitness reports. All of this suggests that there may have been fatalities, possibly students.

The accidents appear to be unrelated at this time. More details as they emerge.



Email This Post!

It could be worse…

It appears that the Judicial Council will have a clear case docket by Wednesday, and that the ASUC elections finally seem to be coming to a close, with results to be tabulated and released hopefully by Friday.

As wacky and crazy as they seem to be, the ASUC election and governing infrastructure really isn't so bad when compared to how some other campus governments are run.

For example, let's examine the UCLA elections, which are in process now with four weeks left in their last quarter. The party system there does not work effectively at all – the parties themselves are generally short lived with an extremely low institutional history, and are often extremely detrimental to the political process. There is no senate; only twelve students control the school and its budget to student groups, making the process much more subjective year-to-year as one group can (and has in the past) monopolize power quite easily.

The only thing UCLA does seem to do right is allow students to vote from their own computers, something our Senate (CalSERVE senators in particular) has dragged its feet on. It seems that Cal-SERVE is afraid of increasing voter turnout, speculating that the party has reached a ceiling as to party voter turnout, and increased accessibility to voting opportunities could theoretically hurt their power base.

Arguments against the possibility for fraud on home-based computers are moot in light of the many problems the Election Council has had in the last couple of years with inconsistent reliability and security loopholes that, while uninvestigated by our AG, definitely compromised the integrity of the election. So much for the progressives being the champions of efficient democracy.

As long as we're on the topic of elections, kudos to the Daily Cal for publishing one of the longest "Corrections" columns in the history of printed news. I’d link it, but yeah, the site is still down. Email This Post!

Former Elections Council Chair Tommaso over at CalJunket has created a "fun" new ASUC vote tabulation program and has graciously offered it for public consumption. The program has ballot and vote information loaded for the past three ASUC elections. For those of you nerds out there, like myself, you can play around with all of the results and attempt to re-create the outcomes of previous elections with strategic drops and so on. For some of us out there this will be a way to magically change the results of previous elections. Not happy with a certain Senator elected last year? Just drop him after the first place votes are counted!

Thanks to Kevin for the tip!Email This Post!

Koppel Speaks on Campus
For those interested, you can read a copy of the Commencement Address by ABC's Ted Koppel. Here are some of the more interesting parts:

The truth of it is that some of you were harboring uncharitable thoughts from the first moment you saw me. Some of you were thinking: "He's a lot shorter than I thought he was." While others among you are still trying to figure out if this is my real hair. Think about it. You're smart people. If it weren't real, don't you think I could afford to buy a better-looking rug than this?
...
Graduating classes, on occasions like these, are accustomed to hearing that you are remarkable … extraordinary; that the world, indeed, has never seen you like before. Horse manure! I am much more impressed by those among your parents and grandparents who risked their lives fleeing Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as boat-people; who, while speaking barely any English at all, worked at whatever jobs they could get to sustain and support you. They are the ones who maintained the discipline that kept you out of trouble and forced you to study.

My quotations aside, it really is a rather good speech, with its primary focus the war on Iraq and the challenges faced by our generation. I would encourage each of you to read it.

Email This Post!

Student Groups To Be Charged Next Year as OSL Budget Shrinks
A while ago I mentioned that the Office of Student Life was attempting to phase out Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, ostensibly to save money. A few days later the Daily Cal came out with an article expanding on the attempt to shut down Parli, as well as the broader threat to other student groups as OSL seeks to save money. (I'd provide links except the Daily Cal website is down and our links are bloggered.)

The story takes an interesting turn today, with my discovery of an e-mail in the Berkeley LiveJournal Community. Apparently OSL wants to start charging forty dollars per student group in order to register with OSL. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the e-mail at the moment, although I am doing my best to contact leaders of student groups to see if I can get a copy of it forwarded to me directly. Here is the e-mail in its entirety.

To all Signatories: (Please pass this e-mail on to your new leadership for
the Fall 2004 semester. Thank you.)

The Office of Student Life will be implementing a $40 annual fee for
recognized student groups beginning Fall 2004. We regret that it is
necessary to initiate this charge at a time when students are feeling
increased financial constraints. However, due to the significant budget
crisis, this fee is necessary in order to continue our services as well as
improve and develop quality programs for student groups at CAL. We have
researched similar institutions within the UC system to determine
alternatives and have found such a fee to be a standard practice at other
Universities. We hope that you will take this opportunity to fully utilize
our services.

This year, the office has implemented a variety of new services including
leadership workshops and on-line leadership resources. During the coming
year, groups will continue to have an assigned staff advisor and can expect
to see increased support on event planning and group development from staff
advisors and student peer advisors. Over the past year, OSL has been
committed to developing additional resources and opportunities for student
leaders, all of which will be advertised in the Fall semester.

You will receive more information regarding details on recognition prior to
the Fall semester. If you have questions, please email
studentlife@berkeley.edu or stop by 102
Sproul Hall between 10am-3pm this summer.

Marcia Gee Riley
Director of Student Group Advising
Office of Student Life
102 Sproul Hall

Susan ten Bosch Paull
Student Affairs Officer
Office of Student Life
University of California, Berkeley
102 Sproul Hall, #2430
Berkeley, CA 94720-2430
Tel: (510) 642-1448 * FAX: (510) 642-1672
E-Mail: tenbosch@berkeley.edu
Hours: 8 AM - 4 PM; Monday & Wednesday - Friday

*update* I added some information I left off the letter when it was originally posted, and reworded the title so it is more clear.

P.S. More to come...Email This Post!

Potpourri

Contrary to popular belief, there is more going on right now at Berkeley than the ASUC elections and the Angry Clam/JonP debates raging like a fresh case of herpes in the Calstuff message boards. A few small gems for those of you interested in other aspects of Cal:

Dailycal.org down

That's right, the Daily Californian website is down. Just goes to show that CalStuff is a more dependable news source.

The UC budget deal

See the previous post. Thanks for the update, Andy.

University Medallist Announced

Ann Chia-Chow, a MCB/Economics double major, is the 2004 University Medal recipient. There has been some controversy over the decision this year, not unexpected due to the caliber of all students nominated. However, there has been a small uproar in isolated groups over Chia-Chow’s selection over Jesse Gabriel, the former ASUC President.

With a cursory glance, one might have reason to question the judgment of the selection board. Gabriel has a 4.0 GPA (higher than his opponents), was president of an organization with a $1.6+ million budget, and has been very involved with many prominent student groups on campus. In fact, some students have raised questions as to whether Gabriel’s strong Zionist stance might have influenced the decision process.

Personally, I think this conclusion is a bit of a stretch. As much credit as I give the political science major, an Econ/MCB program is probably much more difficult, and a few hundredths of a point in this instance isn’t really significant. Gabriel’s activities in extracurricular groups have also not been as strong in his senior year than those of Chia-Chow, whose influence and activities have continued to expand. Finally, Gabriel is not as “squeaky-clean” as Chia-Chow appears to be. His ASUC president term was somewhat lackluster (as many often are… the president’s powers are extremely limited), and there has been growing resentment against him in some of his own groups. The University Medal is generally awarded to blatant over-achievers, and Ann Chia-Chow definitely qualifies. Congrats to her.

Cal Football #1! (or #12, at least)

Cal Football has been getting a lot of hype for the upcoming season. Here’s where some of the top nation-wide preseason polls have us ranked.

SI.com - #15
Athlon Sports - #14
ESPN.com - #12

Looking forward to another great year of sneaking alcohol into the home games. Go Bears!

Finals start Friday

That’s right, it’s already time again. Good luck to all of you who read this that are still attending undergraduate classes.

Email This Post!

Budget Cuts Announced for UC/CSU Schools
Big news out about the state budget and UC funding. Apparently Governor Schwarzenegger and University officials have been (secretly?) negotiating on a budget proposal. Here are the details, from the LA Times story on the proposed deal:

• “steep one-time spending cut in the fiscal year starting July 1”
  
• ”the governor would restore some of the $33 million used to recruit students from disadvantaged backgrounds — retreating from plans to do away with such outreach programs”
  
• ”graduate school fees would rise 20% — not 40% as the governor initially proposed”
  
• ”other student fees would climb an average of 10% a year over three years”
  
• “10% reductions in enrollment of new freshmen, saving the state nearly $25 million” followed by
  
• “beginning in 2005-06, the state would provide enough money to cover anticipated annual enrollment increases of about 2.5%”
  

This seems like a generally favorable deal for us students, or at least as good as we can expect in the current grim budget circumstances. Graduate students win big with a halving of their fee increase, undergraduates face a modest hike, and the real losers are the graduating high school seniors who are getting forced into community colleges because of the enrollment caps.

The University leadership involved seems thrilled with the deal, as evidenced by the UC press release containing quotations such as this from UC President Robert C. Dynes, ““I want to thank Gov. Schwarzenegger for his leadership, his support of higher education, and his recognition that these universities have a central role to play in creating the California of tomorrow.”

The major stumbling block to ratifying this deal is that the Democratic controlled state legislature is angry that they have been excluded from the process, and plans to "fight" the proposed deal. As long as Schwarzenegger has the support of UC/CSU administrators, then the legislature probably won’t be able to overturn his plans.
Email This Post!

Breaking...

*Anu Joshi DQ'd by J-Council, CalSERVE Escapes*

*CalSERVE Acquitted in SJP Case, 7-2 Majority.*

*Misha Acquitted in J-Council 3-3 Split Decision, Student Action Presidential Candidate Dodges Disqualification Bullet*

*DAAP Disqualified*

SJP Decision Analysis:
The Decision in the SJP Case surprised me; I thought that if the justices were going to rule in favor of the defendants they would at least do so in some logically coherent way. Instead they produced a decision that makes no sense.

From the SJP Majority Decision

However, this opinion should not be construed as to say that SJP, as an ASUC sponsored student group, can operate outside the authority of the ASUC Constitution or Bylaws.

Ok so far so Good. But One Sentence Later:

While ASUC sponsored student groups are always under the authority of the rules and regulations of the Association, the authority granted to ASUC sponsored student groups may be used periodically, but only in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws.

Thankfully Chair Davis does the picking apart in his dissent:

We simply don’t know what to make of the majority’s decision…The sponsored groups are always under the authority of the ASUC precisely because they possess the capability of abusing ASUC authority and resources, and must therefore be constantly regulated. If they were indeed capable of slipping in and out of their sponsorship requirements at their choosing and convenience, they would not always have to be under ASUC authority.

Basically the Council says that sponsored student groups cannot operate outside ASUC authority…then they say that same authority can be used periodically. What if in periodic use, they violate and thus operate outside the ASUC Constitution or By-Laws, but wait they were in their periodic not-use of authority as this decision allows, but wait they cant operate outside the ASUC Constitution or By-Laws according to this decision…

Thankfully the council does not try to define in what ways periodic use of authority is allowed. So if an ASUC sponsored group decides not use ASUC authority at any time at any point they can go and do whatever they want, like campaign for candidates seeking ASUC offices and give them group resources, it is ok because the group or maybe God can decide in that instance the group was in its periodic period of not using ASUC resources.

Reactions:
Yvette Reacts: "The decision is completely ludicrous and represents an absurd trampling of democracy. We are filing a petition for a rehearing and an appeal, concurrently with a lawsuit in Federal Court for an injunction against the disqualification. This decision will not stand."

Leybovich Decision.doc
DAAP Decision.doc
SJP Decision.doc
Anu E-mail Case.docEmail This Post!

J-Council Rejects Election Suit

Progcal Blogger John Pennington’s suit against Paul Lafata, Student Action, and BCR has been rejected by the Judicial Council on the grounds of its lateness.

Because this case’s alleged election violations regarding 4.13.4.1 took place before the 4pm filing deadline, the first standard of good faith must be held in considering this case. Since the case was not also filed before the 4pm deadline, the Council believes the charge was not filed in good faith, and therefore must reject it. The same guideline was applied this election season in rejecting two late filings by Attorney General Ryan Powell.

Seeing how Jonp’s crusade for the past few weeks has been to proceed directly to vote counting and to ignore the J-Council’s deliberations/hearings/decisions, his action to add to the pile of suits was contradictory. The Judicial Council rightly turned down this suit and as a by-product jonp will get his wish; results will be out faster because this suit won’t take up the J-Councils time. Email This Post!

*Breaking: DAAP Threatens to Sue J-Council in Federal Court*

Lawyers representing the Defend Affirmative Action Party have notified the Judicial Council that it is their intent to file suit against the council and its individual members in Federal Court. The suit aims to seek “immediate injunctive relief…. to ensure that all the votes cast by students in the recent ASUC election at UC Berkeley are counted and to stop the Judicial Council’s threat to disqualify the Defend Affirmative Action Party.”

Update: There are two different parts to the case.
The First part focuses on the Judicial Council and its role in adjudicating election disputes. DAAP’s lawyers in their letter to the council cite free speech and free association precedents that they say allow students to “further” their free speech rights. DAAP lawyers also cite Storer v. Brown, which they say determines that people are entitled to run for office and vote for candidate of their choice unless the state has a compelling interest.

DAAP’s lawyers then go on to say that these principles were all applied in a recent case that was before the United States District Court for the Central District of California. According to DAAPS’s lawyers, in that case, Welker v. Cicerone, a student running for the position of Senator in the Associated Students of the University of California at Irvine was reinstated to his position after being disqualified by an “unconstitutional election rule.”

The Second Part of the letter focuses on DAAP’s disqualification case that is currently up for deliberation in the J-council. DAAP’s lawyers say that Paul Lafata, the plaintiff in the DAAP disqualification case, is asking the Judicial Council to break all of the fundamental rights described in the first part of DAAP’s letter (Free Speech, Free Association, The Right to Run for Office and Vote for a Candidate of Choice).

They further accuse the J-Council of displaying the “willingness and intention” to accede to Mr. Lafata’s requests.

The letter goes on to talk about why Lafata filed his case against DAAP, namely over the facial expressions Luke Massie was making towards Lafata’s witnesses in the CalSERVE SJP Case and how there are precedents that protect the right of making facial expressions during a judicial hearing.

The letter then goes on to attack the council’s use of a gag order by citing another precedent. At the end the letter says it is DAAP’s intention to seek a temporary restraining order to stop the J-Council’s actions against them and to seek injunctive relief to have all the votes counted.

Analysis:
The Big question here is: Is DAAP really serious about pursing this? I talked to a J-Council member and he/she said that it seemed to be an intimidation tactic but that the council was taking the matter seriously and conferring with ASUC lawyers.

I don’t think the council will back down on this one even if a suit is filed against them. Mike Davis, to whom the letter was addressed to as Chair of the J-Council, has been on the council for four years and has never displayed a penchant for backing down. Yvette's recent attacks on him in the Daily Cal probably didn't help her case.

Is DAAP’s case for real? They have not filed a case yet but could do so very soon. I am not a legal scholar so I can’t professionally attest to the credibility of their claims. But I do have a few observations:

1. DAAP’s lawyers talk a lot about free speech violations and they claim that punishing the entire party over Mr. Massie’s facial expressions is violating Mr. Massie’s free speech rights. The case they cite is from the Federal District Court in South Florida in which the judge struck down the Decorum Rule, which forbade court participants from using their facial expressions to express approval or disapproval. But the charge against Massie is centered on his alleged badgering and threatening of Mr. Lafata’s witnesses and not on whether or not he can make facial expressions expressing his disapproval with proceedings. DAAP will have to prove that Mr. Massie was not threatening anyone with his expressions. This will be difficult to establish as it will be a he said vs. he said argument. Also is the J-Council a real court?

2. Will the court be willing to intervene and force the Elections Council to count the votes? I think it will be very difficult to persuade the court to do this. Parties entered this election knowing full well what the rules were and what the procedures, etc… were for resolving disputes. Unless DAAP can prove that there is some serious constitutional harm being done by not counting the votes before the ASUC’s by-laws allow for the counting of votes the court wont intervene. What evidence can DAAP offer? All they have is the threat of disqualification which they say will disenfranchise voters. However there has been no disqualification yet so they are presuming the disenfranchisement of voters. If they are disqualified it strengthens their case more but they still have to convince a judge that the ASUC’s rules and by-laws regarding elections are unconstitutional and in need of remedy.

Developing…

DAAP's Letter to J-CouncilEmail This Post!

In other news...

I love Kevin, but I'd rather see news on top of this page then the 50 or so tearful reunions. I haven't seen this much sadness on the Internet since they banned child pornography websites.

In any event, yes, CalStuff will still be running sans its creator, Mr. Deenihan. There are four other correspondents (myself, Cooper, Alex, and Andy/Andrew), so there is still plenty of manpower to run this blog, arguably the best source for news at Berkeley. Let's keep it that way.

Today's news is that emails have begun to seep out of the Elections Council from a few different members, citing May 20 or 21 as the election result release day. This is somewhat astounding, since there are still a couple Judicial Council cases where rulings have not even been formally decided upon, let alone written up and released. Apparently, the Elections Council is not expecting many, if any, appeals on the JC rulings. Therefore, expect very few DQ convictions this elections season, though I doubt that will be a shock for most readers with some memory of ASUC history.

For those of you paying attention, the three cases remaining that have a low, but reasonable, chance of party disqualification are LaFata v. CalSERVE (SJP Rally), LaFata v. DAAP II (Intimidating/Badgering), and the Garcia v. Leybovich/Student Action (ASUC signature on mass email) cases, though none of these seem likely to be found in favor of the plaintiff.

At the same time, don't expect election results by May 21. Odds are that there will be at least one DQ, and holding hearings during the second week of finals would be sketchy at best. In addition, as much as I respect the ASUC Elections Council (cough), I really don't see them getting their act together quickly enough to get results out before summer instruction begins.
Email This Post!

So Long,

I've decided that this'll be my last Calstuff Post. It's been a good two years. Calstuff got me into the Daily Cal, opened a lot of doors, and was fun. Ideally, the new kids will be able to keep posting analysis, primary sources, and other interesting Cal-related things. I trust they'll do fine.

So long, Berkeley. You have been good to me, and I have tried to be good to you. So long Daily Cal, ASUC, Administration, Student Groups, Squelch.

Goodbye to all that,
Kevin Deenihan
Columnist, Creative Editor (Senior), International Editor, Publicity Chair, Signatory, Brother, Candidate, Fellow, Creative Editor (Junior), Rush Chair, Pledge Trainer, Writer, Secretary, Parking Manager, Emerging Leader Scholar, Director, Reporter, BloggerEmail This Post!

ProgCal's comments seem to have been taken down again.Email This Post!

Which of my commenting systems do you guys like the most? Top one or bottom one? Signify by commenting in the preferred one.Email This Post!

The Senate meeting ended at 5 AM. Most ASUC people had been guessing that it would end much earlier this year. (I guessed 7 AM). The big story going in the Budget Meeting was actually how pleased everyone was. The budget was balanced, and most groups were happy with their allocations. Big change from last year.

Squelch apparently got 12.7K. Cool!
Email This Post!

Virus Circulating Through UC Computers
The Residential Computing Center (ResComp) has an article up on their website headlined, "Computer Virus/Sasser Virus Spreading Rapidly". This type of rapid virus spreading seems to occur with some regularity here. Apparently placing thousands of computer users in close proximity to each other where they can swap e-mail addresses and network their computers together is conducive to massive virus infestations. According to a trusted correspondent (Kevin! actually), Foothill and Clark Kerr are besieged, with long lines at the computing centers. For information about how to determine if you have the virus and what to do to disinfect your computer, go here.
Email This Post!

Progcal's JonP just sued BCR, Student Action, and Paul for filing frivolous lawsuits. Ironically, he's also been complaining about how election results have been pushed back.

This will push election results back.Email This Post!

Here's the provisional budget going into tonight. It's an UNOFFICIAL version. Thanks to Andy JessopEmail This Post!

Today's Daily Cal presented a newly proposed policy that would make undergraduate students pay out-of-state tuition when taking more than 10% of the minimum number of units to graduate.

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=15205

In order to analyze this policy, let?s look at its prospective benefits.

1) UC (Berkeley or system?) will save $9 million. A pretty small amount, especially considering the size of the system-wide cuts we are facing. Is it worth the effort?
2) Less 5th and 6th-year students. It would encourage people to leave the system sooner, though to their defense, many students in their fifth and sixth years have extraneous circumstances leading to their situations.

Now, let's look at the problems with the program:

1) This program will affect more students than anticipated. Transfer students, students with lots of AP credit, double majors, late declarers, and others will be hit hard by the constraints of this policy. Student leaders and faculty across the UC system already object to the idea. Even lower income student could be heavily affected by the policy, as they are often the students that take the most units in the shortest time to get their programs done quickly.
2) Students won't be able to maximize their experience at Berkeley. If students are worried about a unit cap in addition to everything else, their ambitions for major choices are going to be altered and lowered (especially since some require more units than others? I'm looking at you, Political Science).

The situation is pretty simple, folks. This policy is crap. Any gain from it would be completely outweighed by the costs it would have on the academic value of our education and the sanity of the student body. Hopefully enough people come to their senses before they take implementation to the next step.

An interesting possible alternative would be to make all 6th-year students pay out-of-state tuition, regardless of how many units they've taken. Tack on extra tuition to students that are already paying out-of-state tuition. It might clear some of the super-super senior ranks, and save a little bit of cash.

BTW happy Cinco de Mayo everyone! Note: this is NOT Mexican Independence Day.
Email This Post!

What Hogwarts House are you in?

I'm a Gryffindor, but barely. 78 Gryffindor, 76 Hufflepuff. I had figured I'd be in Hufflepuff, actually.

Weirdly, I found this independently of the Daily Cal article about it today.Email This Post!

In advance of the Budget Meeting, Andy Jessop is setting up the First Annual Budget Meeting Betting Pool.

Send in your pick of What Time the Budget Meeting will wrap up. Specify time and day!

E-mail antyanax@berkeley.edu with your pick.

Winner gets dinner.

Email This Post!

Daily Cal Reports on OSL Cuts to Student Groups
The Daily Cal provides more information in today's article on budget cuts to OSL which could impact student groups. Instead of just printing an e-mail desciribing the situation (like I did previously, scroll down to see it) they engage in some actual reporting, interviewing many of the involved parties. Here is the bad news:

The Office of Student Life may consolidate or cut university-sponsored student groups in an effort to offset next year’s budget cuts, said campus administrators.
Although the university is affiliated with about 800 student groups, the office is primarily examining about 20 groups who require the most university assistance, said Dean of Students Karen Kenney.
Those high-maintenance programs could include the speech and debate program, Model United Nations, and services to fraternities and sororities.

I imagine in the not to distant future other student groups will begin to hear if there will be any cuts mandated against them.Email This Post!

The shitty Code of Conduct revision is on the verge of passing. Essentially we've accomplished this much this year:

1) Delaying its implementation significantly. Without SAO Madan and other's efforts, the Conduct revision would've been submitted this November without consultation.

2) Representation is allowed in the event of the Hearing Panel agreeing to it. That's not an insubstantial victory; Panels are composed of students and faculty, who may be amenable to representation. It's certainly a step up.

But in general, not good enough! So what're our options from this point on? Negotiations having achieved as much as possible, it's probably time to organize, etc. This is more possible then one might think. Instead of dealing with the Administration, which is not really productive, we get to deal with the Academic Senate. That means Faculty members.

Antagonizing them SJP-style would almost definitely fail utterly. But an organized campaign to approach the individual members of the Senate Committee that approves this may well work. Maybe something similar to Lobby Day, where groups of students meet with the Faculty members.

Points to make:

1) It's the Administration we have a problem with, not you.
2) We're not against students being prosecuted for stupid shit, just for them being forced to prepare their own case, which is stupid.
3) We're not talking about students hiring Attorneys, typically, but simply student representation from the SAO office.
4) You know that the 'Learning Process' stuff is Administration bullshit. Why put up with it?
5) We are on your side.

Email This Post!

Any of the other Seniors going to the Chancellor's Reception on the 7th? Let me know. ked@REMOVE.berkeley.edu
Email This Post!

As CalJunket writes, Senator Leybovich received 1 censure for the first Spam case. The more important one, asking for disqualification on ASUC Resource use grounds, is still in consultation.

Here's the opinion, if you're interestedEmail This Post!

Why did the Daily Cal write that the Election suits are done with? There's one more: the sealed case that was just recently unsealed.

It's 'Thomas vs. Leybovich,' Thomas being the Resident Director of Unit 1. She's charging that Senator Leybovich was caught campaigning in the dorms (maybe the DC) at least once. If true, that would be two censures.

Two censures for this + three censures for e-mails = Disqualification, if Leybovich loses every one.

The case will be heard this Saturday at 6:30.

With the conclusion of the campaign violation hearings, election results may come out as soon as next week. The council could release rulings for the four other cases as early as this week.

Also, even besides this case, a week has to go by for appeals after the decisions are released.Email This Post!

From Calstuff Correspondant Andy Jessop:

Just got back from the DAAP v. LaFata J-Council hearing. This was the Luke Massie case, as Paul dropped the SJP rally case. It began with 3 hours of hearings, as DAAP tried several ways to dismiss the case.
First, they asked that Mike Davis be recused from the case, as he was the one who asked Luke to leave at the CalSERVE hearing, but the council (without Mike) agreed that Mike had no personal stake in the case and therefore could oversee the case. Later arguments included "double jeopardy", saying that Luke had been tried for the same case twice - the logic of that argument escaped me, but it was soundly overruled. They also asked that the case be thrown out because it was past the point of no return, and that asked if proper by-laws (Title 4,
Elections) were considered.

Much of the case focused on personal conversations - Yvette called Paul at one point and wanted to talk about a case, Luke meet with Paul and made him feel threatened. An IAC member also testified as to her conversations with Massie, saying that she felt threatened. The J-Council spent quite some time debating what happened during the few minutes after Mike expelled Luke from the hearing. All these arguments were based around what someone felt or what someone said that could be interpreted in some way, rather than any hard evidence.

The defense pulled arguments that were rather tenuous as well - free speech was a big one, but the J-Council was also accused of stifling democracy by deciding the election in their offices rather than going by student votes. My favorite quote of the night was "Luke Massie is cursed an expressive face, and that face is protected by the constitution"

Throughout the case, DAAP seemed very interested in recording the proceedings - someone had a video camera on the DAAP council at all times, they had a tape recorder going at their table, and someone running around recording the witness and Paul. I would imagine this would be used if a further case involving this hearing came up.

On a lighter note, a few members of the J-Council were dressed up tonight - everyone on J-Council took pictures holding the gavel, and Paul and the DAAP council took pictures "looking surly". For a few minutes, a jolly time was had by all.

Final survey? Paul had a had a decent case and argued well, and DAAP hurt their case by arguing far outside the realm of the by-laws, but there isnt enough concrete evidence to show that DAAP was interfering with the J-Council. I wouldnt bet on a censure.

Email This Post!

More Repercussions felt from Budget Cuts
As the University is forced to deal with a tighter budget, they are looking for ways to save money. It looks like one of the effects of this is going to be the Office of Student Life attempting to save money by cutting student groups. I recently received an e-mail from a member of the school Parliamentary Debate team (of which I am a member), and if what is happening to them represents a wider trend, then students have to band together so the University does not get the idea it can get away with cutting essential student groups. Here is a shortened version of the letter, written by James Changes, which I received:

The Office of Student Life (OSL) announced its intention on Thursday, April 29th to integrate Berkeley’s separate parliamentary and policy debate teams under the leadership of the policy debate coach, who has openly stated his intension to eliminate the parliamentary (Parli) team and consolidate all funds for the use of the policy team, an action that has already been approved by OSL. This decision by OSL is in direct violation of the Cal Forensics constitution, agreed to by the directors of both debate teams and approved by OSL, which lays out clear procedures for any changes to the structure of relations between the parliamentary and policy debate teams.

OSL’s decision will have a devastating impact on our campus, as parliamentary debate is an activity of significant educational value.

The success of Cal Parli has undoubtedly elevated the prestige of our campus. This year, Cal Parli was once again the top performing team out of over 100 colleges and universities at the National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) Championships (the largest debate tournament in American intercollegiate history), winning the prestigious National Tournament Sweepstakes Award by accomplishing an unprecedented feat – advancing seven two-person teams to elimination rounds.

This success draws many bright students to Cal every year with the intent of representing our campus in competitive parliamentary debate.

The Office of Student Life has violated established procedures in taking a drastic action that would eliminate the UC Berkeley Parliamentary Debate team. This unacceptable action, and the precedent it sets, has strong negative implications on the future of all student groups. Cal Parli has been an integral part of the Berkeley campus community, bringing home multiple national titles while providing a forum for Cal students to engage in educational debate. The elimination of Cal Parli is not only improper – it would be a great disservice to all of our students.

More as this develops...Email This Post!

So no one has to ask, I was waitlisted at USC Law.Email This Post!