I Wake Up. What Now?

Sonya Banerjee quotes/paraphrases

2006-10-25T21:30:00.000-07:00

It was determined that punishing persons should only occur in appeals so that defendants have closure in their cases. As such, if Ratto v. Vakil had instead been an appeal to ASUC v. SAES.

The Judicial Council is not responsible for interpreting the laws of California or the United States. They only consider the bylaws and Constitution of the ASUC. The appeals process exists so that errors in law can be corrected.

Revising the Judicial Rules of Procedure is performed by the Judicial Council and ratified by the Senate. The ruling that perjury cases should only be made as an appeal was an interpretation rather than a finding in law.

One can only provide punishment or remedy unto a person that is named as a plaintiff or defendant.

Discussion of the dissent from the Assistant Chair that said the candidates should have been disqualified:

"There is no way to proved whether we were influenced by outside factors" such as by attorneys.

Two people still dissented on the ruling despite the advice.

Questions:

A transcript or recording was not neccessary despite JRP 6.3.1 requiring some sort of audio recording device or written record because notes are taken by the justices. A written record does not neccessarily mean a transcript. - In response to Senator Nankin.

October 17 Daily Cal article stated that Mark Himelstein stated that a lawsuit was neccessary to intimidate the Judicial Council into reversing their decision. - Question about in what article "initmidation" was mentioned by Sen. Eunice Moon (involved me doing an extremely fast search and showing the article to Sonja Banarjee)

A witness may serve simultaneously as a spokesperson and witness. - Question from Sen. Asuncion about Suken Vakil's status as a spokesperson.

Cases filed after elections must invalidate entire election does not apply as the case dealt with a perjury violation. - Question from Pres. Gabriel about the result of the original case of Ratto v. Vakil.

Judicial Council is bound to uphold the JRPs, bylaws, and Constitution. Laws of California and United States are irrelevant. - Question from Sen. Asuncion about Mark Himelstein's influence.

"Rule for truthfulness" is that a person is held to the standard that a witnesss may not knowingly provide "untruthful testimony." - Question from Sen. Asuncion about the definition of "perjury".

Students need to enforce the rules, there is no omnipotent adult standing by. When persons attempt to circumvent the process, one is not allowing the Judicial Council to do its job.

Sonya Banerjee to speak now

2006-10-25T21:29:00.000-07:00

The Judicial Council chair is ready to give its report. She is handing out copies of the Ratto v. Vakil appeal as well as copies of the J-Council report sent to Senators Monday.

ASUC Judicial Council Chair will speak later

2006-10-25T20:55:00.000-07:00

ASUC Judicial Council Chair Sonya Banerjee will speak later in the Judicial Council report to the Senate to address the mischaracterizations that have been appearing in the press in the previous weeks.

Mark Himelstein quotes/paraphrases

2006-10-25T20:23:00.000-07:00

Once J-Council would not reverse decision, Mark Himelstein felt that the Judicial Council members deserved an attorney who would vigoruously defend them and agree with their decision.

Mr. Himelstein states that the problem with the ASUC is in the bylaws.

"What happens after the election can never be a ground for disqualification" of a candidate.

Lawyer hired for Judicial Council advised Judicial Council that there would be no way the original decision of the Judicial Council would be upheld in a civil court.

"Campaign election bylaws need to be change."

For momentus decisions, "Own rules [should] require they have an attorney advisor."

"No provision for who hears the case when the matter involves the Judicial Council itself."

"You need to have some tribunal...where somebody can hear that case. I suggested a panel of three persons to be selected by the Senate."

Reasons for authorizing $22,679:
"Judicial Council acted unconstituionally in denying people rights to due process and protection from double jeopardy."

"I recommended that fees be reimbursed." "Request an itemized bill." "No legal reason for [approving reimbursment]." "My personal opinion is that without the filing of the lawsuit the Judicial Council would not have reversed itself."

On elections by-laws amendments:
"One of the problems the Judicial Council is...that the Council feels it is neccessary to punish somebody." "Think about what the NCAA does to universities to athletes that violate the rules." "Put the university on probation or limit scholarships available." "They punish the university in the future." "What you can do if you feel an agent for a political party has done something wrong, what you can do is give the Judicial Council the remedy to disqualify the political party for the next election."

Why go into closed session?

2006-10-25T20:20:00.001-07:00

"Reasons for conflict of interest...is privileged information that could lead to further information."
-Mark Himelstein

11-7-2, we are forced to consider the matter in open session.

This could be a risk to the ASUC, and while there were many matters that could be discussed in open session, there was a specific issue that should only be discussed in closed session.

Problem...

2006-10-25T20:18:00.000-07:00

Senator Taylor Albright informs me that Mark Himelstein will request the Senate move into closed session. I don't see a reason for it, but it will likely pass to avoid embarassment, which is an abuse of the closed session requirement.

We're returning to our seats now.

3 minute recess now

2006-10-25T20:15:00.000-07:00

So we will hear from Mark Himelstein at 8:18 on the nose, unless there's any extension of time.

The 8 o'clock special order is delayed an additional 2 minutes

2006-10-25T20:02:00.000-07:00

UCPD Sergeant Tucker gives his weekly report and will delay for an additional 2 minutes.

7 minute extension for Cal Lodge discussion

2006-10-25T20:01:00.001-07:00

Mark Himelstein will speak by 8:07.

Senate in Session, Himelstein is here

2006-10-25T19:14:00.000-07:00

Mark Himelstein is here, I swear, and will be speaking at approximately 8 o'clock. Given that all involved parties have publically given up attempts to get money from the ASUC, I don't see what's left for Mark Himelstein to talk about except to clarify any issues the Senate may have had with his service.

It's over! (probably)

2006-10-24T10:52:00.000-07:00

Senator Rizzo and the Financial Committee have removed all money authorizing provisions of the bill from SB51, leaving only the general resolution of promising to change the bylaws such that everyone will be happy forever (good luck with that).

Beetle's the best and was there to report it.

Mark Himelstein, though scheduled to speak at Wednesday's Senate meeting, may be hampered by the fact that the Solicitor General position still needs to stand for a week before business may be conducted. It's not clear whether speakers are effected by this. will be appearing before the Senate as a whole on Wednesday, but the Senate will not be able to take action on SB51 until next week due to the status of the vacancy in the Solicitor General position (Thank you Igor).

Index of Friday 10/20 Daily Cal Analysis

2006-10-20T10:16:00.000-07:00

For your benefit, I have all the appropriate links on this one easy to access post!

Daily Californian
Editorial: http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=21908
Letters to the Editor: http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=21913

My Analysis (letter author in parentheses)
Friday's Daily Cal Editorial
The value of the Presidency (Robbin Simmons)
The "It's your own damn fault, pay your own damn fees" letter (Greg Stevens)
Another "You're idiots that don't know anything so shut up" letter from a Senator (Donald Rizzo)
A first year gets led down the garden path (Phia Xiong)
The "Look at how all this got started" letter (Blake Suttle)

Beetle Beat's Take

The "look at how all this started" letter

2006-10-20T09:46:00.000-07:00

Finally, student Blake Suttle:

This week’s op-ed by ASUC President Oren Gabriel (“Righteousness, Not Mere Self Interest, Is At Stake,” Oct. 17) claimed to provided “all the relevant facts” regarding reimbursement in fact missed a few important ones.
Had Gabriel or any of his slate accepted responsibility for the original campaign violations they committed, the matter would have ended and Gabriel might have assumed the office for which a plurality of students selected him. With Gabriel unwilling to do this, the Student Action party chair, acting as Gabriel’s surrogate and on his behalf, lied to the Judicial Council.

Yes, please continue.

How can Gabriel not accept some responsibility? At one point in all of this, Gabriel felt that the ASUC presidency was worth fighting and suing for—why have his feelings changed? Not even included among “all the relevant facts” Gabriel cites is that the case for which he accrued the major portion of his legal fees was thrown out of court.

For accuracy's sake, the case wasn't thrown out. Gabriel lost two motions in pre-trial hearings that would have restrained the Judicial Council from declaring a winner and would have granted Oren Gabriel, as Acting President, the full powers of his office. The court noted that it would reconsider the issue only after the appeal was completed.

This selective omission, like so many of Gabriel’s actions from the very beginning of this episode, betrays a fundamental lack of personal responsibility or respect for student government that I am amazed they come from the ASUC’s top executive.

It is important to know that the Court told the Student Action Executive Slate that it should exhaust all internal remedies of the ASUC before the Court would interfere with its workings.

The mental calisthenics needed to reconcile Gabriel’s sense of entitlement to a leadership position in an organization he seems to think so little of are beyond my abilities.

It did seem that the Student Action Executive Slate was quite willing to tear down the ASUC to head it. I believe they call it "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

What I do understand is that as governments from the local to national level crumble into partisan game playing and outright self-entitlement, Gabriel appears happy to help lead the devolution and to do so from the helm of one of the most progressive and conscientious universities in the world.

It is unfortunate that party politics must begin at the collegiate level. What would George Washington think? (I'm being serious on that one, would George Washington be disappointed with us?)

You had all the right words to head Gabriel’s op-ed piece, Daily Cal. They just needed rearrangement to “Self-righteousness at stake."

A first-year gets led down the garden path

2006-10-20T09:43:00.000-07:00

In an effort to show all sides, the Daily Cal publishes this letter from the easily persuaded Phia Xiong:

After reading two articles last week about how the ASUC President Oren Gabriel wanted to use UC Berkeley students’ money to pay off his debt (“Former Officials Question Bill’s Legitimacy,” Oct. 13; “Bill Seeks ASUC Funds for President’s Legal Fees,” Oct. 12) I was outraged. Later Daily Cal articles dealing with this issue only added to my opposition.

Good, good, feel the anger...

But, on Wednesday night while attending the ASUC Senate meeting, I realize that I had made a mistake. I made harsh judgments based on half-truths. The hour and thirty minutes where the ASUC President and three vice presidents answered questions from the ASUC Senators made me conclude that the executives are not to blame.

I see, you would take the word of the students who have the most to gain from convincing you that giving them money is a good thing over the reports of various reporters from the independent Daily Californian who have spent hours in meetings, conducting interviews, and picking up a grasp of the situation for themselves.

I realized that the student body, wasn’t seeking the right questions or being made fully aware of the situation. Everyone reads about President Oren Gabriel wanting to use ASUC money to pay off a debt, but no one heard the whole story. No one hears that the ASUC Senate was not in session when this event took place. No one hears that the person that filed the lawsuit to disqualify President Gabriel and three executive officers from office only filed the lawsuit after learning that President Gabriel and three executive officers won by a landslide.

Why does it matter that the ASUC Senate was not in session? It was summer. The Judicial Council was nice enough to be in session. Under your thinking, doesn't the Judicial Council deserve greater praise than the Senate for acting under the situation?

Andy Ratto also filed suit after hearing that the Student Action candidates won, not because they won by a landslide. There would be no point to filing a suit against candidates who weren't going to win in any case. That would just be a waste of everybody's time, and everybody would just start calling Andy vindictive.

And don't forget that Andy has rights too. He was filing on behalf of students who simply don't have the energy to fight campaign violations that go unnoticed because both major sides of the campaign quietly agree not to file charges against the other for campaign violations. It is these sorts of agreements that subvert the democratic process.

Isn’t it necessary to hear the whole story before taking a position? Don’t you think that we should be looking at the source of the problem, rather than the consequence?

Yes, yes it is. Yes, yes we should. The source of the problem is a general feeling of subverting the processes that have existed within the democratic ASUC government for years. If one feels that the Judicial Council has made an error in judgement under ASUC law, one appeals the decision to the Judicial Council. Here, the Student Action Executive Slate initially withdrew from further appeals, attempted to overthrow the government by getting outgoing President Manuel Buenrostro to declare the Student Action Executive Slate the winners of the posts despite there being no certification from the Judicial Council, sued the ASUC a week after the Judicial Council said that President Buenrostro could not do that, discovered that "big people" court wouldn't even give them a day in court until they participated in the appeal from which they withdrew, and finally got everything they wanted from the Judicial Council in the appeal. That's the whole story, in a nutshell. I also refer you to my previous post on the whole story from October 11.

I applaud Phia for attending Wednesday night's meeting. Phia should just be sure to hear from all sides.

Another "you're idiots that don't know anything so shut up" letter from a Senator

2006-10-20T09:42:00.000-07:00

Third comes ASUC Senator Donald Rizzo, who was elected as a UNITE Greek candidate within the Student Action coalition, he is a co-author and co-sponsor of SB51:

Katlyn Carter’s Thursday article on the ASUC meeting (“Executives Address Legal Bill Concerns,” Oct. 19) did not mention an important visual: Watching four people talk about how they are each more than $5,000 in debt because the ASUC messed up. And in response, people saying, “Well, that’s politics!”

Thank you for simplyfing the very real concerns and problems that hundreds if not thousands of your constituents have with this bill into an ignorant catchphrase. And that's a post hoc fallacy there. Although the Student Action Executive Slate hired a lawyer after the Judicial Council erred by allowing the bylaws to overrule the ASUC Constitution, the Slate did not have to as they still had an appeal remaining on which they had true grounds to overturn.

People are calling this a partisan issue. What sounds more political to you: reimbursing the executives for the expenses incurred while trying to regain their democratically elected positions, or refusing to do so even though our own ASUC Attorney Mark Himelstein strongly recommends doing so on both legal and historical grounds?

This is not partisan, this is about preventing an injustice. Senator Rizzo is also offering a false dilemma. The executives were not democratically elected until the results were properly certified by the Judicial Council, and certification is contingent on the resolution of all pending lawsuits that could affect the election resutls. Nobody was in power until the appeal of Ratto v. Vakil could be heard.

Of the six lawyers that reviewed the case, not one thought that disqualifying the candidates was legally justified. If the ASUC Executives had not dropped the case in Alameda County Superior Court, the ASUC would have been forced to settle the litigation. This settlement, by reasonable estimates, would have incurred costs much higher than the $23,000 sought by Student Action candidates, and would have come out of the Legal Defense Fund.

The problem here is that Mark Himelstein, the Student Action Executive Slate, and Barg, Coffin, Lewis, & Trapp came to an agreement that involved money that doesn't belong to them. If I say I'll give you $100 of Beetle's money to settle your libel lawsuit against me (first thing that came to mind) is Beetle now obligated to give you $100? No! Additionally, paying this money out does not provide any guarantees that the Student Action Executive Slate won't sue in the future for alleged greater damages such as violation of their civil rights by losing a portion of their terms. A legal agreement in which all issues were settled would have been a much better guarantee.

Instead, Oren Gabriel and the other executives, for the good of the Association, made a decision to drop the case and risk not being reimbursed. Let me repeat: If the Executives had continued their lawsuit, they would be guaranteed reimbursement by a court of law. Instead, they dropped the lawsuit, and in doing so, ultimately saved the ASUC tens of thousands of dollars.

The Student Action Executive Slate dropped the case because they had already won in the free Judicial Council. If one is going to act for the good of the Association, please don't sue the Association. Senator Rizzo is also confusing two different resolutions of the matter in court. Yes the Student Action Executive Slate would have had their legal fees returned to them if they still needed to sue for their positions in Superior Court. However, the new situation, in which they'd already received their requested remedy from the Judicial Council, means that no such obligation exists, as they should have taken their case through the Judicial Council instead.

The ASUC Judicial Council committed a disservice to Oren Gabriel, the other executives, and all of the students on our campus. As an ASUC official, I am admitting that the actions of the ASUC have failed to honor the rights of some of our members, and it’s time we fixed the wrongs that have occured.

Given the youth of the Justices and the tangled web that is the ASUC Consitution and bylaws, I admire the ability of the Judicial Council to act in accordance with the regulations of the ASUC. The Judicial Council has already reversed itself on the matter and after restoring the candidacy of the Student Action Executive Slate, declared them the winners of their positions. We can admit that the Judicial Council erred at the beginning, but the process ended up resolving the matter. We haven't failed anyone's rights. The Student Action Executive Slate got their appeal heard and the Judicial Council took their claims seriously. The Judicial Council's work over the summer is a shining example of protecting the rights of its members.

I guarantee that if students understood SB 51, they would support it. Want more information? If you care about making informed decisions, coming to next Wednesday’s meeting might help you understand why a majority of your elected representatives are expressing their support for this resolution.

Senator Rizzo gives more patronizing "You don't understand it, but trust me, if you did, you'd love it!" talk. Senator Rizzo again brushes off the real concerns of informed citizens who wish to take action before the vote by asking them to get information after it's too late to change anybody's mind.

The "it's your own damn fault, pay your own damn fees" letter

2006-10-20T09:41:00.000-07:00

Next, a personal friend of mine, Greg Stevens:

Oren Gabriel made a personal choice to hire a lawyer to represent him in a case that he brought against the very organization he wants to reimburse him. That choice has already cost the Students of the University several thousand dollars, since his legal action made it necessary that the ASUC hire lawyers to represent the Judiciary Council.

Well put. To expand, the Student Action Executive Slate hired Barg, Coffin, Lewis, & Trapp, LLP after deciding that the Judicial Council was out to get them despite mainly having been appointed by Student Action Presidents for the previous years. In the process, they sought to overrule the institutions of the ASUC and cause it great harm by embroiling it in a legal battle. Greg continues:

The Alameda County judge ruled that the case could not be heard because all the forms of recourse had not been exhausted inside the organization. This should have been obvious, that Gabriel's impending appeal had not been resolved! He, of all people, should have had that in mind, that before he goes and spends over $20,000, he should wait to finish the free process inside the ASUC that he had already started. And now, Mr. Gabriel is asking the ASUC to pay for his mistakes.

The way I see it, Oren Gabriel spent $22,679 to defend himself in a Judicial Council suit. Sort of unfair to Andy Ratto and his "team" of fellow students, who spent around $50 making photocopying.

I urge all of you to end your support for this bill. I and my fellow students should not foot any more of the cost for Oren Gabriel’s bad decisions than we already have. When my Campus Accounts Receivables account gets charged for the compulsory ASUC fee, I want to see it go towards students, not Mr. Gabriel’s legal team.

I couldn't have put it any better myself (and I tried).

The value of the Presidency

2006-10-20T09:40:00.000-07:00

Next, the Letters to the Editor:

From student Robin Simmons:

First of all, thank you for your extensive and patient coverage of the ASUC proposal controversy. The enterainment and drama is much appreciated.

Well, this certainly is a cause célèbre, let's continue:

However, one important argument must be mentioned. The legal situation of Oren Gabriel this summer indicates to me that the ASUC presidency means about $22,000 to him. Is any student government position worth doubling the cost of tuition? What do we really value in life? Maybe this is a lesson to all of us.

Well, $5,500, since the money is split between the Student Action executives, but the spirit is still there. The funny thing about this whole debacle is that the positions really aren't worth fighting over. The main function of the ASUC, in my eyes, is to distribute student funding out of the fees approved by referendum of students. Beetle has often suggested that the business might be better accomplished by one adiministrator in the ASUC Auxiliary rather than a 5 member Executive Board and 20 member Senate.

Friday's Daily Cal Editorial

2006-10-20T09:30:00.000-07:00

I'm going to break each editorial and letter into a separate post.

Mad props to the Daily Cal web team for getting Friday's edition online rather early. Let's start with today's editorial, "Has Anything Changed?"

No matter what we say, Student Action did win an electoral majority, a strong one. But if they are so engaged in protecting democracy, then there is an obvious solution: put SB 51 to a student referendum. Let’s see what students really want.

The rest of the editorial is really, really good right up to its concluding sentence. The problem with a student referendum is that spin and politics tend to rule any ballot. The electorate ends up so confused or the established base of Student Action is so charged that they win anyway, and Student Action is suddenly able to claim righteousness. Sickening, isn't it?

SA Execs address bill concerns by completely failing to address bill concerns

2006-10-19T09:10:00.000-07:00

Beetle was tough enough to stick around for the entire meeting while I ran off to eat a very late dinner and go home. He comprehensively debunks the claims from the executive suite at his site.

The Daily Cal is also good enough to be updated to Thursday by 9am. Katlyn Carter Reports in "Executives Address Legal Bill Concerns".

Sorry, no message from Himelstein today

2006-10-18T21:16:00.000-07:00

Woops, apparently the scheduling of Mark Himelstein addressing the Senate on SB51 was for next week and not for this meeting. So, no announcement today. A few people will be around in case there are any surprises, but I'm going to jet. Later everyone.

Woop, not quite yet

2006-10-18T20:39:00.001-07:00

Sorry, I was misinformed as to the orders of the day, hopefully the discussion will be soon.

Winding down discussion of the Greek business

2006-10-18T20:31:00.000-07:00

Academic Affairs Vice-President Joyce Liou, External Affairs Vice-President Jason Chu have just walked in. Executive Vice-President Vishal Gupta has been chairing the Senate meeting. President Oren Gabriel is nowhere in sight.

SB51 to be discussed in ASUC Senate next

2006-10-18T20:11:00.000-07:00

Following a discussion from the Inter-Fraternity Council, the Pan-Hellenic Council, and Justine Lazaro for Phi Nu Xi, Mark Himelstein will speak on SB51.

Senate Meeting Now

2006-10-18T20:01:00.000-07:00

I'm currently attending the ASUC Senate meeting. I was delayed from arriving at 7 due to other commitments, but I am informed that one-half hour has been reserved for discussion. ASUC Lawyer Mark Himelstein is will be present.

It's still student money

2006-10-18T13:09:00.000-07:00

Beetle helpfully keeps me updated on whatever is going on, since I'm not on campus and the Daily Cal isn't updating itself until around noon these days.

Every dollar that is part of the ASUC should be going towards helping students. Therefore, every dollar removed from any arm of the ASUC, the Legal Defense Fund, the Auxiliary Certificates of Deposit, is one less dollar that could have been used in working for students.

The ASUC Auxiliary is the "adult" branch of the ASUC. According to the Auxiliary's website:

The ASUC Auxiliary was created in 1997 to provide essential services for the Associated Students of the University of California, more commonly known as the ASUC. The ASUC was founded in 1887 and is the only completely autonomous student government in the United States. The Auxiliary oversees the ASUC budget for government and Student Groups and provides management and maintenance of Eshleman Hall, Anthony Hall and the Martin Luther King Student Union. It also provides room reservations for conferences and events in the MLK Student Union, and oversight of other services including the Bear's Lair restaurants, the Cal Student Store retail shopping, the Bearcade, the Art Studio, STA Travel, Postal Annex, and other leasehold operations as necessary.

The Certificates of Deposit are monies left over from leasing space in Lower Sproul, renting out the MLK ballroom after the operations of the Auxiliary are completed. By taking money from the Auxiliary, less money is available for it to expand its operations, operate the Office of Student Life, or maintain operations in Heller Lounge, Eshleman Hall, or the Student Store. In short, the Student Action Executive Slate has no claims over this, or any monies of the ASUC.

An "old" mic "man" returns to the spotlight.

2006-10-17T22:24:00.000-07:00

Land of the Fruits and Nuts directs us to an old friend of the University of California, former mic "man" Kate Troecher at kateonsports.com. I'm enjoying her well-articulated commentary, (on video, no less!) outside the usual lines brought up by sports commentary. You should too!

A letter from Jeff to his constituents

2006-10-17T00:33:00.001-07:00

I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasoning and stance regarding SB 51 and my friendly amendment to remove my name from the bill in question.

SB 51 is written to draw funds from the Legal Defense Fund in order to reimburse legal fess incurred by Oren Gabriel over this past summer. The Legal Defense Fund, in the ASUC Constitution, stipulates that such funds can only be accessed “for the purpose of emergency legal action which the Association may undertake.” It is from this section of the ASUC Constitution that I find my main point of contention. Because President Gabriel was not acting in the capacity and on behalf of the Association, this bill cannot access Legal Defense Funds – according to this clause in the constitution. President Gabriel was not ‘the Association,’ and therefore did not ‘undertake’ the legal action on behalf of the Association. Rather, the suit was filed by an individual – being Mr. Gabriel. Accessing this fund for SB 51 would be unconstitutional, according to my interpretation of the above-mentioned section of the constitution (Article VI, Section 6, Part C).

Another point of contention that I have struggled to understand is the sense of emergency that was needed for this legal action to be taken. The above-mentioned section of the constitution stipulates that there must be an emergency situation for the use of these funds. Whether the incidents during the summer concerning the SA Executives were an emergency is far too subjective for me to accept that definition of an ‘emergency.’

For these reasons I decided to remove my name from SB 51 at this evening’s committee meetings. From the time I became a signatory of the bill until this recent development, several unresolved concerns and questions persuaded me to reconsider my feelings and stance on the bill. There are many facets of the bill that require a large amount of consideration and research, which also persuaded me to reconsider my stance and therefore take action to remove my name from the bill. I do not feel comfortable being a signatory of the bill at this time, but I still reserve the right to vote as I find appropriate, once all facts and outcomes are taken into consideration.

Taking funds from the Legal Defense Fund is unconstitutional. Period. Therefore, this bill as it stands, is not supported by my vote.

For now, I am going to continue discussion with my friends and fellow students to better understand the other ambiguities I need cleared up. However, despite whatever revelations may come from these discussions, my support for this bill has been effectively removed.

I appreciate the many students who have contacted me regarding this bill, and I am enthused to see such energy and interest from the student body. It should not be construed that my action this evening to remove my name from SB 51 was a direct result of these external pressures. However, their active engagement has only encouraged my belief that this bill requires a more aggressive examination before being approved by the Senate.

Thanks for your questions and demands for answers. I apologize for not being more quick in my responses but this has been a hectic weekend and will be an equally hectic week. Please continue to ask questions of myself and my fellow senators re: this bill.

Jeff

What all this means, and what is next

2006-10-16T23:35:00.000-07:00

The fact that finance officer Chai Desai asked for the bill to be tabled can me one of two things:
1. He genuinely feels that there is not enough understanding on this bill to have the Senate vote on it.
or
2. At least one member of the Embezzlement Coalition was going to abstain Wednesday without further persuasion.

Jane Park removing herself as a co-sponsor is ~~likely the result of pressure from close friends to not associate herself with the bill.~~ a belief that the ASUC Legal Defense Fund cannot constitutionally be used for this purpose. However, she has sent messages to various people explaining her understanding of the bill. I feel her understanding is flawed, but I don't know if she's willing to change her mind.

Jeff Manassero removing herself as a co-sponsor is likely the result of concern from various friends and associates. I have heard that Jeff took it upon himself to contact many people regarding their thoughts concerning the matter. I myself was contacted.

I do not know Dwight Asuncion well enough to explain Dwight's motives for removing his name from the bill.

For Wednesday, while SB51 won't be brought up automatically now that the bill has been tabled in the Finance Committee, it does not mean it will not be brought up. As few as seven senators can request that the bill be discharged from the committee's consideration and be put before the whole Senate.

If not heard Wednesday, the bill will be reconsidered in Finance Commitee next Monday.

BREAKING NEWS: Three senators removes selves from co-sponsorship of SB51

2006-10-16T22:14:00.000-07:00

Senator Jane Park returned to the Finance Committee to request that herself, Dwight Asuncion, and Jeff Manassero be removed as co-sponsors of the bill. The bill was then re-tabled.

A lot of scurrying

2006-10-16T22:05:00.000-07:00

Jane Park just walked in from her External Affairs Committee meeting to do a lot of scurrying. Then Jane Park made a motion to consider SB51 in Finance Committee, after being informed that it had been tabled.

BREAKING NEWS: SB51 TABLED TO NEXT WEEK'S FICOM MEETING

2006-10-16T21:57:00.000-07:00

After Finance Officer Chai Desai pleaded to the Finance Committee to table the bill due to the complexity of the issue that still needed to be worked out, a motion to table was made. After a pregnant pause, a motion to table by Senator Donald Rizzo was approved. After the recess, the motion to table was approved, and the bill will be tabled until next week's Financial Committee meeting.

SB51 discussion begins

2006-10-16T21:53:00.000-07:00

Finance Officer Chai Desai comes forth and it sounds as if he is advocating to table SB51 due to a lack of information.

Following Senator Chen's motion to table, there was a rather pregnant pause. Senator Rizzo then moved to recess for two minutes to discuss the motion to table.

Back on down to SB46

2006-10-16T21:40:00.000-07:00

Okay, so make that 49, 47, 52, and then 46. In fairness, I suppose SB51 is last, considering the controversy.

Let's jump to SB52!

2006-10-16T21:31:00.000-07:00

Theta Delta ~~Kai~~ Chi now has a bill up. So far 49, 47, and 52 have been considerd.

Note to self: The Kai is the name of the spiritual leader of the Bajorans, Chi is the Greek letter you were looking for.

Backwards to SB47 now

2006-10-16T21:27:00.000-07:00

Don't know if there is an SB48 or 50, then.

Now in consideration of bills

2006-10-16T21:21:00.000-07:00

Starting on SB49, we're all waiting for SB51.

Live, from the Senate Chambers in Eshleman Hall...

2006-10-16T21:08:00.000-07:00

The Finance Committee meaning!

The order of business is Fee waivers, stipends, bills, and then committee business.

Someone should inform the chair that it has never been neccessary in Robert's Rules of Order to bang the gavel after every vote on a motion. Still, I am impressed by the decorum maintained, a decorum rarely seen in deliberative societies (I'm talking to you Cal Dems!). Addressing questions indirectly, the chair sticking strictly to parliamentary language, well done.

I'll update you on any further business.

Sitting on the committee is Eunice Moon, Donald Rizzo, David Wasserman, Chen, Ng, the chair, one other person, and Executive Vice President Vishal Gupta. Vishal is walking in and out of the chambers.

Setting the Record Straight

2006-10-14T00:09:00.000-07:00

Let's set things straight, allowing "Oren Gabriel" to be the same as "The Student Action Executive Slate", since it's shorter.

When Oren Gabriel sued the ASUC, he was not acting in his capacity as Senator, or any official capacity of the ASUC. He was suing in his capacity as a candidate to the ASUC Presidency.

The Judicial Council had already scheduled the appeal of Ratto v. Vakil well before Oren Gabriel filed suit against the ASUC. Oren Gabriel refused to use the least costly place to seek redress for his grievances, the Judicial Council, because he had lost previously. He would end up winning anyway.

The Judicial Council did rule in favor of Oren Gabriel in the appeal of Ratto v. Vakil. However, one can speculate that the Judicial Council was extorted by the threat of expensive lawsuit to rule in favor of Oren Gabriel, knowing that President Presumptive Lauren Karasek was not interested in suing for the ASUC Presidency. In that case, it would be even worse to award Oren Gabriel over $20,000 for extortion.

To summarize, Oren sued the ASUC. Oren lost in Court. Oren won the remedy he sought in Judicial Council. Now Oren wants his money back for the money he lost in Court. There is no legal agreement (no public one anyway) nor any court order to pay for Oren Gabriel's attorney. Why are we handing Oren Gabriel's lawyers more than $20,000 for extorting the Judicial Council?

Cross posted at Berkeley LJ

Defense Fund Payout Authorizaiton Clarification

2006-10-12T00:10:00.000-07:00

A highly placed source who wished to remain anonymous informs me that the entire amount of the $22,679 is intended to pay for Oren's attorney's fees. The source did not wish to go into specifics as to why the sum was being paid due to the complexity of the matter.

Timeline of events surrounding the 2006 ASUC election's controversy

2006-10-11T23:14:00.000-07:00

April 25 to 27 - Voting for the ASUC Executive Offices and Senate takes place at physical polling stations and also online.

May 2 - Attorney General Nathan Royer files charges of chalking within 100 feet of six separate polling stations against the Student action slate, six violations per candidate. Each violation carries a maximum penalty of 3 censures.

May 9 - AG Royer v. Gabriel et al is heard by the Judicial Council. In it, Vakil obviously perjures himself by stating that chalking is done for the purpose of being seen chalking (despite being performed in the dead of night) and that he believed chalk did not last more than a day.

May 12 - The Judicial Council rules on AG Royer v. Gabriel et al and issues three censures to each candidate, not enough to disqualify. There were several opinions on the matter, and the "Marks" rule was used to enforce the narrowest opinion.

May 19 - Rain washes away the remaining mostly legible chalk, 25 days after the last day the chalk was allowed to be in the improper location.

May 24 - Elections Council reveals the results in 166 Barrows, preliminarily declaring Oren Gabriel, Vishal Gupta, Joyce Liou, and Jason Chu the winners of the Presidency, Executive Vice-Presidency, Academic Affairs Vice-Presidency, and External Affairs Vice-Presidency, respectively.

May 31 - Andy Ratto files charges against Suken Vakil for knowingly providing untruthful witness testimony to the Judicial Council as the spokesperson for Student Action in AG Royer v. Gabriel et al.

June 7 - The Judicial Council with 7 4 justices sitting hears Ratto v. Vakil.

June 14 - The Judicial Council rules unanimously by 4-0 in Ratto v. Vakil that Suken Vakil knowingly provided false statements to the Judicial Council in testimony to it. This results in Judicial Rules of Procedure Article 4 Section 15.3.2 -- “Individuals found in contempt may be asked to leave the proceedings, may be forcibly removed from proceedings, may be disallowed from appearing again before the Council, and a default judgment issued against the party the participant sought to benefit." -- being activated. A default judgement was thus issued in AG Royer v. Gabriel et al and 18 censures per candidate was the penalty, resulting in disqualifications for the entire slate.

June 21 - Disqualified Executive Vice-Presidential candidate Vishal Gupta, on behalf of the Student Action Executive Slate files an appeal on the Ratto v. Vakil decision. The hearing is tentatively scheduled for July 15.

June 27 - ASUC President Manny Buenrostro issues Executive Order #7 that orders the Student Action slate into office, overruling the Judicial Council disqualification. As a result, "President" Oren Gabriel issues Executive Orders #1 and #2 appointing Alan Lightfeld as Attorney General until fall and re-appointing Chai Desai as finance officer. Additionally, Vishal Gupta attempts to withdraw his appeal of Ratto v. Vakil, refusing to recognize the decision in that case.

The same night, SQUELCH! Executive Vice-President Ben Narodick files charge sheets against Manny's order and both of Oren's orders on the basis that Manny Buenrostro has no authority to overrule the Judicial Council and that because Oren Gabriel is not President, he has no authority to issue executive orders. The Judicial Council accepts the charges and issues preliminary injunctions barring Oren Gabriel et al from taking office.

June 28 - Vishal Gupta publically declares that the Judicial Council hearings are no longer legitimite and that Student Action will not be participating in further Judicial Council proceedings.

June 30 - Seeking to head off Judicial Council action, ASUC President Manuel Buenrostro issues Executive Order #8 that rescinds Executive Order #7 and declares Oren Gabriel's "Executive" Orders #1 and #2 null and void. It additionally appoints the Student Action Executive Slate into "acting" executive office that is restricted to carrying out the daily business of the ASUC.

July 1 - Grad student Justin Azadivar files a charge sheet seeking to rescind Executive Order #8 on similar grounds to that of Ben Narodick's regarding Executive Order #7. A preliminary injunction is issued preventing Executive Order #8 from taking effect.

July 6 - Oren Gabriel et al files suit against the ASUC and the individual members of the Judicial Council who voted for the ruling that disqualified the Student Action Executive Slate in the Superior Court of Alameda County. The group seeks to be instated as the executive officers for the 2006-07 school year.

July 7 - Manuel Buenrostro makes clear he will not be participating in the July 9 hearing of Azadivar v. Buenrostro.

July 9 - President Buenrostro fails to appear for the hearing of Azadivar v. Buenrostro. The Judicial Council accepts this as a "no contest" plea. Following a 90-minute discussion, the Judicial Council rules that all of Executive Order #8 is stricken except for installing Oren Gabriel as acting President, defining "daily business" as the Consitutional obligation to sign checks greater than $1,000, and maintains the provisions that rescind Executive Order #7 and voiding Gabriel's Orders #1 and #2.

July 10 - Two motions regarding Gabriel, et al v. ASUC, et al are denied by Judge Winifred Y. Smith in ex parte hearings in Superior Court. The first motion was to force the Judicial Council to allow Oren Gabriel to act in the full capacity of the Presidency beyond his check signing ability. The second motion was to temporarily restrain the Judicial Council from certifying the election results in any manner except in favor of the Student Action Executive Slate. Both motions were denied as all remedies within the ASUC had not been exhausted, as the appeal to Ratto v. Vakil was still scheduled July 15.

July 15 to 16 - In a marathon hearing, the appeal to Ratto v. Vakil is heard with all parties participating, including 6 of 7 Justices. Katie Feng recused herself for personal reasons.

July 22 - Student Action takes their grievances to the Berkeley City Council where District 8 Councilman Gordon Wozniak sponsors Action Item 42, a resolution that shows incomplete knowledge of the situation that seems heavily skewed by Student Action logic.

July 24 - Action Item 42 is considered only after Gordon Wozniak's gets a rather pregnant pause in the call for a second for the consideration of the resolution. The other councilmembers laugh off the resolution. The resolution fails 1-5-3 with Councilman Wozniak the lone aye vote.

July 29 - The Judicial Council rules to overturn itself on the appeal of Ratto v. Vakil in a 4-2 vote. It declares it will soon meet to certify the remaining election results.

October 10 - A resolution to authorize the payment of $22,679 is introduced into the ASUC Senate co-authored (co-sponsored) by 14 Senators, including 12 members of the SA/AE/UG slate. ~~It is currently unclear whether all of the money will go towards paying Oren Gabriel's attorney's fees.~~ The entire sum will go towards paying Oren Gabriel's attorney's fees.

Great credit to Beetle Beat and CalStuff for your awesome coverage and involvement in the case. No credit to the Daily Cal, whose website I did not look at once for this timeline.

ASUC, you spent $22,679 on Oren's legal fees?!

2006-10-10T16:27:00.000-07:00

That is some gall. Why is the ASUC paying for legal fees in a court matter that was entirely unneccsary, as the Judicial Council dealt with the matter all by itself? I call shenanigans.

$22,679. This better be all over the Daily Cal, there better be protests, recalls, et cetera, et cetera. There is misappropriation of the highest degree, and the Senators who have put their name to this resolution should know about it:

Senators Ansary, Asuncion, Avelino, Averbach, Chen, Garcia, Law, Lee, Manassero, Moon, Nankin, Nguyen (Vivienne), Park, Rizzo, & Finance Officer Desai all co-authored the legislation.

Their e-mails:
Ali Ansary - Independent: aliansary@berkeley.edu
Dwight Asuncion - APPLE Engineering: dtasuncion@berkeley.edu
Jen Avelino - Student Action: jenniferave13@gmail.com or jenniferavelino@berkeley.edu
Sammy Averbach - Student Action : e-mail not available at press, please update the ASUC Senators page
Brandon Chen - APPLE Engineering: brandon@asuc.org or brandonchen@berkeley.edu
Dmitri Garcia - DAAP: e-mail not available at press, please update the ASUC Senators page
Vince Law - APPLE Engineering: vincentslaw@gmail.com or vincelaw@berkeley.edu
Curtis Lee - Student Action: curtislee@berkeley.edu
Jeff Manassero - Student Action: jmanassero@berkeley.edu
Eunice Moon - Student Action: eunicemoon@berkeley.edu
Ilana Nankin - Student Action: ilana_nankin@berkeley.edu
Vivienne Nguyen - Student Action: e-mail not available at press, please update the ASUC Senators page
Jane Park - Student Action: jane_park@berkeley.edu
Donald Rizzo- UNITE Greek: drizzo@berkeley.edu

The text of the resolution
Beetle's Analysis
More of Beetle's Analysis

Gabriel's Motions Denied in County Court

2006-07-10T16:57:00.000-07:00

Notepad in hand (more like hotel pad) and pen at the ready, I traveled to the United States Post Office near the Rene C Davidson Courthouse in Oakland to hear arguments ex parte on two motions. The first was a motion to overrule the J-Council's line-item veto of Executive Order #8. The J-Council's ruling allowed Oren Gabriel to act as President, but only in a check-signing capacity. The motion would grant Oren the full ability of the office of the President while in the acting role. The second question was a motion to restrain the Judicial Council from certifying the election results in any favor except for Oren, Vishal, Jason, and Joyce. Both motions were denied.

What basically went on was an informal hearing in front of a judge's assistant lawyer pretty much in the hallway of the department. The lawyer, representing the Court, asks clarifying questions to each side. Representing the plaintiff, Oren Gabriel, was Rick Coffin of Barg, Coffin, Lewis, & Trapp. Representing the defendant, the ASUC, in this matter was Mark Himelstein. After the counsels answer the Court's questions, the Court's representative returns to the Judge, in this case, Judge Winifred Y. Smith. The Court may come back with more questions or may issue a ruling on the request.

The motion to show cause, or the motion to overrule the Judicial Council and reinstate in full Executive Order #8, was denied. It appeared the likely reason was that the Judge did not have evidence to believe that all internal administrative remedies had been used up. The matter may be revisited following the July 15th Judicial Council hearing on overruling itself in Ratto v Vakil. The Court noted that perhaps if the plaintiff had been more clear about the rules of the Judicial Council and the Constitution, the Court may have been more willing to grant the motion.

The motion to restrain the Judicial Council from disqualifying Oren or certifying another candidate into office was denied as it was not shown that irreparable harm would result in allowing such a thing to take place. This may also be revisited after the July 15th hearing.

Mr. Coffin on behalf of Oren Gabriel argued that the ruling in Ratto v Vakil directly harmed Oren, and as Oren has no standing to appeal as he was not a direct party to the claim against Suken, his due process rights are being violated under the California and United States Constitutions. Many of us are citing Rule 13.8 of the Elections by-laws, in which a default judgement against a party leads to automatic maximum penalty. However, Mr. Coffin argued that the proceedings in Ratto v Vakil do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Elections by-laws, as they were contempt proceedings, not election law proceedings.

Mr. Himelstein made some excellent points to keep all of this in perspective. He reminded everyone here that we are a student organization, and the Judicial Council is made up of students, and it's easy to make a mistake of law when you're this young. They're not lawyers. Mr. Himelstein remarked that we needed to let the internal structures of the ASUC be exhausted before turning this matter over to the Court.

So a fun day at the Court. We may do this all over again later this month. Ben was there too, and hopefully Beetle can glean enough information off of me, CalStuff, and CalPatriot Blog, and the briefs which are now posted online (Case RG06278203), to provide his own expert commentary. And John Waste's own brand of commentary too, I suppose. Don't think he's doing anything right now.

I'll Sue!

2006-07-09T21:14:00.000-07:00

I'm attending tomorrow's hearing of Gabriel v. "Members of the Judicial Council" *I don't know the actual names of the co-defendants*. It is at 1:30. I only know it's at the ~~main courthouse in Oakland~~ U.S. Post Office building near the Rene C. Davidson Courthouse (the big white one near Lake Merritt), Department 31. ~~but I don't know the department or case number or anything. I suppose I'll go early and try to meet up with people.~~ Thanks to Beetle for passing along that information. I hear Ben Narodick will be attending.

You can't run an independent student government like this

2006-06-28T11:09:00.000-07:00

In a government that maintains a hands-off soverign (like Australia) and has the usual three branches of government, it is absolutely essential that all parties abide by the conventions established through tradition and written in law. For all governments, the Executive respects the rulings of the Judiciary and is charged with executing with the law by the Judiciary's interpretation. Also for all governments, no executive may extend their own term by executive fiat.

We have a problem.

Manny's executive order overruling the Judicial Council and overstepping both the authority of the Executive in attempting to certify the election results and act after his term had expired generates the constitutional crisis that we had so far managed to avoid. And now, with the "certified" executives attempting to take actions, we've gone from nobody giving the orders to nobody knows who should give the orders. If we don't have this resolved by the start of fall, it will be up to the ASUC Auxilary and the University to determine who they will recognize. If they can't come to a conclusion, it will be up to the Chancellor, who acts as a sort of Governor-General, to use reserve powers to straighten out this mess.

It is truly unfortunate that former President Buenrostro has acted in this matter, and in this manner. If the ASUC is not careful, we could be seeing the beginning of the end of an independent ASUC.

Some links (Wikipedia):
Australian constitutional crisis of 1975
Reserve Power

Appeal Filed in Ratto v Vakil

2006-06-21T05:27:00.000-07:00

Vishal Gupta, disqualified winner of the Executive Vice-Presidency, has filed an appeal to Ratto v. Vakil in what I imagine to be a turning point in the history of the ASUC Judicial Council. Beetle, as always, has the best legal analysis of the charge sheet, but let's consider other factors.

The J-Council seems to be asserting its authority. They don't like being made fools of, they want to show they have some common sense (such as understanding that chalk does last more than one day, and they have a good enough memory to remember exactly what Suken said regarding that). I don't think the J-Council will take kindly to threats of lawsuits in real life court.

Then again, we have a set of popularly elected executive candidates whose party controls the chamber that makes the rules for the Judicial Council, the Senate. I bet there are some Senators who are exceedingly angry at the decision, and I'm sure the J-Council is aware of this. Something akin to FDR's Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 might scare the J-Council into a split decision to find some point of law to reverse their own decision, a "switch in time to save nine."

In any case, a unanimous decision, even with only four justices, would seem to be difficult to turn around, unless they were caught in a groupthink mode during deliberations. Who knows what'll happen?

Retraction: John O'Connor's Status

2006-06-15T19:09:00.000-07:00

There was an error in the article entitled "ASUC Exec Winners Based on Judicial Council Ruling." I incorrectly stated that John O'Connor had publically made known his intentions to resign the office of Academic Affairs Vice-President should he be elected. In fact, Mr. O'Connor has made no such statement. His intentions regarding assuming the office of Academic Affairs Vice-President are unknown at this time.

Lauren will take the Presidency

2006-06-15T12:19:00.000-07:00

Well, Lauren has informed me by e-mail that she will accept the presidency for one semester and not avail herself of her right to take the Spring semester, before handing over the Presidency to Ben in Spring. I have work right now, so quotes and more news after 6 o'clock.

EDIT 7:15PM:I seem to have misread the ASUC Constitution. Ben only acts as President until the Senate promulgates a replacement.

No more election posts tonight

2006-06-15T00:59:00.000-07:00

If anyone's waiting for a new election post, I won't be making any more tonight. I'm pooped.

Appeal to Federal Court?

2006-06-15T00:15:00.000-07:00

Running around the Berkeley blogosphere are strong suggestion that Student Action will sue in either Alameda County Superior Court or Federal Court to reinstate the slate. I, however, think this is a ridiculous waste of either Court's time, so let's try to find a quick, summary resolution to this, shall we?

Oh, I suppose you want me to give you an idea how, okay, here goes...

So under Article 14.1 of the Elections bylaws, the Judicial Council is given sole jurisdiction in all cases arising under these by-laws. I don't imagine that alone would be enough to summarily dismiss the case. Well, the form the candidates sign to register for the race includes a disclaimer that the candidate "agrees to obey...the Election By-Laws". For anybody reading my sophomoric thoughts running through my head and disagreeing on every point I'm making, does this mean that the candidates are agreeing to an alternative dispute resolution (J-Council) as a condition for entering the race? Note that the party filing form includes no such disclaimer, but Suken was representing each candidate, not the party, right? Is this enough to summarily dismiss in real court? Or am I totally off-base here?

Poor Elections Council

2006-06-15T00:10:00.000-07:00

So I was pouring over the elections by-laws, and it seems that nobody on the Elections Council gets paid until the results are certified. A rather sad story for E-Council chair Jessica Wren, Assistant Chair Emily Liedbald, Publicity Coordinator Jessica Lee, and Poll Coordinator Matthew Hui.

Impact on CalSERVE, what if they had run an Exec slate?

2006-06-14T23:37:00.000-07:00

Well, with the news really just reaching me without warning, new thoughts are popping into my head every other minute. It seems CalSERVE has ended up making an ENORMOUS tactical error in not running Exec Slate candidates. It is highly debatable whether or not any of them would have won, but given the 2356 votes simply disappearing in the President's race, I imagine a good number of them would probably have latched onto any serious (or at least not affiliated with satire) candidate. The entrance of CalSERVE could also have increased turnout for the race. If CalSERVE runs, I predict they win the Presidency and Academic Affairs Vice-President, but Ben Narodick holds onto the Executive Vice-President by his longevity in the Senate, and Igor Tregub holds onto the External VP race by a landslide.

ASUC Exec Winners according to the Judicial Council ruling

2006-06-14T23:00:00.000-07:00

The method I'm using to tabulate the votes is to declare "dead", by the jargon of the program, the Student Action candidates before the votes are entered into the system, and then tabulating the votes. Away we go:
President - Quota = 2893 (down from 4014)
Round 1/2
(SQULECH!) Lauren Karasek - 2183
(DAAP) Dmitri Garcia - 1637
(Independent) Tom Bell - 1242
(Bears United) Andy Ratto - 723 Eliminated
(Independent) Pammy O'Leary - 0 Eliminated
Round 3
(SQUELCH!) Lauren Karasek - 2485
(DAAP) Dmitri Garcia - 1701
(Independent) Tom Bell - 1465 Eliminated
Spent Ballots - 134 + 2242 bullet votes for Oren Gabriel
Round 4
(SQUELCH!) Lauren Karasek - 2893 Winner
(DAAP) Dmitri Garcia - 2296

Executive Vice-President
As Ben Narodick is the only candidate remaining, he wins by default, just for fun, let's see how many votes he would have gotten: 4974 out of about 7800 cast.

External Vice-President - Quota = 3255
Round 1
(Independent) Igor Tregub - 3255 (3600 First Place) Winner
(DAAP) Ali Cruz - 1427
(SQUELCH!) John Waste - 1136
(Bears United) Andy Ratto - 516

Academic Affairs Vice-President
(SQULECH!) John O'Connor- 2750 Winner
(Bears United) Andy Ratto - 1450
Of course, John has publicly stated that he would resign the seat should he win it. There are different rules governing resignation than elections. Title 1 (Administration), Aritcle VIII of the ASUC Bylaws addresses vacancies by requiring the Senate to form a seven member committee of "elected officials" (this committee may include executive officers under the definition of "elected officer" under Title 1, Article I, section 1 of the Bylaws) to select a replacement nominee. Any elected official may present a nomination to this committee. The committee must make its final recommendation to the full Senate at the second or third regular Senate meeting after its formation. The Senate must approve the nominee by 2/3 vote.Retraction: Now that I've had a chance to think about it, I don't actually remember John O'Connor saying he'd resign. If only the Daily Cal was up, I wouldn't have made that error. Anyway, I probably just remember Andy Ratto's intentions to resign showing up over and over in the Daily Cal.
~~EDIT: I would provide a link to John's statements in the Daily Cal, but alas, like Generalisimo Francisco Franco, the Daily Cal's website is still dead.~~
So this is next year's executive council:
President - (SQUELCH!) Lauren Karasek
Executive Vice President - (SQUELCH!) Ben Narodick
External Vice President - (Independent) Igor Tregub
Academic Affairs Vice President - (SQUELCH!) John O'Connor ~~Will probably resign.~~ Retraction: I think I'm substituting Andy Ratto's intent to resign with John O'Connor's intentions.
Student Advocate - (Independent) Andrew Garvin Only candidate not affected by the disqualifications.

STUDENT ACTION ASUC EXECUTIVE SLATE DISQUALIFIED

2006-06-14T22:56:00.000-07:00

Ratto v Vakil has come down in the last couple hours, and it seems the Bears United candidate had a purpose after all, 'CUZ HE ELIMINATED THE STUDENT ACTION CANDIDATES! Read details in CalStuff, the decision is here (pdf). What does this mean exactly?

Well, Ben Narodick at CalStuff (and Executive Vice-President runner-up) beleives that the candidates that finished second in the final balloting will get in, much as the 21st place Senator is the alternate. However, I don't think there's precedent for the elimination of all of the winners (save AG-elect Garvin) prior to the certification of the ballot by the Judicial Council. We may have to do a re-count. Otherwise, only 1434 out of the 8028 ballots cast for President will elect Lauren Karasek, which obviously doesn't make sense. The decision in Ratto v Vakil makes note of this in the final paragraph:

The Elections Council should be prepared to retabulate the votes for the four executive positions so as not to disenfranchise any voters, specifically by counting the second place selections made by those voters who had given their first place votes to the Student Action executive candidates.

With that, in just a moment, I will retabulate the votes in just a sec.

Candidate/Voter File Available, Mock Elections

2006-06-10T02:42:00.000-07:00

Okay, so the Elections Council made the candidate and voter files available, so we'll hold elections and get the proper tally.

President - Quota = 4014
Round 1
(Student Action)Oren Gabriel - 4014 (4500+ First Place) Winner
(SQUELCH!) Lauren Karasek - 1434
(DAAP) Dimitri Garcia - 1275
(Independent) Tom Bell - 743
(Bears United) Andy Ratto - 310

Executive Vice-President - Quota = 3893
(Student Action) Vishal Gupta - 5000 Winner
(SQUELCH!) Ben Narodick - 2800

External Affairs Vice-President - Quota = 4062
Round 1
(Student Action) Jason Chu - 3244
(Independent) Igor Tregub - 2698
(DAAP) Ali Cruz - 1097
(SQUELCH!) John Waste - 824
(Bears United) Andy Ratto - 260 Eliminated
Round 2
(Student Action) Jason Chu - 3294 +50
(Indpendent) Igor Tregub - 2738 +40
(DAAP) Ali Cruz - 1122 +35
(SQUELCH!) John Waste - 891 +67 Eliminated
Exhausted Ballots - 78
Round 3
(Student Action) Jason Chu - 3429 +135
(Independent) Igor Tregub - 3023 +285
(DAAP) Ali Cruz - 1293 +171 Eliminated
Exhausted Ballots - 378
Round 4
(Student Action) Jason Chu - 3717 +288 Winner
(Independent) Igor Tregub - 3498 +475 Eliminated
Exhausted Ballots - 908

Academic Affairs Vice-President - Quota = 3662
Round 1
(Student Action) Joyce Liou - 3662 (5100+ First Place) Winner
(SQUELCH!) John O'Connor - 1985 (1600+ First Place)
(Bears United) Andy Ratto - 766 (450+ First Place)

Student Advocate - Quota = 2877
Round 1
(Independent) Andrew Garvin - 2877 (3200 First Place) Winner
(SQUELCH!) Aaron Brownstein - 1308 (1200 First Place)
(Bears United) - 787 (700 First Place)
(SQUELCH! sucks) - 567(500 First Place)

Senate - Quota = 419
For the Senate, I'm going to run the hypothetical that there were no voluntary withdrawls.
Round 1
#1 (Student Action) Ilana Nankin - 419 Secured
#2 (Student Action) Eunice Moon - 419 Secured
#3 (Independent) Ali Ansary - 396
#4 (APPLE Engineering)Vince Law - 395
#5 (Student Action) Jeff Manassero - 347
#6 (CalSERVE) Van Nguyen - 306
#7 (Student Action) Curtis Lee - 287
#8 (APPLE Engineering) Dwight Asuncion - 279
#9 (CalSERVE) Taylor Albright - 275
#10 (Student Action) Jane Park - 275
#11 (APPLE Engineering) Brandon Chen - 273
#12 (Student Action) Jen Avelino - 271
#13 (Student Action) Vivienne Nguyen - 270
#14 (BCR) Victoria Mitchell - 267
#15 (CalSERVE) Lisa Ang - 259
#16 (CalSERVE) Carolina Jaurequi - 251
#17 (Student Action) Sammy Averbach - 245
#18 (Student Action) Sayshu Medicherla - 233
#19 (UNITE Greek) Donald Rizzo - 232
#20 (UNITE Greek) Liz Han - 225
#21 (CalSERVE) Suguey Hernandez - 202
#22 (Fight for California Coalition) Travis Garcia - 193
#23 (Independent) Charles Shin - 186
#24 (CalSERVE) Taymyr Bryant - 177
#25 (Independent) Karl Siganporia - 169
#27 (SQUELCH!) David Wasserman - 141
#28 (DAAP) Dimitri Garcia - 133
Round 35
#1 (Student Action) Ilana Nankin - 419 Secured
#2 (Student Action) Eunice Moon - 419 Secured
#3 (APPLE Engineering) Vince Law - 419 Secured
#4 (Independent) Ali Ansary - 415
#5 (Student Action) Jeff Manassero - 372
#6 (CalSERVE) Van Nguyen - 323
#7 (APPLE Engineering) Dwight Asuncion - 316
#8 (APPLE Engineering) Brandon Chen - 303
#9 (CalSERVE) Taylor Albright - 303
#10 (Student Action) Curtis Lee - 300
#11 (Student Action) Vivienne Nguyen - 299
#12 (Student Action) Jane Park - 293
#13 (Student Action) Jen Avelino - 289
#14 (BCR) Victoria Mitchell - 286
#15 (CalSERVE) Lisa Ang - 273
#16 (CalSERVE) Carolina Jaurequi - 270
#17 (Student Action) Sammy Averbach - 256
#18 (UNITE Greek) Donald Rizzo - 247
#19 (Student Action) Sayshu Medicherla - 246
#20 (UNITE Greek) Liz Han - 240
#21 (CalSERVE) Suguey Hernandez - 217
#22 (Fight for California Coalition) Travis Garcia - 210
#23 (Independent) Charles Shin - 197
#24 (SQUELCH!) David Wasserman - 191
#25 (CalSERVE) Taymyr Bryant - 188
#28 (DAAP) Dimitri Garcia - 164
Round 37
#1 (Student Action) Ilana Nankin - 419 Secured
#2 (Student Action) Eunice Moon - 419 Secured
#3 (APPLE Engineering) Vince Law - 419 Secured
#4 (Independent) Ali Ansary - 419 Secured
#5 (Student Action) Jeff Manassero - 385
#6 (CalSERVE) Van Nguyen - 326
#7 (APPLE Engineering) Dwight Asuncion - 325
#8 (APPLE Engineering) Brandon Chen - 311
#9 (CalSERVE) Taylor Albright - 311
#10 (Student Action) Vivienne Nguyen - 310
#11 (Student Action) Curtis Lee - 306
#12 (BCR) Victoria Mitchell - 302
#13 (Student Action) Jane Park - 300
#14 (Student Action) Jen Avelino - 291
#15 (CalSERVE) Lisa Ang - 277
#16 (UNITE Greek) Donald Rizzo - 277
#17 (CalSERVE) Carolina Jaurequi - 273
#18 (Student Action) Sammy Averbach - 262
#19 (Student Action) Sayshu Medicherla - 250
#20 (UNITE Greek) Liz Han - 248
#21 (CalSERVE) Suguey Hernandez - 219
#22 (Fight for California Coalition) Travis Garcia - 213
#23 (Independent) Charles Shin - 199
#24 (SQUELCH!) David Wasserman - 196
#25 (CalSERVE) Ben Narodick - 190
#29 (DAAP) Dimitri Garcia - 171
#31 (DAAP) Yvette Felarca - 147 Eliminated
Round 38
#1 (Student Action) Ilana Nankin - 419 Secured
#2 (Student Action) Eunice Moon - 419 Secured
#3 (APPLE Engineering) Vince Law - 419 Secured
#4 (Independent) Ali Ansary - 419 Secured
#5 (Student Action) Jeff Manassero - 386
#6 (CalSERVE) Van Nguyen - 327
#7 (APPLE Engineering) Dwight Asuncion - 326
#8 (CalSERVE) Taylor Albright - 313
#9 (Student Action) Vivienne Nguyen - 312
#10 (APPLE Engineering) Brandon Chen - 311
#11 (Student Action) Curtis Lee - 307
#12 (Student Action) Jane Park - 302
#13 (BCR) Victoria Mitchell - 302
#14 (Student Action) Jen Avelino - 292
#15 (CalSERVE) Lisa Ang - 283
#16 (UNITE Greek) Donald Rizzo - 278
#17 (CalSERVE) Dimitri Garcia - 274
#18 (CalSERVE) Carolina Jaurequi - 274
#19 (Student Action) Sammy Averbach - 262
#20 (Student Action) Sayshu Medicherla - 250
#21 (UNITE Greek) Liz Han - 249
#22 (CalSERVE) Suguey Hernandez - 225
#23 (Fight for California Coalition) Travis Garcia - 214
#24 (Independent) Charles Shin - 199
#25 (SQUELCH!) David Wasserman - 197
Round 42
#1 (Student Action) Ilana Nankin - 419 Secured
#2 (Student Action) Eunice Moon - 419 Secured
#3 (APPLE Engineering) Vince Law - 419 Secured
#4 (Independent) Ali Ansary - 419 Secured
#5 (Student Action) Jeff Manassero - 413
#6 (CalSERVE) Van Nguyen - 363
#7 (APPLE Engineering) Dwight Asuncion - 340
#8 (UNITE Greek) Donald Rizzo - 337
#9 (CalSERVE) Taylor Albright - 328
#10 (Student Action) Vivienne Nguyen - 326
#11 (CalSERVE) Carolina Jaurequi - 323
#12 (Student Action) Jane Park - 320
#13 (BCR) Victoria Mitchell - 317
#14 (Student Action) Curtis Lee - 317
#15 (APPLE Engineering) Brandon Chen - 313
#16 (SQUELCH!) Ben Narodick - 307
#17 (Student Action) Jen Avelino - 298
#18 (CalSERVE) Lisa Ang - 296
#19 (DAAP) Dimitri Garcia - 288
#20 (Student Action) Sammy Averbach - 288
#21 (Independent) Charles Shin - 279
#22 (CalSERVE) Suguey Hernandez - 277
#23 (UNITE Greek) Liz Han - 261
#24 (Student Action) Sayshu Medicherla - 260
#25 (Fight for California Coalition) Travis Garcia - 220
#26 (SQUELCH!) David Wasserman - 211

Final Results (Quota=419)
#1 - (Student Action) Ilana Nankin - QUOTA
#2 - (Student Action) Eunice Moon - QUOTA
#3 - (APPLE Engineering) Vince Law - QUOTA
#4 - (Independent) Ali Ansary - QUOTA
#5 - (SQUELCH!) Ben Narodick - QUOTA
#6 - (Student Action) Jeff Manassero - QUOTA
#7 - (CalSERVE) Carolina Jaurequo - QUOTA
#8 - (UNITE Greek) Donald Rizzo - QUOTA
#9 - (CalSERVE) Van Nguyen - 417
#10 - (CalSERVE) Taylor Albright - 416
#11 - (Student Action) Jen Avelino - 389
#12 - (Student Action) Jane Park - 389
#13 - (APPLE Engineering) Dwight Asuncion - 386
#14 - (Student Action) Vivienne Nguyen - 380
#15 - (Student Action) Curtis Lee - 374
#16 - (APPLE Engineering) Brandon Chen - 356
#17 - (CalSERVE) Lisa Ang - 344
#18 - (BCR) Victoria Mitchell - 343
#19 - (DAAP) Dimitri Garcia - 337
#20 - (Student Action) Sammy Averbach - 332
Held out of the Senate (would have won if not dropped early)
(SQUELCH!) Ben Narodick
Snuck into the Senate (did not win here but won actual election)
(SQUELCH!) David Wasserman

Too tired to do any analysis, make your own conclusions.

My Elections Scorecard

2006-05-26T01:26:00.000-07:00

Okay, let's see how I did with my predictions, comments in italics:

President
Oren Gabriel wins but only after elimination of Ratto, Tom Bell, and DAAP's Dimitri Garcia, in that order. Karasek finishes a respectable second, likely with better than 30% of the vote.
HALF RIGHT. Gabriel won it straight out.

Executive Vice President
Since no one reads this anyway, and it'll be cool to tell people "I told you so," I predict Ben Narodick earns the surprise victory over the slick Vishal Gupta (who really isn't such a bad guy).
WRONG. Vishal wins it.

Academic Vice President
Joyce Liou wins due to being the only serious candidate in the race. O'Connor finishes a distant second.
RIGHT.

External Vice President
After elimination of Ratto and Cruz, John Waste earns a surprisingly hugh percentage of votes despite not actually wanting to win but has his votes transfered after the third round. The protest votes for John Waste are generally turned into protest votes for Igor as he wins by a slim margin over (an unimpressive, at least in various club forums) Jason Chu.
Right that Waste makes third, but not with a huge number of votes. Right that the race was close. WRONG with the winning candidate.

Student Advocate
Garvin wins a landslide victory in the non-partisan race. Brownstein "SQUELCH!" second and Ganz "SQUELCH! Sucks" in third.
RIGHT.

Now we make $%@! up about the Senate!
#1 - Ilana Nankin (SA): Supported by Rally Committee and cousin of SA's presidential candidate. EXACTLY RIGHT
#2 - Jeff Manassero (SA): Benefits from SA Donkey voting, supporters identifiable on campus by crowns and sashes and his parents. DOWN 3 in 5th place
#3 - Ben Narodick (SQ): Incumbent, no nonsense chair of Finance Committee benefits from name recognition in the executive vice president race. WRONG
#4 - Sammy Averbach (SA): I think he's popular amongst the Jews and the Greeks (the Jewish Greeks, well, yeah, I guess...) but don't take my word for it. Just a familiar name is all. DOWN 16 in 20th place
#5 - Vivienne Nguyen (SA): Also benefits from SA Donkey voting, "Vote Vivienne" chalking all around campus. DOWN 7 in 12th place
#6 - Liz Han (UG): Her name is familiar to me... WRONG
#7 - Ali Cruz (DAAP): Name recognition in the External VP ballot, DAAP may come away as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, if only their supporters didn't need every vote to elect Ali, if this were Parliament. I'll give DAAP one more Senator later on. WRONG
#8 - Eunice Moon (SA): I think she'll get the Asian club vote. Actually...why don't I have her higher? UP 6 in 2nd place. Why didn't I have her higher?
#9 - Taylor Albright (CS): I think Taylor's one of those universally liked persons around the ASUC. UP 2 in 7th place.
#10 - Jane Park (SA): She's getting quite a few first and second place votes from Cal Dems and their friends, and so on and so forth. DOWN 1 in 11th place
#11 - One of those Apple Engineer folks: I have no idea who the most popular engineer is in AE. Do they even have that contest? RIGHT on AE, WRONG ON JUST 1 AE.
#12 - Vicotria Mitchell (BCR): Because...it's BCR! DOWN 5 in 17th place.
#13 - Jen Avelino (SA): "Jen for Sen" another good chalking message. Memorable, it sticks. EXACTLY RIGHT!
#14 - Lauren Karasek (SQ): Name recognition and transfer from Narodick will allow SQUELCH! to sneak in two Senators for next year if Narodick doesn't win Executive Vice President. WRONG
#15 - Sayshu Medicherla (SA): Popular in the dorms. I knew him when he was on the hall ass of the side opposite mine, wasn't particularly impressed, but he made a lot of friends. WRONG
#16 - Donald Rizzo (UG): This'll be the Unite Greek guy with a scattering of first place votes but mostly a transfer of votes from Liz Han and tenth and eleventh place votes from SA. UP 7 in 9th place.
#17 - Casey Lilenfeld (MP): Super Mario in Mario Party, friends with Jeff Manassero. May pick up a scattering of fifth place fractional votes as well as some protest votes. WRONG
#18 - Dimitri Garcia (DAAP): Name recognition from the presidential ballot sneaks him in. Down 1 in 19th place.
#19 - Yvette Felarca (DAAP): Fact that she's an incumbent just oh so barely sneaks her in for a second term. WRONG
#20 - Sapna Mehta (CS) : Incumbency gets Sapna the final spot. WRONG

Well, I went 12 for 20 as to the people in the Senate. Now let's see if I got the makeup right:

Senate Breakdown:
Student Action: 8 EXACTLY RIGHT
DAAP: 3 Lower - 1
SQUELCH!: 2 (or 1, depending on Narodick's victory or defeat) Lower - 1
Unite Greek: 2 Lower - 1
CalSERVE: 2 Higher - 4
Apple Engineering: 1 Higher - 3
BCR: 1 EXACTLY RIGHT
Mario Party: 1 Lower - 0
Independents - 1

So I don't know everything.

Hopefully the Elections Council will be kind enough to post the voter file online so that we may analyze the results ourselves (and see who would've won without any voluntary drops).

The Charles Shin Mystery is Solved!

2006-05-25T19:16:00.000-07:00

So it turns out that there was a typo in entering names for the ballots and independent Ali Ansary is in fact the third place senator and not the unknown Charles Shin. According to Jessica Wren who left a message with CalStuff, Charles Shin is #52 and Ali Ansary is #51, but their names were switched in the software. Ballots are cast by number, so Ali is the correct winner.

Student Action holds near budget control, execs

2006-05-24T22:28:00.000-07:00

In the 20-member Senate, 2/3 control for passage of the budget makes 14 votes.

The official coalition of Student Action, APPLE Engineering, and UNITE Greek is 12 votes.

Oh, there was a little earthquake just now.

BCR's Senator should join the SA coalition because there is no way any BCR senator would join CALServe. I guess DAAP and CALServe would join for 5 votes in opposition. Nobody knows who Charles Shin is, facebook pegs him as a grad student of political science and economics. And who knows where David Wasserman of SQULECH! will fit in?

Liveblogging the Election Results from Barrows 166

2006-05-24T19:04:00.000-07:00

8:09 - The order:

1. Ilana Nankin* - SA
2. Eunice Moon* - SA
3. Charles Shin* - Independent
4. Vince Law* - Apple Engineering
5. Jeff Manassero* - Student Action
6. Carolina Jaurequi* - CALServe
7. Taylor Allbright* - CALServe
8. Van Nguyen* - CALServe
9. Donald Rizzo 418 - UNITE Greek
10. David Wasserman 404 - SQUELCH!
11. Jane Park 396 - Student Action
12. Vivienne Nguyen 389 - Student Action
13. Jen Avelino 389 - Student Action
14. Dwight Asuncion 387 - Apple Engineering
15. Curits Lee 377 - Student Action
16. Brandon Chen 356 - Apple Engineering
17. Victoria Marshall
And they turned off the screen. Full results I imagine will be available at http://elections.asuc.org

8:04 - Ali Ansary finishes 21st at 299. Final distribution is 7 Student Action, 3 Apple Engineering, 4 CALServe, 1 Unite Greek, 1 SQULECH!, 1 BCR, 1 DAAP, and 1 Independent.

8:02 - In 19th is Lisa Ang at 308, 20th is Sammy Averbach at 295, Ali Ansary at 292 and Suguey at 284.

8:01 - Travis Garcia finishes in 25th place. Representing co-ops, his vote was redistributed all over.

8:00 - Jeff Manassero makes quota. Jeff Wasserman pushes forward for SQULECH! Ben Narodick was eliminated some time ago.

7:57 - Announcement of Round 17. Katie Robinson of United Greek gets gropped. Julia Harter of Unite Greek gets dropped. 8 candidates outside of the top 20.

7:56 - The program is working now. Vince Law makes quota and is currently being redistributed.

7:54 - Editing complete. Let's see what's going on at CalStuff during this display.

7:51 - I went forth and suggested to the elections council chair of my suggestion below. I dunno if they're going to heed it. A break in the action otherwise. I'll re-edit below to meet my editing standards ([time] - [comment])

7:46 - The problem with letting the person who can modify the program, run the program, is that that person will seek programming solutions that will take time. If you simply let an end user run it, that person will find solutions outside of the programming, such as writing down who was eliminated (order does not matter).

7:45 - It appears some emergency programming is being performed or instructions put into some command line something or other.

7:44 - Well, it shouldn't matter the order of redistribution, as long as they took down which candidates were eliminated. They've saved the log. I'm merely worried about losing the record of who was dropped.

7:42 - It appears that there is a significant problem in the voting. The redistribute button has locked out.

7:40 - About 30 candidates remain. Ben Narodick will probably gain another term, though David Wasserman has more votes than him at the moment.

7:40 - Sitting on the bubble in 19th at 254 is Donald Rizzo, 20th is Sayshu at 245.

7:38 - Andy Ratto just got eliminated with 25.139238 votes.

7:36 - No point counting rounds anymore. In incumbent news, Ben Narodick is 90 votes off of the bubble with 152. SQUELCH! candidates totalling 47 votes are dropping.

7:35 - A message popped on screen: "Congratulations! You have a Constitutional Crisis on your hands!"

7:34 - Tracy gets dropped. No new quota.

7:33 - This will change when candidates with substantial votes close, but there are 9 student action members of the Senate.

7:32 - Lauren Karasek volunteers to drop her 24 votes, nobody new makes quota in round 4.

7:31 - Tracy Ross' 6.13 votes are about to be transferred unless someone else volunteers to drop.

7:30 - Round 3 complete, no new quota. On the bubble in 19th Sammy Averbach at 248, 20th is Sayshu Medicherla at 242, 21st is Liz Han at 228, 22nd is Suguey Hernandez at 219.

7:29 - There are about 50 candidates remaining. Quota still 419, Charles Shin at 406, Vince Law at 400, Jeff Manassero 364, Van Nguyen 318.

7:28 - No one else makes quota after Round 2.

7:27 - More drops: Jane Li of DAAP, and they've scrolled up the list.

7:26 - Also dropping is Yvette Felarca of DAAP, Mayra Ureno of DAAP, Val Moreno of SA, Daniel Brady of SQUELCH! and Simon Ganz of SQUELCH!

7:24 - Dropping out voluntarily is Sapna Mehta of CALServe, Max Besbris of CALServe, and Aaron Brownstein of SQUELCH!, and John Waste of SQUELCH!

7:23 - Dropping candidates are standing near the front. Quota is 419 for the race. At 396 is independent Charles Shin, 395 Vince Law of AE, 347 Jeff Manassero of SA, 305 Van Nguyen of CALServe, 286 Curtis Lee of SA.

7:21 - Ilana Nankin and Eunice Moon of Student Action both make quota in the first round of tabulation.

7:20 - Now we move on to Senate, which will be a long process of dropping and such.

7:19 - Andrew Garvin runs away with the Student Advocate race, with 3200 first place votes. Wins by over 1500 votes.

7:17 - A hush in the room for the external VP race. No candidate makes quota after round 1. No candidate makes quota after round 2. Jason Chu holds off Igo 3717 to 3498. A 219 vote difference.

7:16 - Joyce Liou wins by about 1600 votes. 3662 made the quota.

7:15 - Vishal Gupta wins Executive Vice President by 1200 votes, 4500 to 3300.

7:13 - Oren Gabriel of Student Action wins the Presidency. Lauren finished second, more than 2600 votes behind the 4014 that made the quota.

7:12 - Elections Council Chair Jessica Wren has just explained the rules for dropping out of consideration. The presidential tabulation is about to begin.

7:11 - My executive race predictions were here. To summarize: President - SA, ExecVP - SQUELCH!, AVP - SA, ExtVP - Igor, StuAdv - Garvin.

7:08 - It almost looks like the program is, before my eyes, being edited to work out bugs. I didn't know if they were using a new program, since the one that CalStuff Extended presented seemed to work just fine. Oh, and Ilana Nankin has just walked in with an entourage, with SQUELCH! Presidential candidate Lauren Karasek following close behind.

7:04 - I'll put new updates at the top of the page. Representatives from the League of Women Voters, the independent monitoring agency of these elections. Around me is a nearly filled room filled with ASUC government hopefuls. Hopefully we'll be underway shortly.

Going to Elections Result Whatchamacallit

2006-05-24T18:02:00.000-07:00

So I guess I'm going back into Berkeley to find out how wrong I actually am about these election results. Hopefully my rudimentary knowledge of ASUC politics will get me close to correct about the makeup of the Senate, if not the order they'll be placed in. I'll bring the compy with me along with Cal Patriot, Andy Ratto & CalStuff (OOH! Maybe I'll challenge them to a typing race!) Not that it really matters who comes first, since nobody reads this anyway.

It's in Barrows 166 @ 7pm, which means I've got to get going.

Election Predictions

2006-05-13T04:37:00.000-07:00

I've got a final later, but I've woken from my slumber to write. So the election lawsuits are done without any executive disqualifications, so now I'll reveal my election predictions that have no basis in fact, polling, or anything.

President
Oren Gabriel wins but only after elimination of Ratto, Tom Bell, and DAAP's Dimitri Garcia, in that order. Karasek finishes a respectable second, likely with better than 30% of the vote.

Executive Vice President
Since no one reads this anyway, and it'll be cool to tell people "I told you so," I predict Ben Narodick earns the surprise victory over the slick Vishal Gupta (who really isn't such a bad guy).

Academic Vice President
Joyce Liou wins due to being the only serious candidate in the race. O'Connor finishes a distant second.

External Vice President
After elimination of Ratto and Cruz, John Waste earns a surprisingly hugh percentage of votes despite not actually wanting to win but has his votes transfered after the third round. The protest votes for John Waste are generally turned into protest votes for Igor as he wins by a slim margin over (an unimpressive, at least in various club forums) Jason Chu.

Student Advocate
Garvin wins a landslide victory in the non-partisan race. Brownstein "SQUELCH!" second and Ganz "SQUELCH! Sucks" in third.

Now we make $%@! up about the Senate!
#1 - Ilana Nankin (SA): Supported by Rally Committee and cousin of SA's presidential candidate.
#2 - Jeff Manassero (SA): Benefits from SA Donkey voting, supporters identifiable on campus by crowns and sashes and his parents.
#3 - Ben Narodick (SQ): Incumbent, no nonsense chair of Finance Committee benefits from name recognition in the executive vice president race.
#4 - Sammy Averbach (SA): I think he's popular amongst the Jews and the Greeks (the Jewish Greeks, well, yeah, I guess...) but don't take my word for it. Just a familiar name is all.
#5 - Vivienne Nguyen (SA): Also benefits from SA Donkey voting, "Vote Vivienne" chalking all around campus.
#6 - Liz Han (UG): Her name is familiar to me...
#7 - Ali Cruz (DAAP): Name recognition in the External VP ballot, DAAP may come away as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, if only their supporters didn't need every vote to elect Ali, if this were Parliament. I'll give DAAP one more Senator later on.
#8 - Eunice Moon (SA): I think she'll get the Asian club vote. Actually...why don't I have her higher?
#9 - Taylor Albright (CS): I think Taylor's one of those universally liked persons around the ASUC
#10 - Jane Park (SA): She's getting quite a few first and second place votes from Cal Dems and their friends, and so on and so forth.
#11 - One of those Apple Engineer folks: I have no idea who the most popular engineer is in AE. Do they even have that contest?
#12 - Vicotria Mitchell (BCR): Because...it's BCR!
#13 - Jen Avelino (SA): "Jen for Sen" another good chalking message. Memorable, it sticks.
#14 - Lauren Karasek (SQ): Name recognition and transfer from Narodick will allow SQUELCH! to sneak in two Senators for next year if Narodick doesn't win Executive Vice President.
#15 - Sayshu Medicherla (SA): Popular in the dorms. I knew him when he was on the hall ass of the side opposite mine, wasn't particularly impressed, but he made a lot of friends.
#16 - Donald Rizzo (UG): This'll be the Unite Greek guy with a scattering of first place votes but mostly a transfer of votes from Liz Han and tenth and eleventh place votes from SA
#17 - Casey Lilenfeld (MP): Super Mario in Mario Party, friends with Jeff Manassero. May pick up a scattering of fifth place fractional votes as well as some protest votes.
#18 - Dimitri Garcia (DAAP): Name recognition from the presidential ballot sneaks him in.
#19 - Yvette Felarca (DAAP): Fact that she's an incumbent just oh so barely sneaks her in for a second term.
#20 - Sapna Mehta (CS) : Incumbency gets Sapna the final spot.

Executive Breakdown:
President: Student Action/Apple Engineering/Unite Greek
Executive Vice-President: SQUELCH!
Academic Vice-President: Student Action/Apple Engineering/Unite Greek
External Vice-President: Igor Tregub (Formerly Student Action)
Student Advocate: Andrew Garvin (Endorsed by Student Action & CalSERVE)

Senate Breakdown:
Student Action: 8
DAAP: 3
SQUELCH!: 2 (or 1, depending on Narodick's victory or defeat)
Unite Greek: 2
CalSERVE: 2
Apple Engineering: 1
BCR: 1
Mario Party: 1

Senate Analysis:
A Student Action led minority government, with the expected SA/AE/UG coalition making a majority. DAAP and SQUELCH! will find it difficult to work together due to the magazine's off-color remarks about Pilipinos in the kitchen or some such. CalSERVE colored themselves disorganized and lost and holding two seats in the Senate is no way to take a year off from the executive suites. Who knows what Ms. Mitchell of BCR (don't think she'll join DAAP, thank you very much) and Mr. Lilenfeld of Mario Party (more likely to vote with SA, in my uninformed opinion) have in mind. Therefore, the 9 seats not held by the SA/AE/UG coalition are not an organized opposition and cannot be effective. If my scenario holds true, we can expect yet another SA controlled Senate after this next one unless one party can get its act together to form a coalition.

Heh, I am talking so far out of my ass now, it has prolapsed. Pay no attention to the man behind the election scenario above (bad dog!). Anyway, wouldn't it be really cool if I were exactly right? Okay, maybe just really bizarre.