. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Tuesday, April 12, 2005


Analysis!

Nice, Felarca.

Student Action Senator Peter Chung and DAAP Senator Yvette Felarca formally charged Unterhalter with abusing her position as a justice to further the agenda of former council Chair Mike Davis.

Not satisfied with extortion, Felarca now wants to accuse anyone who doesn't do what she says of furthering someone else's agenda. "The only agenda that should be furthered is mine!" Note that none of the charges actually explain what rules were broken, which procedures were ignored and in what way, or any such thing. I'm very open to publishing a rebuttal from supporters, but I have yet to hear any claims from them.

Council Chair Robert Gregg said although the justices knew accepting the injunction would prompt accusations of impartiality, the ruling was necessary to ensure a fair trial.

"I regret that my actions were not fully explained to or understood by those whom they affected, but they were taken with every due diligence and respect for the law, both constitutionally and procedurally," Unterhalter said.


Interesting, because Unterhalter was actually explaining a completely different issue than the one Gregg was talking about.

The Daily Cal then tries to do "news analysis." Note the following...

After a series of midnight decisions and after a last-minute injunction from a single justice took two referenda off the ballot, the other branches are beginning to wonder where the council came across its ever-growing power.

Unterhalter is currently awaiting an impeachment hearing for single-handedly striking Leybovich's executive order to restore this year's referenda to the ballot.

That's twice they mention the single-handedness of the injunction. Which was filed against an executive order. That is, an order by the executive. The single executive.

While the council has been criticized by officials like Felarca for isolating itself from other branches by making unilateral decisions and exercising "power for power's sake," supporters say justices are only doing their job.

Power for power's sake? This coming from a woman who sued the ASUC and took its money because of elections rules that had already been changed in her favor. Grow up, woman. And graduate, for fuck's sake.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/12/2005 10:53:00 AM #
Comments (0)
. . .
Comments: Post a Comment


. . .