Monday, June 19, 2006
There's also an article in The Daily Cal titled "Mixed Response to Executive Seat Winners' Disqualification," which, strangely enough, declares losers to be "winners."
"I think that Student Action didn't do anything that was worse than in the past," said CalSERVE party chair Arman Rezaee. "It was definitely a very harsh and possibly too harsh (a) consequence."
Note the following:
1. The Daily Cal has added a parenthetical "(a)" in order to make Rezaee's statement grammatically incorrect, or at least awkward.
2. The fact that this is done every year is given as a defense for them. Dude! That's why we need these rulings! So they stop!
3. CalSERVE realizes its on the hook as well for its equally blatant disregard for the rules.
Many ASUC officials said the Student Action campaign violations at issue in the May 9 suit, for which they initially received three censures each, were typical of most election cycles, in part because of the length and fogginess of ASUC bylaws.
"Waaa! We want power, but reading is too hard for us!"
Lauren and Ben are quoted as approving. Of course, Lauren and Ben are the ones immediately to benefit, so in the spirit of fairness, the Daily Cal might have sought others who supported the ruling and asked their opinion. It's not like they're hard to find. Bobby Gregg approved of the structure and legality of the result, though that doesn't really count.
"I think most of us who have been involved in the Judicial Council have become used to the situation," said SQUELCH! candidate Lauren Karasek, runner-up and now president. "The bylaws were less likely to be enforced because people were too afraid of the eventual consequences."
1. Lauren is the "runner-up," but strangely, also the "president." This despite the fact that she has the most votes of all not-disqualified candidates and the fact that the election results haven't been approved to declare anyone "president."
2. What Lauren is quoted as saying doesn't really make much sense in this context. I'll blame Daily Cal editing, as usual. I think the "people" referred to here are Judicial Council members in the past, though that's not as obvious as it perhaps should be.
. . .
. . .