Mixed drinks

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."

Those opposed:

"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!"

In favor:

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."

Notes:

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.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 6/19/2006 02:42:00 PM #
Comments (2)

. . .

Comments:

"The bylaws were less likely to be enforced because people were too afraid of the eventual consequences."

If she was talking about previous members, ie, me, then its not entirely correct. Lots of times the cases weren't as strong as they needed to be for candidates to be DQ'ed, and lots of times there were (and Bobby will back me up on this) partisan concerns on the Council. That aside, I will counter what Lauren (who I don't know that well be love, she's great) said with what Misha said:

paraphrasing: "The Judicial Council isn't afraid to make tough decisions..."

# posted by  Mike : 3:27 PM, June 19, 2006

 

What the CalSERVE signatory said does not imply that CalSERVE is worried about being "on the hook," although that may be the case. I'm more inclined to read it as a neutral statement.

I will look at each of the claims to describe why I think his statement is netural -- simply a statement of truths rather than taking a side:
"I think that Student Action didn't do anything that was worse than in the past." -- This is probably true. Student Action has violated campaign rules before -- only, this time they were finally held accountable. Student Action (and CalSERVE, and APPLE) have also tried to pressure the Judicial Council before by calling for member removals and such, which might even be more dangerous than perjury. And I don't know, but it's hard to believe this is the first time an SA signatory has lied to the Council -- only, again, this time they were held accountable.

So yes, what they did is probably not worse than what they've done in the past. This time, they were just finally held accountable.


"It was definitely a very harsh consequence." -- That's true. Disqualification is a big step not to be taken lightly.


"(It was) possibly too harsh (a) consequence." -- See, this is what makes the statement netural. He doesn't say it was definitely too harsh a consequence. He says it was possibly so.


I think a better criticism of him would be to say that he is trying to have it both ways and not taking sides -- rather than saying CalSERVE is worried about being "on the hook."

# posted by  jimf : 2:31 PM, June 20, 2006

 

Post a Comment