Friday, February 23, 2007
Ooooops
Error! The Daily Cal tries to report on the JRP... uh... experience.
The senate decided to reject eight of the 21 new clauses proposed by the council, including a new rule that would have made defendants in council hearings liable for the actions of their spokespeople or representatives in the case. Ouch. No, sorry, that's not correct. The new rule clarified that defendants in council hearings are liable for the actions of their spokespeople and representaties, but that was the old rule, too, and is actually part of the Elections Bylaws. So striking that part of the JRPs didn't change anything, it merely made things clear. Which, of course, makes the next complaint pretty odd:
Many senators who moved to strike specific clauses said they took issue with the language of certain reforms, pointing to a lack of clarity.
"The executives know the implication of things being vague and ambiguous," said Student Action Senator Vivienne Nguyen. Do you think they really understand what they did, and are just bullshitting, or do you think they're deluded into thinking that the rules they struck actually changed how the Judicial Council would operate?
Some members of the Student Action party said the voting pattern was a result of different levels of preparation among some of the senators. The voting pattern here was the party line votes. This is correct, but the "preparation" being referred to and the actual preparation are different. Jeff Manassero wants us to think Student Action just studied them harder. Of course, the real preparation was the decision by Student Action ahead of time to strike these clauses regardless of the ridiculousness of the argument. (e.g. "Show" is not as strong as "prove" because Google and Calmail format their e-mails differently. I'm not making this up. I hope this one makes it to the minutes.)
. . .
|
. . .
|
