Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Last week's ASUC minutes.
Ms. Winston said that in reference to the ASUC Art Studio, she asked if there were any possible discounts available for Senators, since it could get kind of expensive to buy membership as well as pay service fees, such as for the darkroom.Yeah, we wouldn't want Senators to have to pay fees that other people pay. High costs are for non-Senators only.
Mr. Osmeña asked about the types of actions the GA took that must come to the ASUC Senate, and his interpretation of that. Mr. Daniels said he would encourage questions to be asked, researched, and answered, but at the same time, he would encourage them to be aware that a simple question like that was very laden with history. If the GA were to sense that the ASUC Senate was looking over its shoulder and micromanaging what the GA did, he thought it would bring up that history. And given how productive their relationship has been on any number of issues, he would like to find a way for that to not happen. If there was an issue where the GA has not upheld its end of the bargain, he would ask them to talk to him or send him an e-mail, and they could find out how it worked for the Senate and the GA.Looking over the GA's shoulder is part of the ASUC Senate's job. It seems that Josh Daniels doesn't even want people discussing the possibility that the GA is part of the ASUC, and somehow accountable to the student body. The GA likes the relationship now (because the Senate refuses to put its foot down on anything), and if the ASUC starts being responsible, the GA will throw another hissy fit. I'm sorry that the GA folks don't like to talk about their responsibilities to the students of Cal, but it's part of their fucking job, so they need to grow up and do it. Getting free representation in the Senate while enjoying food and benefits at the expense of a largely indifferent graduate student body should not be all there is to the GA.
The Activism Right There Festival asked $7,500 from the Senate last week, the week of the event. Regardless of whether it should have been funded, Albert Wu had a good point:
Asking for money for the very expensive Zellerbach the week of the event held the ASUC hostage to fund the event or to force actions to be taken to the event's detriment.I imagine this was, in fact, part of the plan. Unless the Senate actually takes some kind of concrete action in terms of asking for money in advance, it will continue to be extorted this way year after year. There's no room for negotiations or modifications, because there isn't any time to do them. If they vote against it, they're trying to halt the event.
Gabe Weiner similarly argued that if they were going to put more money into it than Spring Welcome Week (an event the ASUC invented, pretty much), they should have been involved in the planning and had their name on it.
He didn't want the Senate to set a precedent that, in the future, could lead other groups going out and making their own planning decisions, thinking they could come to the ASUC as an open bank.Otherwise, it was a bunch of discussion as to whether it was too much money when other student groups wanted some, or whether they should make the allocation without knowing how much money they had, and the like.
The bill was eventually tabled on an 11-7-1 vote.
. . .
. . .