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

Nap Time!!!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

There are three interesting bills in the bill packet. One establishes a committee to discuss revenue/expense sharing between the ASUC and the GA. I suppose this means that the original bill proposed won't be adopted immediately.

Another orders that the President reserve her campus-wide e-mail in April for announcing elections. I'm not entirely sure the Senate has the authority to issue this order, though if Winston agrees, the point is moot. Then again, if she agreed, they probably wouldn't have needed to propose a bill for it. Does anyone want to make wild, baseless accusations about why this is being proposed as a bill?

Finally, Lyell Sakaue's bill banning chalking makes an appearance.
WHEREAS, chalking is an incredibly labor-intensive process which favors major-party candidates with significant campaign infrastructure, making it harder for small parties and independent candidates to compete;
I suppose that's one way to phrase it. Another is "WHEREAS, parties that have more support are more likely to win elections," which doesn't bother me all that much.

The new campaign violation is:
Using chalk, hairspray, any combination thereof, or any other material, to publicize any ASUC candidate or political party within the limits of the City of Berkeley on sidewalks or streets.
Heh. Hairspray. Are there any private streets or sidewalks in Berkeley? If so, chalk is banned there, too, which seems like an overreach, and if I were opposed to this, I would consider making a free speech case to the Judicial Council. At first glance, it would make more sense to prohibit chalking on sidewalks/streets without the permission of the owners.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 3/17/2009 02:31:00 PM #
Comments (4)
. . .
Winston's email is probably proposed as a bill to make sure she doesn't make it unfairly in support of CalSERVE
Also, while he's at it, Sakaue should write a bill restricting flyering, picket-sign holding, and campaigning in general.

Vinit from the Elections Council told me that Senator Nahabet told him to write a bill for the campus-wide email. I asked Vinit whether or not he actually approached President Winston about it before writing the bill and he said he hadn't. So it was written without even asking President Winston first. Anyway, I told Vinit to ask her directly instead.
Let me clarify everything I have done. I originally e-mailed Roxanne inquiring about whether or not it was possible to send this e-mail. Roxanne e-mailed me back saying it *was* indeed possible, and she directed me to former CalSERVE senator Rebecca Coleman who works in the Office of the President. I met with Rebecca, who told me that this type of e-mail requires consent from all the executive officers.

At the subsequent Senate meeting, I told Senator Nahabet about everything I was doing, and he suggested I author a bill with the complete body of the text so the Elections Council would have absolute discretion in determining the content of the e-mail. In no way was I snubbing the executive officers or Roxanne, and in no way was I snubbing CalSERVE as a party. I would have submitted this bill regardless of who was in office. I simply obliged to Eddie's suggestion because I wanted to categorically ensure no one would be able to touch this.

I will talk personally with the executive officers, and if they agree on the content of the e-mail, I will request for the bill to be killed in committee.

I also want to personally thank Senator Nahabet and Senator Shah for their help. I hope they understand that I was simply trying to get this e-mail sent out in the most secure way possible.
Post a Comment

. . .