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

Nap Time!!!

Friday, April 24, 2009

While folks are up in arms about doing stuff that folks think is bad... or good... or something... this story tells us that Jonathan Gaurano got an exception to run for office using a process that nobody can remember.
After the opinion was issued, ASUC Auxiliary Director Nadesan Permaul helped Gaurano draft a letter requesting special status, which he sent to Elections Council Chair Emily Liedblad.

Liedblad said she collaborated with ASUC Attorney General Michael Sinanian to decide to grant Gaurano special status, although neither could recall the exact grounds Gaurano had for requesting an exception.

"He communicated to Nad in more detail than he did to me and the J-Council what his extenuating circumstances were," Sinanian said.

But Permaul also said he did not remember the circumstances.

"I don't recall," Permaul said. "I just remember thinking they were reasonable grounds to make that request."

Liedblad declined to comment on her reasoning and did not provide a copy of the letter.
Instead of complaining about the transparency of the drop which was not done secretly, how about some concerns here, Daily Cal? There is no "special status" category in the ASUC's rules. Essentially, what happened was Liedblad decided that Gaurano should run based on mysterious arguments nobody can remember, rather than on the nonbinding advisory opinion from the Judicial Council.

I'm not too troubled by it, since I thought the Judicial Council's opinion was wrong, but eyebrows really need to be raised about Auxiliary involvement and Elections Council transparency.

Update: A commenter reminds me that there is a "special status" category for students working to remove a university-imposed registration block. The story suggested that Gaurano chose to take a semester off for his own reasons, not because the university blocked him, so it's not clear how it was applied. A clarification notes that The Daily Cal did eventually get the letter, but can't be bothered to tell us what was in it.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/24/2009 12:32:00 PM #
Comments (7)
. . .
this is very weird

ASUC By-Laws, under Title VI, "Officer's Student Status"

This is what they used (i would know)...
The story says "personal and financial reasons," not a university-imposed impediment of registration, a la Title VI. Or is the fact that the university won't let you be a student if you are taking a semester off a university-imposed impediment? Is "tuition/fees too high" a university-imposed impediment?
"not a university-imposed impediment of registration,"

Blame the Daily Cal on this one.
it's clearly something that's confidential about Guarano's record
I believe you're right -

What could be confidential about Gaurano's record that is stirring up so much controversy?
His record is none of our business. The controversy arose because of the collective amnesia and inconsistent story.
Post a Comment

. . .