Recent Changes for "Election Statement Controversy" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_ControversyRecent Changes of the page "Election Statement Controversy" on Davis Wiki.en-us Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2008-09-14 15:52:24JasonAllerspotted one during save <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 42: </td> <td> Line 42: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Campus Judicial Board found in favor of SOSSS in a hearing about this issue. ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/153396.html described the hearing] in his ["LiveJournal"] and one audience member told SOSSS: "you tore the elections committee a new asshole." </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Campus Judicial Board found in favor of SOSSS in a hearing about this issue. ["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/153396.html described the hearing] in his ["LiveJournal"] and one audience member told SOSSS: "you tore the elections committee a new asshole." </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2008-09-14 15:52:05JasonAllerlink fixes <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 2: </td> <td> Line 2: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 18: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Elections Committee"] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["ASUCD Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/11/18/Opinion/Guest.Opinion-1318807.shtml guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/11/23/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1318858.shtml rebuttal] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttal]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Elections Committee"] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["ASUCD Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/11/18/Opinion/Guest.Opinion-1318807.shtml guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/11/23/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1318858.shtml rebuttal] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttal]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 49: </td> <td> Line 48: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [[Comments]] Okay, I am __really__ confused here. The [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/01/07/FrontPage/Six-Senators.Bid.Farewell-1319110.shtml new senators took office] on Thursday -- but I can't seem to find out what exactly is supposed to ''happen'' to the senators. As I understand it, they couldn't take office because there was an ''outstanding complaint'' against the ["Elections Committee"]..So, because the complaint was filed -- dispite the fact it was not in their favor -- they took office? --["PhilipNeustrom"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> [[Comments]]<span><br> + <br> +</span> Okay, I am __really__ confused here. The [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/01/07/FrontPage/Six-Senators.Bid.Farewell-1319110.shtml new senators took office] on Thursday -- but I can't seem to find out what exactly is supposed to ''happen'' to the senators. As I understand it, they couldn't take office because there was an ''outstanding complaint'' against the ["Elections Committee"]..So, because the complaint was filed -- dispite the fact it was not in their favor -- they took office? --["<span>Users/</span>PhilipNeustrom"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 52: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2005-01-10 22:35:26'' [[nbsp]] Phil, the complaints weren't against the specific senators that ran, it was against the Election commitee and not swearing in the new people was a precaution because in the worst case scenario, the election results could have been thrown out completely. But since the was no technical claim on invalidity, the results still stand. --["JenndelaVega"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2005-01-10 22:35:26'' [[nbsp]] Phil, the complaints weren't against the specific senators that ran, it was against the Election commitee and not swearing in the new people was a precaution because in the worst case scenario, the election results could have been thrown out completely. But since the was no technical claim on invalidity, the results still stand. --["<span>Users/</span>JenndelaVega"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2006-06-12 23:42:40TomNelsonFixed Aggie links <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Elections Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["ASUCD Senate" Senate] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Elections Committee" Committee] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] ["Slate" slate]'s statement. The candidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["Elections Committee"] by ["SOSSS"] was the following:<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Elections Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["ASUCD Senate" Senate] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Elections Committee" Committee] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] ["Slate" slate]'s statement. The candidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["Elections Committee"] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Elections Committee"] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["ASUCD Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/<span>article/?id=64</span>04 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as [http://<span>californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6</span>48<span>0 a</span> rebuttal] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttal]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Elections Committee"] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["ASUCD Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/<span>media/storage/paper981/news/20</span>04<span>/11/18/Opinion/Guest.Opinion-1318807.shtml</span> guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as <span>a </span>[http://<span>www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/200</span>4<span>/11/23/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-131</span>8<span>858.shtml</span> rebuttal] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttal]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 36: </td> <td> Line 36: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Elections Committee"] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel, and used that as justification for its removal. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is ["ASUCD Senator Ackerman Scandal" true] (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no tenable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Elections Committee"] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel, and used that as justification for its removal. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is ["ASUCD Senator Ackerman Scandal" true] (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no tenable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 41: </td> <td> Line 41: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the ["Elections Committee"]. Since the complaint, filed November 15, had not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial Board"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators were not able to take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it has given more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] had not made a decision on that matter before the last senate meeting of Fall.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the ["Elections Committee"]. Since the complaint, filed November 15, had not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial Board"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators were not able to take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it has given more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] had not made a decision on that matter before the last senate meeting of Fall. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 49: </td> <td> Line 49: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [[Comments]] Okay, I am __really__ confused here. The [http://californiaaggie.com/<span>article/?id=6</span>8<span>68</span> new senators took office] on Thursday -- but I can't seem to find out what exactly is supposed to ''happen'' to the senators. As I understand it, they couldn't take office because there was an ''outstanding complaint'' against the ["Elections Committee"]..So, because the complaint was filed -- dispite the fact it was not in their favor -- they took office? --["PhilipNeustrom"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> [[Comments]] Okay, I am __really__ confused here. The [http://<span>www.</span>californiaaggie.com/<span>media/storage/paper9</span>8<span>1/news/2005/01/07/FrontPage/Six-Senators.Bid.Farewell-1319110.shtml</span> new senators took office] on Thursday -- but I can't seem to find out what exactly is supposed to ''happen'' to the senators. As I understand it, they couldn't take office because there was an ''outstanding complaint'' against the ["Elections Committee"]..So, because the complaint was filed -- dispite the fact it was not in their favor -- they took office? --["PhilipNeustrom"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2006-02-19 13:16:39GrahamFreemanfixed another link <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 36: </td> <td> Line 36: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Elections Committee"] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel, and used that as justification for its removal. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is ["Senator Ackerman Scandal" true] (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no tenable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Elections Committee"] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel, and used that as justification for its removal. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is ["<span>ASUCD </span>Senator Ackerman Scandal" true] (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no tenable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 49: </td> <td> Line 49: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [[Comments]]<span><br> -</span> Okay, I am __really__ confused here. The [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6868 new senators took office] on Thursday -- but I can't seem to find out what exactly is supposed to ''happen'' to the senators. As I understand it, they couldn't take office because there was an ''outstanding complaint'' against the ["Elections Committee"]..So, because the complaint was filed -- dispite the fact it was not in their favor -- they took office? --["PhilipNeustrom"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> [[Comments]] Okay, I am __really__ confused here. The [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6868 new senators took office] on Thursday -- but I can't seem to find out what exactly is supposed to ''happen'' to the senators. As I understand it, they couldn't take office because there was an ''outstanding complaint'' against the ["Elections Committee"]..So, because the complaint was filed -- dispite the fact it was not in their favor -- they took office? --["PhilipNeustrom"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2006-02-19 13:15:20GrahamFreemanfixed link <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Elections Committee"] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttal] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttal]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Elections Committee"] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["<span>ASUCD </span>Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttal] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttal]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 28: </td> <td> Line 28: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Platform Flyers: All candidates and tickets shall receive, at no charge to the candidates or tickets, up to 1,000 copies of one platform flyer. The flyer may be double-sided but no larger than an 8-1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. The platform flyer must include, but is not limited to, the official ASUCD Election Web site as announced at the mandatory candidates<span>Â’</span> meeting, the dates of the election, the candidate's name and the office for which the candidate is running. '''The procedures for printing copies shall be determined by the ASUCD Elections Committee and shall be announced to all candidates for office.''' </td> <td> <span>+</span> Platform Flyers: All candidates and tickets shall receive, at no charge to the candidates or tickets, up to 1,000 copies of one platform flyer. The flyer may be double-sided but no larger than an 8-1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. The platform flyer must include, but is not limited to, the official ASUCD Election Web site as announced at the mandatory candidates<span>&amp;#8217;</span> meeting, the dates of the election, the candidate's name and the office for which the candidate is running. '''The procedures for printing copies shall be determined by the ASUCD Elections Committee and shall be announced to all candidates for office.''' </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2005-04-10 23:59:11BrentLaabssenate link fixing <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Elections Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["<span>Senate"</span>] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Elections Committee" Committee] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] ["Slate" slate]'s statement. The candidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["Elections Committee"] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> <td> <span>+</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Elections Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["<span>ASUCD Senate" Senate</span>] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Elections Committee" Committee] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] ["Slate" slate]'s statement. The candidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["Elections Committee"] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2005-01-20 10:54:06RobRoy <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Elections Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["Senate"] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Elections Committee" Committee] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] <span>slate</span>'s statement. The candidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["Elections Committee"] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> <td> <span>+</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Elections Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["Senate"] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Elections Committee" Committee] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] <span>["Slate" slate]</span>'s statement. The candidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["Elections Committee"] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2005-01-19 18:53:40BrentLaabslink fixing <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 41: </td> <td> Line 41: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the ["Elections Committee"]. Since the complaint, filed November 15, had not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial <span>Affairs</span>"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators were not able to take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it has given more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] had not made a decision on that matter before the last senate meeting of Fall. </td> <td> <span>+</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the ["Elections Committee"]. Since the complaint, filed November 15, had not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial <span>Board</span>"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators were not able to take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it has given more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] had not made a decision on that matter before the last senate meeting of Fall. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 45: </td> <td> Line 45: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Official Report of the Campus Judicial Board has officially been [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/154536.html released], and copies can be had from the S<span>tudent </span>G<span>overnment </span>A<span>dministrative </span>O<span>ffice</span>, third floor MU. The CJB found in favor of the Orwellians in both hearings, with votes of 7-0. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Official Report of the Campus Judicial Board has officially been [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/154536.html released], and copies can be had from the <span>["</span>SGAO<span>" Student Government Administrative Office]</span>, third floor MU. The CJB found in favor of the Orwellians in both hearings, with votes of 7-0.<span><br> + <br> + There have been no repercussions for anyone involved.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2005-01-10 22:35:26JenndelaVegaComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 49: </td> <td> Line 49: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-01-10 22:35:26'' [[nbsp]] Phil, the complaints weren't against the specific senators that ran, it was against the Election commitee and not swearing in the new people was a precaution because in the worst case scenario, the election results could have been thrown out completely. But since the was no technical claim on invalidity, the results still stand. --["JenndelaVega"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2005-01-10 21:36:41PhilipNeustromnew senators took office, huh? what? <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 46: </td> <td> Line 46: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + [[Comments]]<br> + Okay, I am __really__ confused here. The [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6868 new senators took office] on Thursday -- but I can't seem to find out what exactly is supposed to ''happen'' to the senators. As I understand it, they couldn't take office because there was an ''outstanding complaint'' against the ["Elections Committee"]..So, because the complaint was filed -- dispite the fact it was not in their favor -- they took office? --["PhilipNeustrom"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-20 21:49:55PhilipNeustromlinked Kris' LJ entry w/ full text of ruling <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 45: </td> <td> Line 45: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Official Report of the Campus Judicial Board has officially been <span>released</span>, and copies can be had from the Student Government Administrative Office, third floor MU. The CJB found in favor of the Orwellians in both hearings, with votes of 7-0. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Official Report of the Campus Judicial Board has officially been <span>[http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/154536.html released]</span>, and copies can be had from the Student Government Administrative Office, third floor MU. The CJB found in favor of the Orwellians in both hearings, with votes of 7-0. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-19 00:18:54RevChad <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 45: </td> <td> Line 45: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Official Report of the Campus Judicial Board hopefully coming soon.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Official Report of the Campus Judicial Board has officially been released, and copies can be had from the Student Government Administrative Office, third floor MU. The CJB found in favor of the Orwellians in both hearings, with votes of 7-0.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-18 23:48:45KrisFrickeI think "asshole" is one word. Also they consulted a "real" lawyer, plus Igor.. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 38: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ["SOSSS"] is currently exploring their legal options, and the <span>["Igor Birman" </span>lawyer they have consulted<span>]</span> suggests that their case is quite good. </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["SOSSS"] is currently exploring their legal options, and the lawyer they have consulted suggests that their case is quite good. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 43: </td> <td> Line 43: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Campus Judicial Board found in favor of SOSSS in a hearing about this issue. ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/153396.html described the hearing] in his ["LiveJournal"] and one audience member told SOSSS: "you tore the elections committee a new ass<span>&nbsp;hole."</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Campus Judicial Board found in favor of SOSSS in a hearing about this issue. ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/153396.html described the hearing] in his ["LiveJournal"] and one audience member told SOSSS: "you tore the elections committee a new ass<span>hole."</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-18 23:42:17PhilipNeustromerg, this is better wording i think. also: noted Birman consulting for SOSSS <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 38: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ["SOSSS"] is currently exploring their legal options, and the lawyer they have consulted suggests that their case is quite good. </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["SOSSS"] is currently exploring their legal options, and the <span>["Igor Birman" </span>lawyer they have consulted<span>]</span> suggests that their case is quite good. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 43: </td> <td> Line 43: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Campus Judicial Board found in favor of SOSSS in a hearing about this issue. ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke<span>'s</span>]<span>&nbsp;description of the hearing can be read in his</span> [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/153396.html LiveJournal] and one audience member told SOSSS: "you tore the elections committee a new ass hole." </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Campus Judicial Board found in favor of SOSSS in a hearing about this issue. ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/153396.html <span>described the hearing] in his ["</span>LiveJournal<span>"</span>] and one audience member told SOSSS: "you tore the elections committee a new ass hole." </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-18 23:39:46PhilipNeustromnaming external links makes 'em smaller/easier to read <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 43: </td> <td> Line 43: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Campus Judicial Board found in favor of SOSSS in a hearing about this issue. ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke's] description of the hearing can be read <span>at </span>http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/153396.html and one audience member told SOSSS: "you tore the elections committee a new ass hole." </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Campus Judicial Board found in favor of SOSSS in a hearing about this issue. ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke's] description of the hearing can be read <span>in his [</span>http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/153396.html <span>LiveJournal] </span>and one audience member told SOSSS: "you tore the elections committee a new ass hole." </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-16 19:36:38RevChadupdated with CJB decision <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 41: </td> <td> Line 41: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the ["Elections Committee"]. Since the complaint, filed November 15, had not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial Affairs"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators were not able to take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it <span>will likely</span> give more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] ha<span>s not </span>y<span>et made a decision on that matter.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the ["Elections Committee"]. Since the complaint, filed November 15, had not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial Affairs"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators were not able to take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it <span>has</span> give<span>n</span> more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] ha<span>d not made a decision on that matter before the last senate meeting of Fall. <br> + <br> + The Campus Judicial Board found in favor of SOSSS in a hearing about this issue. ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke's] description of the hearing can be read at http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/153396.html and one audience member told SOSSS: "</span>y<span>ou tore the elections committee a new ass hole."<br> + <br> + Official Report of the Campus Judicial Board hopefully coming soon.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-04 11:58:27RevChad <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 38: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ["SOSSS"] is currently exploring their legal options. </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["SOSSS"] is currently exploring their legal options<span>, and the lawyer they have consulted suggests that their case is quite good</span>. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-04 11:57:07RevChadChanged present to past tense <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 41: </td> <td> Line 41: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the ["Elections Committee"]. Since the complaint, filed November 15, ha<span>s</span> not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial Affairs"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators <span>may not yet</span> take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it will likely give more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] has not yet made a decision on that matter. </td> <td> <span>+</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the ["Elections Committee"]. Since the complaint, filed November 15, ha<span>d</span> not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial Affairs"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators <span>were not able to</span> take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it will likely give more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] has not yet made a decision on that matter. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-02 14:31:40PhilipNeustromlinked a couple words <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 38: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> SOSSS is currently exploring their legal options. </td> <td> <span>+</span> <span>["</span>SOSSS<span>"]</span> is currently exploring their legal options. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 41: </td> <td> Line 41: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the Elections Committee. Since the complaint, filed November 15, has not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial Affairs"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators may not yet take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it will likely give more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] has not yet made a decision on that matter.<span><br> - </span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the <span>["</span>Elections Committee<span>"]</span>. Since the complaint, filed November 15, has not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial Affairs"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators may not yet take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it will likely give more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] has not yet made a decision on that matter. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-12-02 10:52:00BrentLaabsadded new aggie article, spelling <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Elections Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["Senate"] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Elections Committee" Committee] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] slate's statement. The canidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["Elections Committee"] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> <td> <span>+</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Elections Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["Senate"] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Elections Committee" Committee] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] slate's statement. The can<span>d</span>idate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["Elections Committee"] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> We will push to rename the Social Science and Humanities Building to the "Death Star". </td> <td> <span>+</span> We will push to rename the Social Science and Humanities Building to the "Death Star".<span>[[BR]]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Elections Committee"] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebutt<span>le</span>] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebutt<span>le</span>]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Elections Committee"] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebutt<span>al</span>] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebutt<span>al</span>]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 22: </td> <td> Line 22: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In an email to the ["SOSSS"] slate, Christine Schachter of the ["Elections Committee"] justified the legality of removing the portion:<br> <span>-</span> ''As stated in the ASUCD Government Codes: Chapter 1: Elections Regulations, section 112, 6, A,iii, a: " The procedures for printing copies SHALL BE DETERMINED by the ASUCD Elections Committee and shall be announced to all candidates for office." Furthermore, section b following the forementioned section read<span>e</span>s, "The ASUCD Elections Committee MAY publish...." meaning we are not required to, but instead to choose to assist candidates in their election process; granted all material is approved by the committee.'' </td> <td> <span>+</span> In an email to the ["SOSSS"] slate, Christine Schachter of the ["Elections Committee"] justified the legality of removing the portion:<span>[[BR]]</span><br> <span>+</span> ''As stated in the ASUCD Government Codes: Chapter 1: Elections Regulations, section 112, 6, A,iii, a: " The procedures for printing copies SHALL BE DETERMINED by the ASUCD Elections Committee and shall be announced to all candidates for office." Furthermore, section b following the forementioned section reads, "The ASUCD Elections Committee MAY publish...." meaning we are not required to, but instead to choose to assist candidates in their election process; granted all material is approved by the committee.''<span><br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 35: </td> <td> Line 36: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Elections Committee"] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel, and used that as justification for its removal. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is ["Senator Ackerman Scandal" true] (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no ten<span>i</span>able reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Elections Committee"] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel, and used that as justification for its removal. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is ["Senator Ackerman Scandal" true] (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no tenable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. <span><br> + <br> + SOSSS is currently exploring their legal options.<br> + <br> + = Effects =<br> + It appears that new Senators may not take their office on time, because this complaint was filed against the Elections Committee. Since the complaint, filed November 15, has not yet been decided by ["Campus Judicial Affairs"] by Thursday, December 2, the new senators may not yet take office at tonight's Senate meeting. This was explained very well by an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6603 Aggie article] on December 2. However, a positive side effect of the delay is that it will likely give more time to investigate the ["Campaigning in Dorms Controversy"], as ["Student Judicial Affairs"] has not yet made a decision on that matter.<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-11-27 17:05:42PhilipNeustrommade this even more juicy <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span>The other slates have a history of bad decisions and corruption. They passed resolutions which had little support by students and nothing to do with the campus. Not only did this waste valuable senate debate time, these resolutions brought the IRS investigation known as Lamargate. Paying back taxes and penalties will result in "Fiscal Chaos" and "Armageddon Cuts." But we have an appeasement plan for the IRS that will bring peace in our times. </td> <td> <span>+ ''</span>The other slates have a history of bad decisions and corruption. They passed resolutions which had little support by students and nothing to do with the campus. Not only did this waste valuable senate debate time, these resolutions brought the IRS investigation known as Lamargate. Paying back taxes and penalties will result in "Fiscal Chaos" and "Armageddon Cuts." But we have an appeasement plan for the IRS that will bring peace in our times. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> We are the Slate Of SubStance not Sound-bites, so vote SOSSS early and often. </td> <td> <span>+</span> We are the Slate Of SubStance not Sound-bites, so vote SOSSS early and often.<span>''</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 21: </td> <td> Line 21: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Basically the ["Elections Committee"] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is true (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no teniable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. </span> </td> <td> <span>+ = Elections Committee Justification =<br> + In an email to the ["SOSSS"] slate, Christine Schachter of the ["Elections Committee"] justified the legality of removing the portion:<br> + ''As stated in the ASUCD Government Codes: Chapter 1: Elections Regulations, section 112, 6, A,iii, a: " The procedures for printing copies SHALL BE DETERMINED by the ASUCD Elections Committee and shall be announced to all candidates for office." Furthermore, section b following the forementioned section reades, "The ASUCD Elections Committee MAY publish...." meaning we are not required to, but instead to choose to assist candidates in their election process; granted all material is approved by the committee.''<br> + == Claims expanded ==<br> + Whether or not the ["Elections Committee"] is within its rights to alter candidate statements is unknown, but the referenced portion of the [http://asucd.ucdavis.edu/gov/docs/ Government Codes] (as of Fall 2004) state the following (bolded are the quoted regions):<br> + <br> + Platform Flyers: All candidates and tickets shall receive, at no charge to the candidates or tickets, up to 1,000 copies of one platform flyer. The flyer may be double-sided but no larger than an 8-1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. The platform flyer must include, but is not limited to, the official ASUCD Election Web site as announced at the mandatory candidatesÂ’ meeting, the dates of the election, the candidate's name and the office for which the candidate is running. '''The procedures for printing copies shall be determined by the ASUCD Elections Committee and shall be announced to all candidates for office.'''<br> + <br> + and<br> + <br> + Statements: '''The ASUCD Elections Committee may publish''' a sample ballot containing all submitted candidate and ticket's statements and a submitted statement in favor and against all Ballot Measures and Recalls (if applicable).<br> + <br> + It would appear as if the second quote was taken largely out of context, as the reference to 'may' effects the printing of sample ballots containing ''all'' candidate statements, not the ability of the committee to selectively alter statements. As for the first quote, it appears in a box of text describing the printing process, which might indicate that it doesn't grant authority to alter, but instead grants authority to change the procedure for the ''printing process''.<br> + <br> + The ["Elections Committee"] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel, and used that as justification for its removal. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is ["Senator Ackerman Scandal" true] (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no teniable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-11-27 16:29:37KrisFrickeThe "ASUCD Elections Committee" has been misidentified as "Senate Elections C... <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["<span>Senate </span>Election Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["Senate"] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["<span>Senate </span>Election<span>&nbsp;Committee" SEC</span>] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] slate's statement. The canidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["<span>Senate </span>Election<span>&nbsp;Committee" SEC</span>] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> <td> <span>+</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Election<span>s</span> Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["Senate"] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Election<span>s Committee" Committee</span>] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] slate's statement. The canidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The full, un-edited text submitted to the ["Election<span>s Committee"</span>] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["<span>Senate </span>Election Committee"<span>&nbsp;SEC</span>] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Election<span>s</span> Committee"] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke]) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 21: </td> <td> Line 21: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Basically the ["<span>Senate </span>Elections Committee"<span>&nbsp;Elections Committee</span>] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is true (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no teniable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Basically the ["Elections Committee"] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is true (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no teniable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-11-27 14:45:36PhilipNeustromlinked Kris again <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (Kris<span>&nbsp;</span>Fricke) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (<span>["</span>KrisFricke<span>" Kris Fricke]</span>) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-11-27 14:43:03PhilipNeustromput in the full text (c/o Chris Rood, candidate) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Senate Election Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["Senate"] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] slate's statement. The canidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The text submitted to the ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> <td> <span>+</span> In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Senate Election Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["Senate"] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] slate's statement. The canidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The <span>full, un-edited </span>text submitted to the ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''(someone needs to add the full text right here)''</span> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + The other slates have a history of bad decisions and corruption. They passed resolutions which had little support by students and nothing to do with the campus. Not only did this waste valuable senate debate time, these resolutions brought the IRS investigation known as Lamargate. Paying back taxes and penalties will result in "Fiscal Chaos" and "Armageddon Cuts." But we have an appeasement plan for the IRS that will bring peace in our times.<br> + <br> + Students for an Orwellian Student Senate Slate will better the bureaucracy, and get special interests out of ASUCD. We will represent all students and their values, which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD Bookstore, unlike a certain Student FOCUS representative last year.<br> + <br> + We will push to rename the Social Science and Humanities Building to the "Death Star".<br> + We are the only slate running half engineers.<br> + <br> + We are the Slate Of SubStance not Sound-bites, so vote SOSSS early and often.<br> + <br> + #1 Jonathon Leathers<br> + #2 Chad Van Schoelandt<br> + #3 Marie Huynh<br> + #4 Chris Rood<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-11-27 03:37:23KrisFrickeAdded paragraph explaining more specifically what the scandal is. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 5: </td> <td> Line 5: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (Kris Fricke) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). Kris<span>&nbsp;</span>Fricke [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in the ["The California Aggie" Aggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (Kris Fricke) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). <span>["</span>KrisFricke<span>" Kris Fricke]</span> [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle].<span><br> + <br> + Basically the ["Senate Elections Committee" Elections Committee] appears to have improperly identified the line as libel. In actuality, the line cannot be libel, as it (A) is true (B) does not name a specific individual. As the line was eliminated for no teniable reason, the affected candidates charge the Committee with arbitrarily editing their statement. </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-11-25 21:27:17PhilipNeustromsome find full text? <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ''(someone needs to add the full text right here)''<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-11-25 21:26:14PhilipNeustrom <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in ["The California Aggie" <span>the a</span>ggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (Kris Fricke) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). Kris Fricke [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in <span>the </span>["The California Aggie" <span>A</span>ggie] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (Kris Fricke) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). Kris Fricke [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-11-25 21:24:29PhilipNeustrom <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in ["The California Aggie"] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (Kris Fricke) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). Kris Fricke [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in ["The California Aggie"<span>&nbsp;the aggie</span>] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (Kris Fricke) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). Kris Fricke [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Election Statement Controversyhttp://daviswiki.org/Election_Statement_Controversy2004-11-25 21:23:25PhilipNeustromgot this started.. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Election Statement Controversy<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ In the Fall of 2004 the (["ASUCD"]) ["Senate Election Committee"] was the subject of some controversy regarding altering of ["Senate"] candidate's statements. In particular, the ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] altered the text of the ["SOSSS"] slate's statement. The canidate statements appear in ["The California Aggie"] and at the ["ASUCD"] [http://elections.ucdavis.edu election site] (next to photographs of the candidates). The text submitted to the ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] by ["SOSSS"] was the following: <br> + <br> + The ["Senate Election Committee" SEC] removed the line ''"...which is why we promise that we will not embezzle more than the other candidates, and we will not steal $356.76 of books from the UCD bookstore, unlike a certain Student Focus representative last year."'' The mention of stolen books is a reference to the ["Senator Ackerman Scandal"]. It was the removal of this line that sparked controversy, leading to a [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6404 guest opinion article] in ["The California Aggie"] by the Chief Justice of the ["ASUCD"] Court (Kris Fricke) as well as [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6480 a rebuttle] by the Elections Committee Chair (Christine Schachter). Kris Fricke [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/149554.html informally replied to her rebuttle].</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div>