Recent Changes for "Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_ScandalRecent Changes of the page "Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal" on Davis Wiki.en-us Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2010-02-20 15:00:19JonathonLeathersi fail at formatting <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 30: </td> <td> Line 30: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Before the ASUCD Senate meeting, the Elections Committee Chair met with ["Chris Herold"] and the three Senators-elect in question. ["Spencer Higgins"] provided a statement from Student Judicial Affairs that he was not on probation at the time and was simply red flagged as a result of an investigation that did not result in any action taken by SJA. ["Kareem Salem"] and ["Natalia Farhad Motamed"] provided statements from Student Judicial Affairs stating what they were put on probation for and that SJA would have considered ending their probation early to allow them to run for Senate. The latter point was used as a defense for seating the two candidates later but in fact meant nothing. During a meeting with Student Judicial Affairs, ["JonathonLeathers" Leathers] and ["Users/RevChad" Van Schoelandt] were informed that SJA set a precedent in the past by shortening the probation of a student to allow the student to run for ASUCD elected office. Following this decision by SJA, they made it practice to <span>[i]consider[/i]</span> all requests to shorten probation periods for students seeking ASUCD elected offices. Ultimately the decision to grant such a request is left up to the discretion of SJA and made based upon the remaining length of the probation period and the severity of the probation. While SJA would not officially comment on whether or not they would have shortened the probation periods of Kareem and Natalia, they did unofficially state the likely outcome of a request by each of the candidates. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Before the ASUCD Senate meeting, the Elections Committee Chair met with ["Chris Herold"] and the three Senators-elect in question. ["Spencer Higgins"] provided a statement from Student Judicial Affairs that he was not on probation at the time and was simply red flagged as a result of an investigation that did not result in any action taken by SJA. ["Kareem Salem"] and ["Natalia Farhad Motamed"] provided statements from Student Judicial Affairs stating what they were put on probation for and that SJA would have considered ending their probation early to allow them to run for Senate. The latter point was used as a defense for seating the two candidates later but in fact meant nothing. During a meeting with Student Judicial Affairs, ["JonathonLeathers" Leathers] and ["Users/RevChad" Van Schoelandt] were informed that SJA set a precedent in the past by shortening the probation of a student to allow the student to run for ASUCD elected office. Following this decision by SJA, they made it practice to <span>''consider''</span> all requests to shorten probation periods for students seeking ASUCD elected offices. Ultimately the decision to grant such a request is left up to the discretion of SJA and made based upon the remaining length of the probation period and the severity of the probation. While SJA would not officially comment on whether or not they would have shortened the probation periods of Kareem and Natalia, they did unofficially state the likely outcome of a request by each of the candidates. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 96: </td> <td> Line 96: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- [i]</span>I didn't know how to address this sexual assault rumor at the time because it technically had nothing to do with the eligibility of any candidate and I'm still not sure the best way to explain it. The rumor first came to me from someone in the Aggie and I do not know where this individual heard the rumor. This person at the Aggie believed the candidate accused of sexual assault was one of the three individuals on disciplinary probation with SJA. Obviously we later found out there were only two, not three, individuals on disciplinary probation. The rumor was not about Kareem to begin with but the nature of rumors allowed it to change over time and somehow his name got associated with it. - ["JonathonLeathers"]<span>[/i]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ ''</span>I didn't know how to address this sexual assault rumor at the time because it technically had nothing to do with the eligibility of any candidate and I'm still not sure the best way to explain it. The rumor first came to me from someone in the Aggie and I do not know where this individual heard the rumor. This person at the Aggie believed the candidate accused of sexual assault was one of the three individuals on disciplinary probation with SJA. Obviously we later found out there were only two, not three, individuals on disciplinary probation. The rumor was not about Kareem to begin with but the nature of rumors allowed it to change over time and somehow his name got associated with it. - ["JonathonLeathers"]<span>''</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2010-02-20 14:56:04JonathonLeathers(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 94: </td> <td> Line 94: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In addition, flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman Hall on 1/17/06. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no evidence for this claim; the author of these flyers got the idea from an Aggie article during the scandal. An article was published by ["The California Aggie"] more than a week later on January 26, detailing the flyers and the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/26/CampusNews/After.Asucd.Senate.Controversy.Constituent.Feelings.Are.Mixed-1505862.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com response from students]. However, this was perceived by the Senate as reopening old wounds, and an endorsement of the date rape theory. Though the article said the flyers were false, the publication could hurt anyway. Kareem Salem was still falsely implicated (despite being one of three males in question), and has firmly denied the rumour -- according to Salem, his trip to SJA was mainly due to a fouled up citation in a paper. The letter from SJA given to Leathers by Kareem verified that h<span>is</span> probation <span>had nothing to do with</span> sexual assault<span>&nbsp;and stated that he was on disciplinary probation for plagiarism</span>. An apology from whomever wrote these flyers was issued by proxy at the Senate meeting on January 26 -- though he said he had originally gotten the idea of date rape being involved at all from ''The Aggie''. The letter he sent also affirmed that Salem is not guilty of any form of sexual assault. </td> <td> <span>+</span> In addition, flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman Hall on 1/17/06. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no evidence for this claim; the author of these flyers got the idea from an Aggie article during the scandal. An article was published by ["The California Aggie"] more than a week later on January 26, detailing the flyers and the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/26/CampusNews/After.Asucd.Senate.Controversy.Constituent.Feelings.Are.Mixed-1505862.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com response from students]. However, this was perceived by the Senate as reopening old wounds, and an endorsement of the date rape theory. Though the article said the flyers were false, the publication could hurt anyway. Kareem Salem was still falsely implicated (despite being one of three males in question), and has firmly denied the rumour -- according to Salem, his trip to SJA was mainly due to a fouled up citation in a paper. The letter from SJA given to Leathers by Kareem verified that h<span>e was on disciplinary</span> probation <span>for plagiarism and made no mention of</span> sexual assault. An apology from whomever wrote these flyers was issued by proxy at the Senate meeting on January 26 -- though he said he had originally gotten the idea of date rape being involved at all from ''The Aggie''. The letter he sent also affirmed that Salem is not guilty of any form of sexual assault.<span><br> + <br> + [i]I didn't know how to address this sexual assault rumor at the time because it technically had nothing to do with the eligibility of any candidate and I'm still not sure the best way to explain it. The rumor first came to me from someone in the Aggie and I do not know where this individual heard the rumor. This person at the Aggie believed the candidate accused of sexual assault was one of the three individuals on disciplinary probation with SJA. Obviously we later found out there were only two, not three, individuals on disciplinary probation. The rumor was not about Kareem to begin with but the nature of rumors allowed it to change over time and somehow his name got associated with it. - ["JonathonLeathers"][/i]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2010-02-20 14:37:16JonathonLeathersadded and corrected some information <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 30: </td> <td> Line 30: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Before the ASUCD Senate meeting, the Elections Committee Chair met with the three Senators-elect in question who provided statements from Student Judicial Affiars stating what they were put on probation for and that SJA would have considered ending their probation early to allow them to run for Senate. Chad Van Schoelandt withdrew his ["ASUCD Court"] case at the Senate meeting. However, candidate ["Joe Harney"] had filed a similar complaint against the ["Elections Committee"], so the Senators-elect could not have been seated without suspending the bylaws. Harney alleges that it's not the initial disciplinary probation that truly matters -- it's the fact that the candidates lied about it.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Before the ASUCD Senate meeting, the Elections Committee Chair met with ["Chris Herold"] and the three Senators-elect in question. ["Spencer Higgins"] provided a statement from Student Judicial Affairs that he was not on probation at the time and was simply red flagged as a result of an investigation that did not result in any action taken by SJA. ["Kareem Salem"] and ["Natalia Farhad Motamed"] provided statements from Student Judicial Affairs stating what they were put on probation for and that SJA would have considered ending their probation early to allow them to run for Senate. The latter point was used as a defense for seating the two candidates later but in fact meant nothing. During a meeting with Student Judicial Affairs, ["JonathonLeathers" Leathers] and ["Users/RevChad" Van Schoelandt] were informed that SJA set a precedent in the past by shortening the probation of a student to allow the student to run for ASUCD elected office. Following this decision by SJA, they made it practice to [i]consider[/i] all requests to shorten probation periods for students seeking ASUCD elected offices. Ultimately the decision to grant such a request is left up to the discretion of SJA and made based upon the remaining length of the probation period and the severity of the probation. While SJA would not officially comment on whether or not they would have shortened the probation periods of Kareem and Natalia, they did unofficially state the likely outcome of a request by each of the candidates.<br> + <br> + Chad Van Schoelandt withdrew his ["ASUCD Court"] case at the Senate meeting. However, candidate ["Joe Harney"] had filed a similar complaint against the ["Elections Committee"], so the Senators-elect could not have been seated without suspending the bylaws. Harney alleges that it's not the initial disciplinary probation that truly matters -- it's the fact that the candidates lied about it.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 92: </td> <td> Line 94: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In addition, flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman Hall on 1/17/06. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no evidence for this claim; the author of these flyers got the idea from an Aggie article during the scandal. An article was published by ["The California Aggie"] more than a week later on January 26, detailing the flyers and the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/26/CampusNews/After.Asucd.Senate.Controversy.Constituent.Feelings.Are.Mixed-1505862.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com response from students]. However, this was perc<span>ie</span>ved by the Senate as reopening old wounds, and an endorsement of the date rape theory. Though the article said the flyers were false, the publication could hurt anyway. Kareem Salem was still falsely implicated (being <span>the only male</span> in question), and has firmly denied the rumour -- his trip to SJA was mainly due to a fouled up citation in a paper. An apology from whomever wrote these flyers was issued by proxy at the Senate meeting on January 26 -- though he said he had originally gotten the idea of date rape being involved at all from ''The Aggie''. The letter he sent also affirmed that Salem is not guilty of any form of sexual ass<span>ua</span>lt.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> On Wednesday January 18, 2006, at approximately noon, ["ASUCD Court"] Justice ["Joe Harney"] rec<span>ie</span>ved a death threat by phone, telling him that he should resign "or else." This call was made anonymously, with a computerized voice, and the call was placed from ["Quad Phone 2"]. Harney is not dead yet. </td> <td> <span>+</span> In addition, flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman Hall on 1/17/06. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no evidence for this claim; the author of these flyers got the idea from an Aggie article during the scandal. An article was published by ["The California Aggie"] more than a week later on January 26, detailing the flyers and the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/26/CampusNews/After.Asucd.Senate.Controversy.Constituent.Feelings.Are.Mixed-1505862.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com response from students]. However, this was perc<span>ei</span>ved by the Senate as reopening old wounds, and an endorsement of the date rape theory. Though the article said the flyers were false, the publication could hurt anyway. Kareem Salem was still falsely implicated (<span>despite </span>being <span>one of three males</span> in question), and has firmly denied the rumour --<span>&nbsp;according to Salem,</span> his trip to SJA was mainly due to a fouled up citation in a paper. <span>The letter from SJA given to Leathers by Kareem verified that his probation had nothing to do with sexual assault and stated that he was on disciplinary probation for plagiarism. </span>An apology from whomever wrote these flyers was issued by proxy at the Senate meeting on January 26 -- though he said he had originally gotten the idea of date rape being involved at all from ''The Aggie''. The letter he sent also affirmed that Salem is not guilty of any form of sexual ass<span>au</span>lt.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> On Wednesday January 18, 2006, at approximately noon, ["ASUCD Court"] Justice ["Joe Harney"] rec<span>ei</span>ved a death threat by phone, telling him that he should resign "or else." This call was made anonymously, with a computerized voice, and the call was placed from ["Quad Phone 2"]. Harney is not dead yet. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2008-09-26 18:32:40JasonAllerlink fixes <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 68: </td> <td> Line 68: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [[Image(1337snax0rz.jpg, "Star Witness Paul Amnuaypayoat checks out the snacks provided at the court case.", 275, right, thumbnail)]] After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from both Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["<span>P</span>aulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["Users/BrentLaabs" along] ["Users/RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible. </td> <td> <span>+</span> [[Image(1337snax0rz.jpg, "Star Witness Paul Amnuaypayoat checks out the snacks provided at the court case.", 275, right, thumbnail)]] After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from both Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["<span>Users/</span>aulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["Users/BrentLaabs" along] ["Users/RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2008-07-22 18:02:57JasonAllerlink fixes <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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>+ [[TableOfContents(right)]]<br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - [[TableOfContents]]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Elections Committee thought about the possible ways of remedying the situation, and notified ASUCD Senators, ASUCD President and VP, and the ASUCD Court. Elections Committee Events Coordinator ["RevChad" Chad Van Schoelandt] filed a case against his comrade, Elections Committee Chair ["JonathonLeathers" Jonathon Leathers], on the afternoon of Thursday, December 1. In this case, he alleges that Leathers did not follow the Government Codes and improperly certified the candidates. Jon believed that the candidates were verified, however, due to the lack of a Student Government Advisor at the time, verification with SJA never actually took place. As such, he wanted to leave it up to the Court to decide what should be done at this point. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Elections Committee thought about the possible ways of remedying the situation, and notified ASUCD Senators, ASUCD President and VP, and the ASUCD Court. Elections Committee Events Coordinator ["<span>Users/</span>RevChad" Chad Van Schoelandt] filed a case against his comrade, Elections Committee Chair ["<span>Users/</span>JonathonLeathers" Jonathon Leathers], on the afternoon of Thursday, December 1. In this case, he alleges that Leathers did not follow the Government Codes and improperly certified the candidates. Jon believed that the candidates were verified, however, due to the lack of a Student Government Advisor at the time, verification with SJA never actually took place. As such, he wanted to leave it up to the Court to decide what should be done at this point. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 20: </td> <td> Line 20: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> An additional issue is timing, and the problem was exacerbated by the Student Government Advisor. The lame duck Senators Constitutionally had to leave office on Thursday, December 8. However, the Senators-elect were prohibited from taking office because of the ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["JoeHarney" Joe Harney] against the ["Elections Committee"]. It was believed that the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] counts towards quorum and that if no Senators were absent the Senate could conduct business; this is not the case however, as the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] does ''not'' count towards quorum. However, it was already known that two Senators would not be back from Winter Break for the first Senate meeting of the Winter quarter. It was believed that the first Senate meeting of the quarter would have to be cancelled, however, Senators whose terms had ended, according to the Constitution, returned so that the Senate could meet quorum in January. There was precedent for this in the past, according to the Vice-President, ["Darnell Holloway"]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> An additional issue is timing, and the problem was exacerbated by the Student Government Advisor. The lame duck Senators Constitutionally had to leave office on Thursday, December 8. However, the Senators-elect were prohibited from taking office because of the ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["<span>Users/</span>JoeHarney" Joe Harney] against the ["Elections Committee"]. It was believed that the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] counts towards quorum and that if no Senators were absent the Senate could conduct business; this is not the case however, as the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] does ''not'' count towards quorum. However, it was already known that two Senators would not be back from Winter Break for the first Senate meeting of the Winter quarter. It was believed that the first Senate meeting of the quarter would have to be cancelled, however, Senators whose terms had ended, according to the Constitution, returned so that the Senate could meet quorum in January. There was precedent for this in the past, according to the Vice-President, ["Darnell Holloway"]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 57: </td> <td> Line 57: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [[Image(case28defense.jpg, "The Defense lines up as it discusses strategy.", 250, thumbnail)]][[Image(tehcourt.jpg, "The ASUCD Supreme Court, Chief Justice Fricke Presiding", 250, thumbnail)]][[Image(case28plaintiff.jpg, "Council for the Plaintiff lays out its case at the sparsely populated Plaintiff table.", 250, thumbnail)]]<span>[[BR]]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> [[Image(case28defense.jpg, "The Defense lines up as it discusses strategy.", 250, thumbnail)]]<span><br> + </span>[[Image(tehcourt.jpg, "The ASUCD Supreme Court, Chief Justice Fricke Presiding", 250, thumbnail)]]<span><br> + </span>[[Image(case28plaintiff.jpg, "Council for the Plaintiff lays out its case at the sparsely populated Plaintiff table.", 250, thumbnail)]] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 68: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [[Image(1337snax0rz.jpg, "Star Witness Paul Amnuaypayoat checks out the snacks provided at the court case.", 275, right, thumbnail)]] After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from both Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["PaulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["BrentLaabs" along] ["RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible. </td> <td> <span>+</span> [[Image(1337snax0rz.jpg, "Star Witness Paul Amnuaypayoat checks out the snacks provided at the court case.", 275, right, thumbnail)]] After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from both Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["PaulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["<span>Users/</span>BrentLaabs" along] ["<span>Users/</span>RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 80: </td> <td> Line 82: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ["ThomasLloyd" Some] have claimed that Leathers already certified the election at the Senate meeting on December 8, 2005. However, Leathers denies this claim and the minutes from that Senate meeting show that such a statement was never made. Leathers certainly never issued certificates of election, which was one of the steps required in the ASUCD Constitution. However, VP ["Darnell Holloway" Holloway's] certificate hadn't been signed by the ["Paloma Perez"], and he didn't receive it in time either -- it seems politics overriding procedure is standard practice in ASUCD. </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["<span>Users/</span>ThomasLloyd" Some] have claimed that Leathers already certified the election at the Senate meeting on December 8, 2005. However, Leathers denies this claim and the minutes from that Senate meeting show that such a statement was never made. Leathers certainly never issued certificates of election, which was one of the steps required in the ASUCD Constitution. However, VP ["Darnell Holloway" Holloway's] certificate hadn't been signed by the ["Paloma Perez"], and he didn't receive it in time either -- it seems politics overriding procedure is standard practice in ASUCD. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 87: </td> <td> Line 89: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["Chad Van Schoelandt" Chad Van Schoelandt] and["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of a pending closed sessions with the Senate, called by ["Kristen Birdsall"]. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. Birdsall made various charges against each of those called, ranging from failure to fulfill job duties (Leathers) to holding a secret meeting (Fricke) to unprofessionalism (Van Schoelandt) to not acting like a Justice (Harney). Fricke soon pointed out that this was the third time that a closed session against him was not called properly, and that the entire session should be null and void. </td> <td> <span>+</span> On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["Chad Van Schoelandt" Chad Van Schoelandt] and["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of a pending closed sessions with the Senate, called by ["Kristen Birdsall"]. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. Birdsall made various charges against each of those called, ranging from failure to fulfill job duties (Leathers) to holding a secret meeting (Fricke) to unprofessionalism (Van Schoelandt) to not acting like a Justice (Harney). Fricke soon pointed out that this was the third time that a closed session against him was not called properly, and that the entire session should be null and void. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 94: </td> <td> Line 96: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In the legislative aftermath, a provision stating that the cases changed by retroactive legislation are automatically nullified was challenged by ["BrentLaabs" Brent Laabs] with another Court case. After discussion with Laabs, Kai Savaree-Ruess and Avi Singh (et al.) drafted a bill to remove the section of SB #36, as it was not necessary to the accomplish the goal and likely violated separation of powers. Since the crisis had been abated, the Senate agreed and passed the bill. The case was withdrawn. </td> <td> <span>+</span> In the legislative aftermath, a provision stating that the cases changed by retroactive legislation are automatically nullified was challenged by ["<span>Users/</span>BrentLaabs" Brent Laabs] with another Court case. After discussion with Laabs, Kai Savaree-Ruess and Avi Singh (et al.) drafted a bill to remove the section of SB #36, as it was not necessary to the accomplish the goal and likely violated separation of powers. Since the crisis had been abated, the Senate agreed and passed the bill. The case was withdrawn. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 177: </td> <td> Line 179: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * [http://www.livejournal.com/users/revchad/40634.html#cutid1 2006-01-12 22:57:00] ["RevChad"]<br> <span>-</span> * [http://www.livejournal.com/users/revchad/40826.html?#cutid1 2006-01-14 14:03:00] ["RevChad"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * [http://www.livejournal.com/users/revchad/40634.html#cutid1 2006-01-12 22:57:00] ["<span>Users/</span>RevChad"]<br> <span>+</span> * [http://www.livejournal.com/users/revchad/40826.html?#cutid1 2006-01-14 14:03:00] ["<span>Users/</span>RevChad"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 184: </td> <td> Line 186: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-06 23:00:27'' [[nbsp]] Jesus! --["JackHaskel"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-06 23:02:54'' [[nbsp]] Vis-a-vis "...Van Schoelandt intends to call lots of quorum calls, apparently/annoyingly," would this put him in violation of ["Davis Municipal Code/26.01.010" City Ordinance 26.01.010]? --["KrisFricke"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-06 23:04:32'' [[nbsp]] As the Chair of the Elections Committee, I accept some of the blame for this not getting caught at the beginning. In my defence, there was nothing in my job "guide" of how to verify probations. This is because the Student Government Advisor had always done this in the past and at the time there was no student government advisor. There is also the fact that SJA does not give this information to students so the only way for me to have checked this was through an ASUCD career employee, which was the non-existent Student Government Advisor. Additionally, when various other eligibility requirements were checked, I was under the impression that probation status was checked as well. Obviously this was not the case. --["JonathonLeathers"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-06 23:00:27'' [[nbsp]] Jesus! --["<span>Users/</span>JackHaskel"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-06 23:02:54'' [[nbsp]] Vis-a-vis "...Van Schoelandt intends to call lots of quorum calls, apparently/annoyingly," would this put him in violation of ["Davis Municipal Code/26.01.010" City Ordinance 26.01.010]? --["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-06 23:04:32'' [[nbsp]] As the Chair of the Elections Committee, I accept some of the blame for this not getting caught at the beginning. In my defence, there was nothing in my job "guide" of how to verify probations. This is because the Student Government Advisor had always done this in the past and at the time there was no student government advisor. There is also the fact that SJA does not give this information to students so the only way for me to have checked this was through an ASUCD career employee, which was the non-existent Student Government Advisor. Additionally, when various other eligibility requirements were checked, I was under the impression that probation status was checked as well. Obviously this was not the case. --["<span>Users/</span>JonathonLeathers"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 192: </td> <td> Line 194: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-06 23:07:48'' [[nbsp]] Well now, we couldn't reasonably expect a non-controversial election, now could we? --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-07 00:03:03'' [[nbsp]] Note that the only document that cannot be overridden by the senate is the constitution. The ONLY constitutional requirement for being a senator is that the candidate is not on academic probation. SJA violations are not included in the constitution. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>-</span> * You're right, they aren't. However, Article II Section 4 of the ASUCD Constitution reads "However, candidates for Senate shall conform to the campaign regulations enacted by legislation by the Senate or shall forfeit their eligibility to hold office." The candidates allegedly did not conform to these regulations, if they were on probation. Secondly, constitutional force applies to ''legislation'' enacted, so it's questionable if you suspend the bylaws to seat the senators because that is not legislation. You would have to bring up a bill as urgent, Thomas. --["BrentLaabs"]<br> <span>-</span> * Actually I'm wrong, you could seat the senators. But you should be able to remove them without a recall. --["BrentLaabs"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-07 00:20:45'' [[nbsp]] What exactly is Academic Probation? Does that come from something like plagiarism, or could it just be low grades? How is it different from Disciplinary Probation? How long is the probation, typically? Is this common (such as half the students on it?) or is it just the high quality of political candidates? --["SteveDavison"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-06 23:07:48'' [[nbsp]] Well now, we couldn't reasonably expect a non-controversial election, now could we? --["<span>Users/</span>PaulAmnuaypayoat"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-07 00:03:03'' [[nbsp]] Note that the only document that cannot be overridden by the senate is the constitution. The ONLY constitutional requirement for being a senator is that the candidate is not on academic probation. SJA violations are not included in the constitution. --["<span>Users/</span>ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>+</span> * You're right, they aren't. However, Article II Section 4 of the ASUCD Constitution reads "However, candidates for Senate shall conform to the campaign regulations enacted by legislation by the Senate or shall forfeit their eligibility to hold office." The candidates allegedly did not conform to these regulations, if they were on probation. Secondly, constitutional force applies to ''legislation'' enacted, so it's questionable if you suspend the bylaws to seat the senators because that is not legislation. You would have to bring up a bill as urgent, Thomas. --["<span>Users/</span>BrentLaabs"]<br> <span>+</span> * Actually I'm wrong, you could seat the senators. But you should be able to remove them without a recall. --["<span>Users/</span>BrentLaabs"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-07 00:20:45'' [[nbsp]] What exactly is Academic Probation? Does that come from something like plagiarism, or could it just be low grades? How is it different from Disciplinary Probation? How long is the probation, typically? Is this common (such as half the students on it?) or is it just the high quality of political candidates? --["<span>Users/</span>SteveDavison"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 201: </td> <td> Line 203: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-07 01:06:38'' [[nbsp]] Constitutionally speaking, because ironically enough all outgoing Senators came into the organziation late due to an elections scandal, the one year mark is actually the first meeting of the winter quarter. Not that it affects me because my term doesn't end for a quarter. --["RobRoy"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-08 10:40:43'' [[nbsp]] I am delighted that the Aggie's editorial nudges at the implication that any of these unqualified senators could, in fact, be an attempted rapist. Good writing there, guys. --["TravisGrathwell"]<br> <span>-</span> The Aggie also says "the three candidates committed perjury." Last I checked, perjury is lying under oath in a court of law. --["PhilipNeustrom"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-07 01:06:38'' [[nbsp]] Constitutionally speaking, because ironically enough all outgoing Senators came into the organziation late due to an elections scandal, the one year mark is actually the first meeting of the winter quarter. Not that it affects me because my term doesn't end for a quarter. --["<span>Users/</span>RobRoy"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-08 10:40:43'' [[nbsp]] I am delighted that the Aggie's editorial nudges at the implication that any of these unqualified senators could, in fact, be an attempted rapist. Good writing there, guys. --["<span>Users/</span>TravisGrathwell"]<br> <span>+</span> The Aggie also says "the three candidates committed perjury." Last I checked, perjury is lying under oath in a court of law. --["<span>Users/</span>PhilipNeustrom"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 208: </td> <td> Line 210: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The only solution to preserving students' confidentiality seems to be to have applications for office be submitted directly to SJA, and then have SJA pass along only the applications of the eligible candidates to the Elections Commitee. --["ChrisJerdonek"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-09 15:34:27'' [[nbsp]] Outstanding. UC student politics is an institution that never ever fails to entertain. --["RocksandDirt"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-09 15:46:53'' [[nbsp]] Should this be reanmed to controversy? all the other ones are named controversy --["ArlenAbraham"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> The only solution to preserving students' confidentiality seems to be to have applications for office be submitted directly to SJA, and then have SJA pass along only the applications of the eligible candidates to the Elections Commitee. --["<span>Users/</span>ChrisJerdonek"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-09 15:34:27'' [[nbsp]] Outstanding. UC student politics is an institution that never ever fails to entertain. --["<span>Users/</span>RocksandDirt"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-09 15:46:53'' [[nbsp]] Should this be reanmed to controversy? all the other ones are named controversy --["<span>Users/</span>ArlenAbraham"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 218: </td> <td> Line 220: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> As the plaintiff in this case I have already recused myself from the ASUCD Supreme Court for this case. To remove any further possible conflicts of interest in this case I officially withdraw my candidacy for the Fall 2005 ASUCD Senate election. This will prevent any freak incident of electoral math to seat me upon the senate. This case is not about my personal dissatisfaction with the results of the election. This is about making sure the Rule of Law reigns supreme, and that the students of the University of California Davis can trust in the integrity of both the ASUCD Student Government and the students who are elected to represent them. --["JoeHarney"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> As the plaintiff in this case I have already recused myself from the ASUCD Supreme Court for this case. To remove any further possible conflicts of interest in this case I officially withdraw my candidacy for the Fall 2005 ASUCD Senate election. This will prevent any freak incident of electoral math to seat me upon the senate. This case is not about my personal dissatisfaction with the results of the election. This is about making sure the Rule of Law reigns supreme, and that the students of the University of California Davis can trust in the integrity of both the ASUCD Student Government and the students who are elected to represent them. --["<span>Users/</span>JoeHarney"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 222: </td> <td> Line 224: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-01-14 16:16:36'' [[nbsp]] Where do you we go from here? --["JimSchwab"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> * Quick question: Is the Davis Wiki meant to be a live journal hijacked by a couple over-zealous individuals or is this meant to be something similar to the real Wikipedia and serve as an informational source? I have always held it to the standard of the latter, yet find myself continuously dissapointed. I think if you feel that it should serve more as the latter, please alter it so it serves as such and you can remove my question. Thanks. -["thomaslloyd" TL]<br> <span>-</span> * Thomas, I agree that this page is a mess w/ comments and facts appearing together. I'm attempting to clean it up. I'll return to this process later tonight. - ["JonathonLeathers"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-01-14 16:16:36'' [[nbsp]] Where do you we go from here? --["<span>Users/</span>JimSchwab"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> * Quick question: Is the Davis Wiki meant to be a live journal hijacked by a couple over-zealous individuals or is this meant to be something similar to the real Wikipedia and serve as an informational source? I have always held it to the standard of the latter, yet find myself continuously dissapointed. I think if you feel that it should serve more as the latter, please alter it so it serves as such and you can remove my question. Thanks. -["<span>Users/</span>thomaslloyd" TL]<br> <span>+</span> * Thomas, I agree that this page is a mess w/ comments and facts appearing together. I'm attempting to clean it up. I'll return to this process later tonight. - ["<span>Users/</span>JonathonLeathers"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 236: </td> <td> Line 238: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ASUCD Senate Bill 36, section 2: all court cases no longer applicable due to legislation are nullified. The court case no longer exists and the senator-elects were free to be seated. The only reason Senate had to questionably suspend the bylaws was due to not having the Elections Committee Chair present to certifiy the election. The reasoning behind this decision was that he was quoted in the meeting minutes of an earlier meeting as having certified the election results. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>-</span> * This is not true. I never certified the election and there is nothing in the minutes to even suggest that I certified the election. Once again, the Senate loses. - ["JonathonLeathers"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ASUCD Senate Bill 36, section 2: all court cases no longer applicable due to legislation are nullified. The court case no longer exists and the senator-elects were free to be seated. The only reason Senate had to questionably suspend the bylaws was due to not having the Elections Committee Chair present to certifiy the election. The reasoning behind this decision was that he was quoted in the meeting minutes of an earlier meeting as having certified the election results. --["<span>Users/</span>ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>+</span> * This is not true. I never certified the election and there is nothing in the minutes to even suggest that I certified the election. Once again, the Senate loses. - ["<span>Users/</span>JonathonLeathers"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 243: </td> <td> Line 245: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I think this characterization of things is a little silly and overdramatic. Jonathan Leathers isn't resigning, he's moving on, like everyone else should. The legislative branch wasn't ignoring the judicial branch, the judicial branch didnt constitutionally meet the requirements to have made any decisions. The root of the problem was retroactively solved with ASUCD Senate Bill #36 and it was done in a manner that was the best available option. As for people going on for years, that's just silly. ASUCD doesn't have the institutional memory to harbor scandals for more than a couple months. There have been a number of court scandals in just the time of the current Chief Justice. However, with all the turnover in ASUCD, the only person left who can even still have feelings about those scandals is the Chief Justice himself. In that short of time, people currently involved in ASUCD wouldn't have any "need to heal" let alone have any idea what happened in the first place. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>-</span> * You all don't know the outcome of your decision, because after ["Tiny Sanders"] asked "where is all of the outrage", you quickly moved into Senate discussion. I was starting to lean towards seating the candidates, but not in that way. Here's the thing Thomas. You were always the smartest, the best legal eagle of the Senate, by far. But you have always failed to look at the moral consequences of your actions. Your bills are well written and pragmatic, but the consequences are usually ill-considered. Take the bill which allowed the Commission Chairs to leave after their business was done. It was a good idea in theory, but in practice, the majority of the Chairs didn't want it. One of them cried -- you __hurt__ them, even if the bill was, in essence, a good idea. The same applies in the recent case. Sure, you all had to violate at least one government code to move on, that much is for certain. But Senate Bill #36 didn't just violate the spirit of the bylaws, it '''''raped''''' the spirit of the bylaws. You don't see the consequences I see, and didn't allow me to tell you, because you all went into closed session where you could all groupthink your solution. So, congratulations on making a legally exquisite bill which happens to make a mockery of the entire association. --["BrentLaabs"]<br> <span>-</span> * Well thanks for unnecessarily implying I'm brimming with bitterness Thomas, I feel that was quite relevant and showed a lot of good faith on your part. Incidently, by scandals I assume you mean the two removal hearings against me, since those are the closest the Court has ever come under me to being involved in a scandal. As to my part, I fully consider both of those to be completely meritless personal vendettas of Sara Henry. Yes I suppose I do still harbour feelings about them: I will forever think Sara Henry and Paloma Perez are weak and petty people. However, they are no longer involved in student government and as such I really don't think any feelings I have in that respect effects anything current. But I'm sure you brought it up with the best of intentions. -["KrisFricke"]<br> <span>-</span> * Thomas is right about me not resigning. The only way I'll leave my position is if the Senate fires me, and I wouldn't be surprised if they ''try'' to do so. :) - ["JonathonLeathers"]<br> <span>-</span> * First, sorry Kris, I didnt mean to imply that you harbored any particular feelings- I was just making the note that you would be the only person around long enough to even have known what has happened. I have a lot of respect for you as the court's chair and I know that it is your job to act upon what's best for the court. Brent, I'm sorry if you felt your feelings were hurt and I undoubtedly agree with you that certain people are going to be upset by the actions of the senate. The fact though is 1) "raping" the bylaws is better than violating the constitution (though I don't characterize SB36 the same); and 2) the view people will have will be adopted from the tone set by those discussing them. I am no longer involved with ASUCD and I have no vested interest in seeing it succeed following my departure. However, I think that we're seeing the people most upset with the senate's actions are people that are too wrapped up in seeing the drama continue. At the end of the day, the senators who justifiably won the election were seated and ASUCD has the opportunity to move on. The ability of it to do so, sadly, seems tied to the maturity of those who are making the biggest stink. I ask simply: if you have any desire to see ASUCD do any of the good that I feel it has the potential to do- let things go and join the efforts of the new senators and help move on. Those who cant be a part of the solution I ask to step aside and let those who have been selected by the student body get on with doing their jobs. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>-</span> *I don't know why people keep saying that the two in question justifiably won the election. I can pretty much guarantee that if the average student knew that they were on disciplinary probation and then committed perjury, they wouldn't have voted for them. One could argue that they were selected by the student body only by means of deception. Other than that, and the fact that deep down for some reason I feel like all of this is just wrong, whatever, I'm glad now at least someone (whether they should be there or not) has the chance to accomplish something on Senate. Something needed to be done, and fortunately as a student government we can just chalk it up to a bad election and move on. --["DanXie"]<br> <span>-</span> * Everybody needs to calm down. Take a break from politics for the holiday weekend and relax. This bickering isn't going to solve anything, and it isn't going to bring any new respect to the court, the senate, the elections committee, or the anyone else on the Third Floor. There are obviously many people with strong opinions about the events of the past two months, but hopefully we can all agree that a decision of some kind was needed Thursday night. Granted, it's not the perfect solution, but it's also not set in stone. I guarantee, though, that the atmosphere of conflict that we can all feel right now won't help us in fixing any problems presented by this solution. - ["PaulHarms"]<br> <span>-</span> * Respect is earned. There are good reasons people don't respect ASUCD, probably the same reasons no one votes. So, when people pick-up the Aggie on Monday and read that the ASUCD Senate made a ridiculous decision, I'm sure those reasons will be further justified. Also, I don't agree that a decision was ''needed'' on Thursday night. I don't want people to forget what happened on Thursday, so I'm not going to let it fade away. And, like I said, if the Senate doesn't like that, they can ''really'' take away my power by firing me. - ["JonathonLeathers"]<br> <span>-</span> * Honestly, what's left to be said? What's done is done, and now we need some CONSTRUCTIVE solutions to deal with the aftermath of this scandal. I just wonder who it will be that will earn our respect and put forth these solutions. - ["PaulHarms"]<br> <span>-</span> * Constructive is a relative term. Either the Senate (or ASUCD Politburo as I shall refer to it further) has to pass these solutions and that will only happen if the solutions involve giving them more power at the expense of other branches of ASUCD. The other alternative is by direct democracy and letting the voters approve suggested changes. Being on the Elections Committee I can't be involved in the latter (but others should know it's an option) and the Politburo has lost my respect so I wouldn't waste my time with the former. As such, I'm just going to continue to do my job and complain about the ASUCD Politburo the whole fucking time. (Isn't this discussion even more entertaining in context of the quote below? I think so.) - ["JonathonLeathers"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I think this characterization of things is a little silly and overdramatic. Jonathan Leathers isn't resigning, he's moving on, like everyone else should. The legislative branch wasn't ignoring the judicial branch, the judicial branch didnt constitutionally meet the requirements to have made any decisions. The root of the problem was retroactively solved with ASUCD Senate Bill #36 and it was done in a manner that was the best available option. As for people going on for years, that's just silly. ASUCD doesn't have the institutional memory to harbor scandals for more than a couple months. There have been a number of court scandals in just the time of the current Chief Justice. However, with all the turnover in ASUCD, the only person left who can even still have feelings about those scandals is the Chief Justice himself. In that short of time, people currently involved in ASUCD wouldn't have any "need to heal" let alone have any idea what happened in the first place. --["<span>Users/</span>ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>+</span> * You all don't know the outcome of your decision, because after ["Tiny Sanders"] asked "where is all of the outrage", you quickly moved into Senate discussion. I was starting to lean towards seating the candidates, but not in that way. Here's the thing Thomas. You were always the smartest, the best legal eagle of the Senate, by far. But you have always failed to look at the moral consequences of your actions. Your bills are well written and pragmatic, but the consequences are usually ill-considered. Take the bill which allowed the Commission Chairs to leave after their business was done. It was a good idea in theory, but in practice, the majority of the Chairs didn't want it. One of them cried -- you __hurt__ them, even if the bill was, in essence, a good idea. The same applies in the recent case. Sure, you all had to violate at least one government code to move on, that much is for certain. But Senate Bill #36 didn't just violate the spirit of the bylaws, it '''''raped''''' the spirit of the bylaws. You don't see the consequences I see, and didn't allow me to tell you, because you all went into closed session where you could all groupthink your solution. So, congratulations on making a legally exquisite bill which happens to make a mockery of the entire association. --["<span>Users/</span>BrentLaabs"]<br> <span>+</span> * Well thanks for unnecessarily implying I'm brimming with bitterness Thomas, I feel that was quite relevant and showed a lot of good faith on your part. Incidently, by scandals I assume you mean the two removal hearings against me, since those are the closest the Court has ever come under me to being involved in a scandal. As to my part, I fully consider both of those to be completely meritless personal vendettas of Sara Henry. Yes I suppose I do still harbour feelings about them: I will forever think Sara Henry and Paloma Perez are weak and petty people. However, they are no longer involved in student government and as such I really don't think any feelings I have in that respect effects anything current. But I'm sure you brought it up with the best of intentions. -["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke"]<br> <span>+</span> * Thomas is right about me not resigning. The only way I'll leave my position is if the Senate fires me, and I wouldn't be surprised if they ''try'' to do so. :) - ["<span>Users/</span>JonathonLeathers"]<br> <span>+</span> * First, sorry Kris, I didnt mean to imply that you harbored any particular feelings- I was just making the note that you would be the only person around long enough to even have known what has happened. I have a lot of respect for you as the court's chair and I know that it is your job to act upon what's best for the court. Brent, I'm sorry if you felt your feelings were hurt and I undoubtedly agree with you that certain people are going to be upset by the actions of the senate. The fact though is 1) "raping" the bylaws is better than violating the constitution (though I don't characterize SB36 the same); and 2) the view people will have will be adopted from the tone set by those discussing them. I am no longer involved with ASUCD and I have no vested interest in seeing it succeed following my departure. However, I think that we're seeing the people most upset with the senate's actions are people that are too wrapped up in seeing the drama continue. At the end of the day, the senators who justifiably won the election were seated and ASUCD has the opportunity to move on. The ability of it to do so, sadly, seems tied to the maturity of those who are making the biggest stink. I ask simply: if you have any desire to see ASUCD do any of the good that I feel it has the potential to do- let things go and join the efforts of the new senators and help move on. Those who cant be a part of the solution I ask to step aside and let those who have been selected by the student body get on with doing their jobs. --["<span>Users/</span>ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>+</span> *I don't know why people keep saying that the two in question justifiably won the election. I can pretty much guarantee that if the average student knew that they were on disciplinary probation and then committed perjury, they wouldn't have voted for them. One could argue that they were selected by the student body only by means of deception. Other than that, and the fact that deep down for some reason I feel like all of this is just wrong, whatever, I'm glad now at least someone (whether they should be there or not) has the chance to accomplish something on Senate. Something needed to be done, and fortunately as a student government we can just chalk it up to a bad election and move on. --["<span>Users/</span>DanXie"]<br> <span>+</span> * Everybody needs to calm down. Take a break from politics for the holiday weekend and relax. This bickering isn't going to solve anything, and it isn't going to bring any new respect to the court, the senate, the elections committee, or the anyone else on the Third Floor. There are obviously many people with strong opinions about the events of the past two months, but hopefully we can all agree that a decision of some kind was needed Thursday night. Granted, it's not the perfect solution, but it's also not set in stone. I guarantee, though, that the atmosphere of conflict that we can all feel right now won't help us in fixing any problems presented by this solution. - ["<span>Users/</span>PaulHarms"]<br> <span>+</span> * Respect is earned. There are good reasons people don't respect ASUCD, probably the same reasons no one votes. So, when people pick-up the Aggie on Monday and read that the ASUCD Senate made a ridiculous decision, I'm sure those reasons will be further justified. Also, I don't agree that a decision was ''needed'' on Thursday night. I don't want people to forget what happened on Thursday, so I'm not going to let it fade away. And, like I said, if the Senate doesn't like that, they can ''really'' take away my power by firing me. - ["<span>Users/</span>JonathonLeathers"]<br> <span>+</span> * Honestly, what's left to be said? What's done is done, and now we need some CONSTRUCTIVE solutions to deal with the aftermath of this scandal. I just wonder who it will be that will earn our respect and put forth these solutions. - ["<span>Users/</span>PaulHarms"]<br> <span>+</span> * Constructive is a relative term. Either the Senate (or ASUCD Politburo as I shall refer to it further) has to pass these solutions and that will only happen if the solutions involve giving them more power at the expense of other branches of ASUCD. The other alternative is by direct democracy and letting the voters approve suggested changes. Being on the Elections Committee I can't be involved in the latter (but others should know it's an option) and the Politburo has lost my respect so I wouldn't waste my time with the former. As such, I'm just going to continue to do my job and complain about the ASUCD Politburo the whole fucking time. (Isn't this discussion even more entertaining in context of the quote below? I think so.) - ["<span>Users/</span>JonathonLeathers"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 254: </td> <td> Line 256: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * PS: when are we going to allow Davis Wiki to become more like the real Wiki and stop treating it like a LJ?!? Sadly, my earlier question (regarding this fate) was answered by the drama that continues to unfold. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>-</span> * Davis Wiki is a non-[wiki:WikiPedia:NPOV NPOV] wiki. We all have strong opinions (at least for now) and if we tried to enforce even a partially neutral point of view, it would just devolve into a [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Some_argue some argue] situation. Of its very nature, Davis Wiki is more like the [wiki:Wiki:FrontPage original wiki] than Wikipedia. Are you upset at the general [wiki:Wiki:ThreadMode thread mode] on this page, or something in specific? --["BrentLaabs"]<br> <span>-</span> * I much prefer it this way. It adds flavor and characterizes the mood of our campus much better than if it were regular Wiki. --["DanXie"]<br> <span>-</span> * "Regular Wikis" don't have NPOV -- that's a Wikipedia thing, not a Wiki thing. (And believe me, there's plenty of drama on Wikipedia). -- ["JabberWokky"]<span><br> - </span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * PS: when are we going to allow Davis Wiki to become more like the real Wiki and stop treating it like a LJ?!? Sadly, my earlier question (regarding this fate) was answered by the drama that continues to unfold. --["<span>Users/</span>ThomasLloyd"]<br> <span>+</span> * Davis Wiki is a non-[wiki:WikiPedia:NPOV NPOV] wiki. We all have strong opinions (at least for now) and if we tried to enforce even a partially neutral point of view, it would just devolve into a [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Some_argue some argue] situation. Of its very nature, Davis Wiki is more like the [wiki:Wiki:FrontPage original wiki] than Wikipedia. Are you upset at the general [wiki:Wiki:ThreadMode thread mode] on this page, or something in specific? --["<span>Users/</span>BrentLaabs"]<br> <span>+</span> * I much prefer it this way. It adds flavor and characterizes the mood of our campus much better than if it were regular Wiki. --["<span>Users/</span>DanXie"]<br> <span>+</span> * "Regular Wikis" don't have NPOV -- that's a Wikipedia thing, not a Wiki thing. (And believe me, there's plenty of drama on Wikipedia). -- ["<span>Users/</span>JabberWokky"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2007-01-02 10:09:47EdwinSaada- my talk with saul. - dated comment about fixing page. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''2005-12-08 14:40:43'' [[nbsp]] Who else says we start a pool? Whoever picks the right 3 of the 6 gets to be Davis Wiki King (or Queen) of the Week. I should have known something was up when all I could hear about from some of them was "tipsy taxi, tipsy taxi expansion!". &gt;: | --["EdwinSaada"]<br> - * Sorry to take away this idea. It would have been fun though. --["BrentLaabs"]<br> - * Damn it, and I was 2 for 3. -["EdwinSaada" ES]<br> - <br> - ------</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 226: </td> <td> Line 221: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------<br> - ''2005-12-13 17:04:50'' [[nbsp]] This page had some wrong information on it but I think I fixed it all. --["JonathonLeathers"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2005-12-20 11:56:24'' [[nbsp]] "The fact still remains that enough students gave me their vote during the election to allow me to be elected to one of the six open seats. No one disputes these results." Dude, that doesn't speak to your merits. That speaks to the ignorance of the people who voted for you. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> - ''2005-12-20 12:02:52'' [[nbsp]] It's not fair to call it ignorance; I don't think anyone really knew they were on probation and not eligible. I'm sure if everyone knew, the voting may very well have come out differently. --["EdwinSaada"] '''Update''': Apparently, all ineligible candidates were notified by SJA in writing that they were on probation.<br> - ''2005-12-20 12:06:45'' [[nbsp]] Yes, they didn't know. I'm sure the information, if researched, could have been discovered. The fact that people chose not to research it, that's ignorance! People just expect information to find them; I think it's really stupid. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> - ''2005-12-20 12:34:16'' [[nbsp]] You're right, we should always double-check that they're eligible...how exactly? That kind of information is private, I can't just go up to Student Judicial Affairs and ask whether someone else is in trouble or not. They won't tell. That's why this was a scandal - it slipped through, and unless the senators waived their privacy right, the information couldn't be released, and no one would know who it was. So no, it couldn't be researched. And the info from this comment is all in the page above, it would be quite ignorant if people condemn others ignorance for the lack of research, without even researching themselves to see if it's even possible/feasible (even when the information is right there) :P --["EdwinSaada"]<br> - ''2005-12-20 12:55:16'' [[nbsp]] See, but I wouldn't know that it wasn't feasible to access that information. As a journalist (or wannabe journalist) I follow the instinct to question everything. If I voted in this election (which I didn't) would I have thought to research if the student was on probation? Probably not, I would have trusted ASUCD to have known that before making them candidates ... but that doesn't mean I would not have gone out of my way to find information that wasn't already on a poster or designated information page, etc. And uh, yeah, about me not voting ... the elections seem to have gotten so much more trivial from when I arrived at Davis (not 'cause of me or anything). --["SaulSugarman"]<br> - * I'm not talking about how people vote or what they look into beyond posters; I was merely responding to people not knowing about the probations making them ineligable. I felt it was unfair to call them ignorant for not researching it (mainly because you can't, it's private info). And as you said, we would have trusted ASUCD to already have known/dealt with it, and as people acknowledged on this page, mistakes were obviously made. -["EdwinSaada" ES]<br> - ''2005-12-20 12:58:15'' [[nbsp]] Oh, and yeah. In the future, if I decide to vote, I will specifically give those in charge of knowing those facts about probation before deciding to vote. Then if I do all that I can and they tell me no, there's no question as to who is accountable for that information not being available. I don't really care whether or not someone tells me it's "private". If someone tells me that, I want to know who told them, and who told them it was private. I'd want to know the specific reason it was private, and who would have the authority to change that. Obviously it might be some arbitrary reason no one gives a rat's ass about, and again, it would be my fault for not speaking up and trying to change that. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> - * I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not some sort of conspiracy thing, with a chain of hushed commands. I can't go to the Registrars office and get a copy of your transcript, can I? No, it's yours and you'd have to authorize it. So I suppose you could ask why and ask who told them why and so forth, but I don't really see the point of that. Now, same thing if you go to Student Judicial Affairs and try to ask about students. Without their authorization, they won't give you info. If you start asking why, they may just mention the Federal Educational and Privacy Rights Act of 1974 (FERPA), and their records are subject to protection under the privacy provisions of the California State Constitution. The only way the info would be released is if they consent to disclose it; hence why this election was a real problem: What should they have done if the three people don't fess up? Disqualify all 6? -["EdwinSaada" ES]<br> - * This was an interesting issue. Everyone within the student government knew who was on probation by the time of the Senate meeting last Thursday, excluding the Elections Committee and the Court who were trying to avoid knowing. However, it was all heresay -- we can't necessarily go up and ask anyone for hard documenation of any wrongdoing. However, the forms the candidates sign allow a designee of the Elections Committee access to SJA files, so it depends entirely on how the University chooses to interpret it. In this case, SJA allowed Jon Leathers to designate himself, and Jon now knows who was on probation and the reasons for such action. --["BrentLaabs"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-10-19 18:32:25JasonAllerthier -&gt; their <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 20: </td> <td> Line 20: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> An additional issue is timing, and the problem was exacerbated by the Student Government Advisor. The lame duck Senators Constitutionally had to leave office on Thursday, December 8. However, the Senators-elect were prohibited from taking office because of the ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["JoeHarney" Joe Harney] against the ["Elections Committee"]. It was believed that the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] counts towards quorum and that if no Senators were absent the Senate could conduct business; this is not the case however, as the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] does ''not'' count towards quorum. However, it was already known that two Senators would not be back from Winter Break for the first Senate meeting of the Winter quarter. It was believed that the first Senate meeting of the quarter would have to be cancelled, however, Senators whose terms had ended, according to the Constitution, returned so that the Senate could meet quorum in January. There was precedent for this in the past, according to the Vice-President, ["Darnell Holloway"].<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> An additional issue is timing, and the problem was exacerbated by the Student Government Advisor. The lame duck Senators Constitutionally had to leave office on Thursday, December 8. However, the Senators-elect were prohibited from taking office because of the ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["JoeHarney" Joe Harney] against the ["Elections Committee"]. It was believed that the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] counts towards quorum and that if no Senators were absent the Senate could conduct business; this is not the case however, as the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] does ''not'' count towards quorum. However, it was already known that two Senators would not be back from Winter Break for the first Senate meeting of the Winter quarter. It was believed that the first Senate meeting of the quarter would have to be cancelled, however, Senators whose terms had ended, according to the Constitution, returned so that the Senate could meet quorum in January. There was precedent for this in the past, according to the Vice-President, ["Darnell Holloway"]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 36: </td> <td> Line 36: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The unedited letters, provided by SJA to the candidates, were only read by the Elections Committee. All other ASUCD officials who claim to know the reasons these candidates were put on disciplinary action are either speculating or taking someone else's word as fact. They did ''not'' see the official SJA letter. Additionally, the Elections Committee agreed to keep the specifics of the letters confidential between them and the candidates; an agreement that the Committee has upheld. Assumptions made by other ASUCD officials about the severity of their infractions and the liklihood of the candidates having their probations ended early have never and will never be publicly verified by SJA.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> The unedited letters, provided by SJA to the candidates, were only read by the Elections Committee. All other ASUCD officials who claim to know the reasons these candidates were put on disciplinary action are either speculating or taking someone else's word as fact. They did ''not'' see the official SJA letter. Additionally, the Elections Committee agreed to keep the specifics of the letters confidential between them and the candidates; an agreement that the Committee has upheld. Assumptions made by other ASUCD officials about the severity of their infractions and the liklihood of the candidates having their probations ended early have never and will never be publicly verified by SJA. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 40: </td> <td> Line 40: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Meanwhile, the Senators decided to give their farewell comments. But before that, the all of the Commission Chairs gave a rousing performance of "ASUCD Is Your Life" to the tune of "Good Riddance" by Green Day. It was awesome. The Senators gave somewhat stirring speeches about how much they loved everyone, including ["Thomas Lloyd" Thomas] who talks too much. After finishing in an hour (wow!), they waited to hear whether the Court would actually hear the case.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> Meanwhile, the Senators decided to give their farewell comments. But before that, the all of the Commission Chairs gave a rousing performance of "ASUCD Is Your Life" to the tune of "Good Riddance" by Green Day. It was awesome. The Senators gave somewhat stirring speeches about how much they loved everyone, including ["Thomas Lloyd" Thomas] who talks too much. After finishing in an hour (wow!), they waited to hear whether the Court would actually hear the case. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 52: </td> <td> Line 52: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> As of noon on Friday, December 9, the ASUCD Court released its finding as the whether to accept the case. The Court had decided, on the prima facie merits of the case, to see the case. [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/spmct/supcor28-01.doc This opinion] was made available to the candidates and on ["EMOSNAIL"]. Importantly, all of the candidates were considered "real parties to the case", and were entitled to defense counsel and the ability to file briefs.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> As of noon on Friday, December 9, the ASUCD Court released its finding as the whether to accept the case. The Court had decided, on the prima facie merits of the case, to see the case. [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/spmct/supcor28-01.doc This opinion] was made available to the candidates and on ["EMOSNAIL"]. Importantly, all of the candidates were considered "real parties to the case", and were entitled to defense counsel and the ability to file briefs. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 74: </td> <td> Line 74: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> At a new Senate meeting two days later, all parties waited with great expectation. Sen. ["Kristen Birdsall"] started the meeting with a motion to certify the court's ruling; the motion failed 3-5-4. Most senators voted against the measure on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they felt that the best way to decide this case was in closed session -- thus excluding the process from the public eye. After they emerged from a 45-minute closed session, they had a bill.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> At a new Senate meeting two days later, all parties waited with great expectation. Sen. ["Kristen Birdsall"] started the meeting with a motion to certify the court's ruling; the motion failed 3-5-4. Most senators voted against the measure on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they felt that the best way to decide this case was in closed session -- thus excluding the process from the public eye. After they emerged from a 45-minute closed session, they had a bill. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 85: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> A few student reactions can be read online, such as [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791885.html a call for recall], [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791657.html a Justice's View] and [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2790539.html another].<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> A few student reactions can be read online, such as [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791885.html a call for recall], [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791657.html a Justice's View] and [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2790539.html another]. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 124: </td> <td> Line 124: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- As you've read above, I was prevented from taking my seat along with the five other senators-elect because of the filing of Harney v. Leathers. As such, we cannot be seated so long as this case is pending in regards to the election. Mr. Harney was within his rights as a member of this association to file such a suit, although I believe that his reading of the law is mistaken. It is unfortunate that the system did not work as it was designed to, but this is not a time to throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water. The fact still remains that enough students gave me their vote during the election to allow me to be elected to one of the six open seats. No one disputes these results. </span> </td> <td> <span>+ As you've read above, I was prevented from taking my seat along with the five other senators-elect because of the filing of Harney v. Leathers. As such, we cannot be seated so long as this case is pending in regards to the election. Mr. Harney was within his rights as a member of this association to file such a suit, although I believe that his reading of the law is mistaken. It is unfortunate that the system did not work as it was designed to, but this is not a time to throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water. The fact still remains that enough students gave me their vote during the election to allow me to be elected to one of the six open seats. No one disputes these results.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 219: </td> <td> Line 219: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-09 21:44:49'' [[nbsp]] Now I know what Henry Fonda's character must have felt in twelve angry men. There are two separate issues at dispute here. The first is whether or not the Elections Committee failed to correctly certify the eligibility of all the candidates. Whether this mistake was done due to lack of training and/or lack of University faculty support is immaterial. The second issue is encapsulated in John Leathers' statement during the open closed hearing that SJA would have cleared the candidates to participate in the election. According to Section 104 paragraph 7 of the elections code states, <span>“</span> No Student may run for an elected ASUCD office if the student has one or more of the following disciplinary actions placed by Student Judicial Affairs: suspension, disciplinary probation, activities dismissal, interim suspension." This rule can be easily interpreted that once sanctioned by SJA for any of the listed offenses that a student is ineligible to run for office permanently.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-09 21:44:49'' [[nbsp]] Now I know what Henry Fonda's character must have felt in twelve angry men. There are two separate issues at dispute here. The first is whether or not the Elections Committee failed to correctly certify the eligibility of all the candidates. Whether this mistake was done due to lack of training and/or lack of University faculty support is immaterial. The second issue is encapsulated in John Leathers' statement during the open closed hearing that SJA would have cleared the candidates to participate in the election. According to Section 104 paragraph 7 of the elections code states, <span>“</span> No Student may run for an elected ASUCD office if the student has one or more of the following disciplinary actions placed by Student Judicial Affairs: suspension, disciplinary probation, activities dismissal, interim suspension." This rule can be easily interpreted that once sanctioned by SJA for any of the listed offenses that a student is ineligible to run for office permanently. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 232: </td> <td> Line 232: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-20 12:34:16'' [[nbsp]] You're right, we should always double-check that they're eligible...how exactly? That kind of information is private, I can't just go up to Student Judicial Affairs and ask whether someone else is in trouble or not. They won't tell. That's why this was a scandal - it slipped through, and unless the senators waived th<span>ie</span>r privacy right, the information couldn't be released, and no one would know who it was. So no, it couldn't be researched. And the info from this comment is all in the page above, it would be quite ignorant if people condemn others ignorance for the lack of research, without even researching themselves to see if it's even possible/feasible (even when the information is right there) :P --["EdwinSaada"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-20 12:34:16'' [[nbsp]] You're right, we should always double-check that they're eligible...how exactly? That kind of information is private, I can't just go up to Student Judicial Affairs and ask whether someone else is in trouble or not. They won't tell. That's why this was a scandal - it slipped through, and unless the senators waived th<span>ei</span>r privacy right, the information couldn't be released, and no one would know who it was. So no, it couldn't be researched. And the info from this comment is all in the page above, it would be quite ignorant if people condemn others ignorance for the lack of research, without even researching themselves to see if it's even possible/feasible (even when the information is right there) :P --["EdwinSaada"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 236: </td> <td> Line 236: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not some sort of conspiracy thing, with a chain of hushed commands. I can't go to the Registrars office and get a copy of your transcript, can I? No, it's yours and you'd have to authorize it. So I suppose you could ask why and ask who told them why and so forth, but I don't really see the point of that. Now, same thing if you go to Student Judicial Affairs and try to ask about students. Without th<span>ie</span>r authorization, they won't give you info. If you start asking why, they may just mention the Federal Educational and Privacy Rights Act of 1974 (FERPA), and th<span>ie</span>r records are subject to protection under the privacy provisions of the California State Constitution. The only way the info would be released is if they consent to disclose it; hence why this election was a real problem: What should they have done if the three people don't fess up? Disqualify all 6? -["EdwinSaada" ES] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not some sort of conspiracy thing, with a chain of hushed commands. I can't go to the Registrars office and get a copy of your transcript, can I? No, it's yours and you'd have to authorize it. So I suppose you could ask why and ask who told them why and so forth, but I don't really see the point of that. Now, same thing if you go to Student Judicial Affairs and try to ask about students. Without th<span>ei</span>r authorization, they won't give you info. If you start asking why, they may just mention the Federal Educational and Privacy Rights Act of 1974 (FERPA), and th<span>ei</span>r records are subject to protection under the privacy provisions of the California State Constitution. The only way the info would be released is if they consent to disclose it; hence why this election was a real problem: What should they have done if the three people don't fess up? Disqualify all 6? -["EdwinSaada" ES] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 242: </td> <td> Line 242: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Thomas, I agree that this page is a mess w/ comments and facts appearing together. I'm attempting to clean it up. I'll return to this process later tonight. - ["JonathonLeathers"]<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Thomas, I agree that this page is a mess w/ comments and facts appearing together. I'm attempting to clean it up. I'll return to this process later tonight. - ["JonathonLeathers"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-03-24 17:11:50JamesSchwab <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 57: </td> <td> Line 57: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- [[Thumbnail</span>(case28defense.jpg, 250, <span>"The Defense lines up as it discusses strategy."</span>)]][[<span>Thumbnail</span>(tehcourt.jpg<span>, 250</span>, "The ASUCD Supreme Court, Chief Justice Fricke Presiding"<span>)]][[Thumbnail(case28plaintiff.jpg</span>, 250, "Council for the Plaintiff lays out its case at the sparsely populated Plaintiff table.")]][[BR]] </td> <td> <span>+ [[Image</span>(case28defense.jpg, <span>"The Defense lines up as it discusses strategy.", </span>250, <span>thumbnail</span>)]][[<span>Image</span>(tehcourt.jpg, "The ASUCD Supreme Court, Chief Justice Fricke Presiding", 250, <span>thumbnail)]][[Image(case28plaintiff.jpg, </span>"Council for the Plaintiff lays out its case at the sparsely populated Plaintiff table."<span>, 250, thumbnail</span>)]][[BR]] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 61: </td> <td> Line 61: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- [[Thumbnail(palpatine_tucker.jpg, 325, left, "Rev. Chad Van Schoelandt and Student Government Advisor Michael Tucker have a dramatic stand-off over Tucker's use of Advisorial Fiat to hold the case.")]]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ [[Image(palpatine_tucker.jpg, "Rev. Chad Van Schoelandt and Student Government Advisor Michael Tucker have a dramatic stand-off over Tucker's use of Advisorial Fiat to hold the case.", 325, left, thumbnail)]]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [[<span>Thumbnail</span>(1337snax0rz.jpg, 275, right, <span>"Star Witness Paul Amnuaypayoat checks out the snacks provided at the court case."</span>)]] After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from both Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["PaulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["BrentLaabs" along] ["RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible. </td> <td> <span>+</span> [[<span>Image</span>(1337snax0rz.jpg, <span>"Star Witness Paul Amnuaypayoat checks out the snacks provided at the court case.", </span>275, right, <span>thumbnail</span>)]] After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from both Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["PaulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["BrentLaabs" along] ["RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 89: </td> <td> Line 89: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [[<span>Thu</span>m<span>bn</span>a<span>il</span>(attackflyer.jpg<span>, 250, right</span>, "One of the flyers in its native habitat.")]] </td> <td> <span>+</span> [[<span>I</span>ma<span>ge</span>(attackflyer.jpg, "One of the flyers in its native habitat."<span>, 250, right, thumbnail</span>)]] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 126: </td> <td> Line 126: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> There is currently much work facing the senate, and I am fully committed to seeing to the business of ASUCD. Although I have not yet officially taken office, I have begun meeting with important figures in the community to address issues such as increasing entertainment options and better student-police relations. Though keeping me from being seated as a full senator, this case has not prevented me from living up to the standards of professionalism and hard work that the students ought to expect from their elected officials. I am fully confident that the court will find in favor of my constituents and allow me to take my seat when the case has been decided. --["KareemSalem"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> There is currently much work facing the senate, and I am fully committed to seeing to the business of ASUCD. Although I have not yet officially taken office, I have begun meeting with important figures in the community to address issues such as increasing entertainment options and better student-police relations. Though keeping me from being seated as a full senator, this case has not prevented me from living up to the standards of professionalism and hard work that the students ought to expect from their elected officials. I am fully confident that the court will find in favor of my constituents and allow me to take my seat when the case has been decided. --["Kareem<span>&nbsp;</span>Salem"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 180: </td> <td> Line 180: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''"Student politics are the most vicious, precisely because the stakes are so small"'' -- [wiki:WikiPedia:Henry_Kissinger Henry Kissinger]<span><br> -</span> [[Comments(Start a New Thread Here)]] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''"Student politics are the most vicious, precisely because the stakes are so small"'' -- [wiki:WikiPedia:Henry_Kissinger Henry Kissinger] [[Comments(Start a New Thread Here)]] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 245: </td> <td> Line 244: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> REGARDING THE COURT CASE:<span><br> -</span> Neither side was able to argue at the level of the other -- Harney did not address the spirit of the question effectively, and Russell did not address the law effectively. Had Harney talked about the spirit of fair play, and the upholding the consequences of actions is essential to the philosophy of a university, he would have fared better. And on the other side, Russell should have explained that the candidates had already been certified to the best of the ability of the Elections Committee Chair, and there would be no way to now know how the election would have been affected. And of course, neither side mentioned the voters at all. - ???<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> REGARDING THE SENATE'S ACTIONS:<span><br> -</span> Hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse. - ??? </td> <td> <span>+</span> REGARDING THE COURT CASE: Neither side was able to argue at the level of the other -- Harney did not address the spirit of the question effectively, and Russell did not address the law effectively. Had Harney talked about the spirit of fair play, and the upholding the consequences of actions is essential to the philosophy of a university, he would have fared better. And on the other side, Russell should have explained that the candidates had already been certified to the best of the ability of the Elections Committee Chair, and there would be no way to now know how the election would have been affected. And of course, neither side mentioned the voters at all. - ???<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> REGARDING THE SENATE'S ACTIONS: Hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse. - ??? </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 259: </td> <td> Line 256: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> REGARDING THE AFTERMATH:<span><br> -</span> The comments on these pages go through a lot of views, and it is interesting to see when the opposition gladly identify themselves, while supporters of the Senate's action often post anonymously. [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791885.html a call for recall], [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791657.html a Justice's View] and [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2790539.html another] - Chad </td> <td> <span>+</span> REGARDING THE AFTERMATH: The comments on these pages go through a lot of views, and it is interesting to see when the opposition gladly identify themselves, while supporters of the Senate's action often post anonymously. [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791885.html a call for recall], [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791657.html a Justice's View] and [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2790539.html another] - Chad </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-02-12 16:40:14ArlenAbrahamunlinking politburo <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 273: </td> <td> Line 273: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Constructive is a relative term. Either the Senate (or <span>["</span>ASUCD Politburo<span>"]</span> as I shall refer to it further) has to pass these solutions and that will only happen if the solutions involve giving them more power at the expense of other branches of ASUCD. The other alternative is by direct democracy and letting the voters approve suggested changes. Being on the Elections Committee I can't be involved in the latter (but others should know it's an option) and the <span>["</span>ASUCD Politburo<span>" Politburo] has lost my respect so I wouldn't waste my time with the former. As such, I'm just going to continue to do my job and complain about the ["ASUCD Politburo"]</span> the whole fucking time. (Isn't this discussion even more entertaining in context of the quote below? I think so.) - ["JonathonLeathers"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Constructive is a relative term. Either the Senate (or ASUCD Politburo as I shall refer to it further) has to pass these solutions and that will only happen if the solutions involve giving them more power at the expense of other branches of ASUCD. The other alternative is by direct democracy and letting the voters approve suggested changes. Being on the Elections Committee I can't be involved in the latter (but others should know it's an option) and the <span>Politburo has lost my respect so I wouldn't waste my time with the former. As such, I'm just going to continue to do my job and complain about the </span>ASUCD Politburo the whole fucking time. (Isn't this discussion even more entertaining in context of the quote below? I think so.) - ["JonathonLeathers"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-28 15:49:49PhilipNeustrom <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 284: </td> <td> Line 284: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Thats like blaming the reporters who reported on whitewater for the scandal that ensued. The Elections Committee ''could'' have snuffed out the whole scandal by pretending they didn't do anything wrong and not telling anyone --and thats probably what previous elections committees would have done-- but unqualified candidates would have been seated. The scandal wouldn't have Not Happened by any means, its just that no one would have known. If a scandal happens in a forest and no one reports on it, does it really happen?<span>&nbsp;-N.A.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Thats like blaming the reporters who reported on whitewater for the scandal that ensued. The Elections Committee ''could'' have snuffed out the whole scandal by pretending they didn't do anything wrong and not telling anyone --and thats probably what previous elections committees would have done-- but unqualified candidates would have been seated. The scandal wouldn't have Not Happened by any means, its just that no one would have known. If a scandal happens in a forest and no one reports on it, does it really happen? </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-28 15:42:38NigelAndrasseyIf a scandal happens in a forest and no one reports on it, does it really happen <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 284: </td> <td> Line 284: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Thats like blaming the reporters who reported on whitewater for the scandal that ensued. The Elections Committee ''could'' have snuffed out the whole scandal by pretending they didn't do anything wrong and not telling anyone --and thats probably what previous elections committees would have done-- but unqualified candidates would have been seated. The scandal wouldn't have Not Happened by any means, its just that no one would have known. If a scandal happens in a forest and no one reports on it, does it really happen? -N.A.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-28 14:50:47BrentLaabsnot really wild claims <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 281: </td> <td> Line 281: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The final question which must be asked is, why didn't Jonathon Leathers, as Elections Committee Chair, certify any the candidates? Not even the ones which were certainly qualified and elected have ever been certified. Perhaps this issue could have been resolved at a much earlier time by the Elections Committee just doing their jobs, and certifying ''someone''. One wonders if there could have been a way to avoid this whole scandal and the fallout thereof, and if the Elections Committee could have resolved the problem at an early stage. However, we may never know, unless ["UC Berkeley"] loans us their super-secret time machine.<span>["BrentLaabs"]</span><br> <span>- </span> *What do you think the committee should have done exactly? Certified the initial 6 knowing some were ineligible but not knowing who? Given lack of important information, we didn't exactly have a lot of options for much of the time, nor did the options seem relevent once it was thought that the court would be able to make a binding decission. We were not hired to determine what happens when procedures go wrong, the court is, so we were leaving it to them as much as possible. "if the Elections Committee could have resolved the problem at an early stage." Sure, we could have just never mentioned that anyone wasn't eligible, we had that option which would "have been a way to avoid this whole scandal and the fallout thereof." So if you are criticizing us for trying to get information, and think about our actions, then it is noted. Democracy is slow when compared to a dictatorship, and if we were upholding the dictatorial spirit we would have avoided scandal, but we weren't and we got scandal, and I perfer scandal to cover up and just acting like nothing went wrong. At least now we can have a 'no ex post facto' constitutional amendment. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The final question which must be asked is, why didn't Jonathon Leathers, as Elections Committee Chair, certify any the candidates? Not even the ones which were certainly qualified and elected have ever been certified. Perhaps this issue could have been resolved at a much earlier time by the Elections Committee just doing their jobs, and certifying ''someone''. One wonders if there could have been a way to avoid this whole scandal and the fallout thereof, and if the Elections Committee could have resolved the problem at an early stage. However, we may never know, unless ["UC Berkeley"] loans us their super-secret time machine.<br> <span>+</span> *<span>&nbsp;</span>What do you think the committee should have done exactly? Certified the initial 6 knowing some were ineligible but not knowing who? Given lack of important information, we didn't exactly have a lot of options for much of the time, nor did the options seem relevent once it was thought that the court would be able to make a binding decission. We were not hired to determine what happens when procedures go wrong, the court is, so we were leaving it to them as much as possible. "if the Elections Committee could have resolved the problem at an early stage." Sure, we could have just never mentioned that anyone wasn't eligible, we had that option which would "have been a way to avoid this whole scandal and the fallout thereof." So if you are criticizing us for trying to get information, and think about our actions, then it is noted. Democracy is slow when compared to a dictatorship, and if we were upholding the dictatorial spirit we would have avoided scandal, but we weren't and we got scandal, and I perfer scandal to cover up and just acting like nothing went wrong. At least now we can have a 'no ex post facto' constitutional amendment.<span><br> + * These may seem like wild claims to you, but it's the predominant view of the Senate table.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-28 08:39:28RevChadmoved the wild claims to comments and replying... wildly <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 106: </td> <td> Line 106: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - The final question which must be asked is, why didn't Jonathon Leathers, as Elections Committee Chair, certify any the candidates? Not even the ones which were certainly qualified and elected have ever been certified. Perhaps this issue could have been resolved at a much earlier time by the Elections Committee just doing their jobs, and certifying ''someone''. One wonders if there could have been a way to avoid this whole scandal and the fallout thereof, and if the Elections Committee could have resolved the problem at an early stage. However, we may never know, unless ["UC Berkeley"] loans us their super-secret time machine.<br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 282: </td> <td> Line 279: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + -----<br> + The final question which must be asked is, why didn't Jonathon Leathers, as Elections Committee Chair, certify any the candidates? Not even the ones which were certainly qualified and elected have ever been certified. Perhaps this issue could have been resolved at a much earlier time by the Elections Committee just doing their jobs, and certifying ''someone''. One wonders if there could have been a way to avoid this whole scandal and the fallout thereof, and if the Elections Committee could have resolved the problem at an early stage. However, we may never know, unless ["UC Berkeley"] loans us their super-secret time machine.["BrentLaabs"]<br> + *What do you think the committee should have done exactly? Certified the initial 6 knowing some were ineligible but not knowing who? Given lack of important information, we didn't exactly have a lot of options for much of the time, nor did the options seem relevent once it was thought that the court would be able to make a binding decission. We were not hired to determine what happens when procedures go wrong, the court is, so we were leaving it to them as much as possible. "if the Elections Committee could have resolved the problem at an early stage." Sure, we could have just never mentioned that anyone wasn't eligible, we had that option which would "have been a way to avoid this whole scandal and the fallout thereof." So if you are criticizing us for trying to get information, and think about our actions, then it is noted. Democracy is slow when compared to a dictatorship, and if we were upholding the dictatorial spirit we would have avoided scandal, but we weren't and we got scandal, and I perfer scandal to cover up and just acting like nothing went wrong. At least now we can have a 'no ex post facto' constitutional amendment.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-27 00:43:57BrentLaabsupdate to the summary <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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> The Unqualified Candidates scandal pertains to the ["Fall 2005 ASUCD Election"], and the circumstances related to ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28. In summary, the election ran smoothly until far after the voting was over, when it was discovered that two of the candidates elected were ineligible to serve due to disciplinary probation from ["Student Judicial Affairs"]. The inadvertant error on the part of the ["ASUCD"] ["Elections Committee"] led to an ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["Joe Harney"], which stopped the Senators-elect from being seated. However, the court did not have a sufficient number of justices to hear the case, so the ["ASUCD Senate"] rejected the Court's decision without looking at it and swore in the new Senators by eliminating the requirement that Senators be cleared with SJA. Many <span>a</span>re upset by this action, as evidenced by the large number of ["Livejournal"] posts. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Unqualified Candidates scandal pertains to the ["Fall 2005 ASUCD Election"], and the circumstances related to ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28. In summary, the election ran smoothly until far after the voting was over, when it was discovered that two of the candidates elected were ineligible to serve due to disciplinary probation from ["Student Judicial Affairs"]. The inadvertant error on the part of the ["ASUCD"] ["Elections Committee"] led to an ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["Joe Harney"], which stopped the Senators-elect from being seated. However, the court did not have a sufficient number of justices to hear the case, so the ["ASUCD Senate"] rejected the Court's decision without looking at it and swore in the new Senators by eliminating the requirement that Senators be cleared with SJA. Many <span>we</span>re upset by this action, as evidenced by the large number of ["Livejournal"] posts<span>, attack flyers, and various Aggie opinion articles</span>.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;In recent times, the resolution of the conflict has devolved into several petty disputes on the procedures used by all parties.<br> + <br> + Xtreme detail on the situation follows below:</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-27 00:27:08BrentLaabsan update to the never ending scandal <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 78: </td> <td> Line 78: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ["ThomasLloyd" Some] have claimed that Leathers already certified the election at the Senate meeting on December 8, 2005. However, Leathers denies this claim and the minutes from that Senate meeting show that such a statement was never made. </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["ThomasLloyd" Some] have claimed that Leathers already certified the election at the Senate meeting on December 8, 2005. However, Leathers denies this claim and the minutes from that Senate meeting show that such a statement was never made.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;Leathers certainly never issued certificates of election, which was one of the steps required in the ASUCD Constitution. However, VP ["Darnell Holloway" Holloway's] certificate hadn't been signed by the ["Paloma Perez"], and he didn't receive it in time either -- it seems politics overriding procedure is standard practice in ASUCD.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 81: </td> <td> Line 81: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> There is no doubt that this situation has raised the anger of many people. Some are simply glad that it is over, while others demand the heads of major participants<span>, and others staunchly disagree with the approach used to resolve the situation</span>.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> There is no doubt that this situation has raised the anger of many people. Some are simply glad that it is over, while others <span>staunchly disagree with the approach used to resolve the situation, and still others </span>demand the heads of major participants. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 85: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["Chad Van Schoelandt" Chad Van Schoelandt] and["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. All known targets of the Closed Session have called for it to be open to the public. The exact reasons for this Closed Session are as yet totally unknown.<br> - <br> - Flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman Hall on 1/17/06. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no factual basis for this claim; maybe the author of these flyers got the idea from an Aggie article during the scandal. An apology from whomever wrote these flyers is expected.<br> - <br> - On Wednesday January 18, 2006, at approximately noon, ["ASUCD Court"] Justice ["Joe Harney"] recieved a death threat by phone, telling him that he should resign "or else." This call was made anonymously, with a computerized voice, and the call was placed from ["Quad Phone 2"].<br> - </span> </td> <td> <span>+ On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["Chad Van Schoelandt" Chad Van Schoelandt] and["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of a pending closed sessions with the Senate, called by ["Kristen Birdsall"]. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. Birdsall made various charges against each of those called, ranging from failure to fulfill job duties (Leathers) to holding a secret meeting (Fricke) to unprofessionalism (Van Schoelandt) to not acting like a Justice (Harney). Fricke soon pointed out that this was the third time that a closed session against him was not called properly, and that the entire session should be null and void.<br> + <br> + [[Thumbnail(attackflyer.jpg, 250, right, "One of the flyers in its native habitat.")]]<br> + In addition, flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman Hall on 1/17/06. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no evidence for this claim; the author of these flyers got the idea from an Aggie article during the scandal. An article was published by ["The California Aggie"] more than a week later on January 26, detailing the flyers and the [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/26/CampusNews/After.Asucd.Senate.Controversy.Constituent.Feelings.Are.Mixed-1505862.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com response from students]. However, this was percieved by the Senate as reopening old wounds, and an endorsement of the date rape theory. Though the article said the flyers were false, the publication could hurt anyway. Kareem Salem was still falsely implicated (being the only male in question), and has firmly denied the rumour -- his trip to SJA was mainly due to a fouled up citation in a paper. An apology from whomever wrote these flyers was issued by proxy at the Senate meeting on January 26 -- though he said he had originally gotten the idea of date rape being involved at all from ''The Aggie''. The letter he sent also affirmed that Salem is not guilty of any form of sexual assualt.<br> + <br> + On Wednesday January 18, 2006, at approximately noon, ["ASUCD Court"] Justice ["Joe Harney"] recieved a death threat by phone, telling him that he should resign "or else." This call was made anonymously, with a computerized voice, and the call was placed from ["Quad Phone 2"]. Harney is not dead yet.<br> + <br> + In the legislative aftermath, a provision stating that the cases changed by retroactive legislation are automatically nullified was challenged by ["BrentLaabs" Brent Laabs] with another Court case. After discussion with Laabs, Kai Savaree-Ruess and Avi Singh (et al.) drafted a bill to remove the section of SB #36, as it was not necessary to the accomplish the goal and likely violated separation of powers. Since the crisis had been abated, the Senate agreed and passed the bill. The case was withdrawn.<br> + <br> + Another case has been filed by Chad Van Schoelandt, in respect to releasing the minutes of the closed session which led up to SB #36. Chad alleges that the Constitition only allows three reasons for a closed session, and that this was not one of the three (in fact no reason has been released). In counter to this argument, the Standing Rules state that the Senate may enter a closed session for any reason, and [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Some_argue some argue] that the Constitution clause was not intended to limit closed sessions. Although no one can talk about the closed session, here's what we know:<br> + 1. At the beginning, of the twelve people in the room they had about thirteen different opinions on how to solve the matter.<br> + 1. The rules of the session were relaxed into a more open discussion.<br> + 1. Caliph Assagai and Kai Savaree-Ruess were called into the closed session.<br> + 1. The Senate claims to have taken no action during the meeting.<br> + 1. The Senate physically wrote SB #36 in the recess immediately following the closed session.<br> + 1. Of those present, only Vice President Darnell Holloway objected to the bill's ''modus operundi'' during the closed session.<br> + Advisor Michael Tucker has stated that even if the Court finds that the session was not a closed session, he will not release the minutes under any circumstance.<br> + <br> + It was during this session that various members of the ASUCD Court, the Election Committee, Commission Chairs, and the public met in the ASUCD Conference Room (and the hall outside). In addition to the Court taunting people with the Manila Folder, Van Schoelandt met with Harney and developed a solution -- if he dropped his case, the Elections Committee would certify the candidates excluding Salem and Farhadmotamed. However, this meeting of the defense and plaintiff working out an out-of-court settlement was considered to be a meeting by Birdsall and formed much the basis of the next closed session. The Court was criticized for violating "the spirit of the Brown Act", despite the fact that (1) the senate had already concluded that the Court did not have quorum on this case and (2) judicial bodies are not bound by the Brown Act. Due to accusations made by Birdsall during the second "open-closed session", Kris Fricke has written up a suit to be filed in Yolo County Superior Court alleging libel.<br> + <br> + The final question which must be asked is, why didn't Jonathon Leathers, as Elections Committee Chair, certify any the candidates? Not even the ones which were certainly qualified and elected have ever been certified. Perhaps this issue could have been resolved at a much earlier time by the Elections Committee just doing their jobs, and certifying ''someone''. One wonders if there could have been a way to avoid this whole scandal and the fallout thereof, and if the Elections Committee could have resolved the problem at an early stage. However, we may never know, unless ["UC Berkeley"] loans us their super-secret time machine.<br> + <br> + <br> + = =</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-27 00:15:16BrentLaabsUpload of image <a href="http://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal?action=Files&do=view&target=attackflyer.jpg">attackflyer.jpg</a>.Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-26 15:44:16RevChadaggie coverage link <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 92: </td> <td> Line 92: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + The Aggie covered some [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2006/01/26/CampusNews/After.Asucd.Senate.Controversy.Constituent.Feelings.Are.Mixed-1505862.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com reactions]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-18 11:57:23BrentLaabsdeath threats <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 87: </td> <td> Line 87: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman Hall on 1/17/06. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no factual basis for this claim; maybe the author of these flyers got the idea from an Aggie article during the scandal. An apology from whoever wrote these flyers is expected. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman Hall on 1/17/06. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no factual basis for this claim; maybe the author of these flyers got the idea from an Aggie article during the scandal. An apology from who<span>m</span>ever wrote these flyers is expected.<span><br> + <br> + On Wednesday January 18, 2006, at approximately noon, ["ASUCD Court"] Justice ["Joe Harney"] recieved a death threat by phone, telling him that he should resign "or else." This call was made anonymously, with a computerized voice, and the call was placed from ["Quad Phone 2"].</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-17 21:18:57KrisFrickeI'd greatly appreciate knowing what I'm charged with... anyone know? <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 85: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["Chad Van Schoelandt" Chad Van Schoelandt] and["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. The C<span>ommittee members have called for it to be open to the public.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["Chad Van Schoelandt" Chad Van Schoelandt] and["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. <span>All known targets of the Closed Session have called for it to be open to the public. </span>The <span>exact reasons for this </span>C<span>losed Session are as yet totally unknown.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-17 20:11:21PhilipNeustrom <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 85: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["<span>Rev</span>Chad" Chad Van Schoelandt] and["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. The Committee members have called for it to be open to the public. </td> <td> <span>+</span> On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["Chad<span>&nbsp;Van Schoelandt</span>" Chad Van Schoelandt] and["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. The Committee members have called for it to be open to the public. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-17 20:07:21RevChadclosed session on me too <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 85: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. </td> <td> <span>+</span> On 2006-01-17 Plaintiff / Justice ["Joe Harney"], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke] and ["<span>RevChad" Chad Van Schoelandt] and["</span>Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals.<span>&nbsp;The Committee members have called for it to be open to the public.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-17 20:00:54PaulHarmsdate added to posting of flyers <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 87: </td> <td> Line 87: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman <span>hall</span>. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no factual basis for this claim; maybe the author of these flyers got the idea from <span>the</span> Aggie<span>'s</span> during the scandal. An apology from whoever wrote these flyers is expected. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman <span>Hall on 1/17/06</span>. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no factual basis for this claim; maybe the author of these flyers got the idea from <span>an</span> Aggie<span>&nbsp;article</span> during the scandal. An apology from whoever wrote these flyers is expected. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-17 19:57:53PaulHarmsflyers in wellman (aftermath) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 86: </td> <td> Line 86: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + Flyers announcing that a date rapist had been seated the ASUCD Senate were posted in Wellman hall. Many consider this to be in poor taste, as there is no factual basis for this claim; maybe the author of these flyers got the idea from the Aggie's during the scandal. An apology from whoever wrote these flyers is expected.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-17 19:52:44KrisFrickeLive from 3rd Floor - I'm up for removal too!! =D <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 81: </td> <td> Line 81: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> There is no doubt that this situation has raised the anger of many people. Some are simply glad that it is over while others <span>staun</span>chly disagree with the approach used to resolve the situation. </td> <td> <span>+</span> There is no doubt that this situation has raised the anger of many people. Some are simply glad that it is over<span>,</span> while others <span>demand the heads of major parti</span>c<span>ipants, and others staunc</span>hly disagree with the approach used to resolve the situation. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 85: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On 2006-01-17 ["Joe Harney"] and ["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. </td> <td> <span>+</span> On 2006-01-17 <span>Plaintiff / Justice </span>["Joe Harney"<span>], Chief Justice ["KrisFricke" Kris Fricke</span>] and ["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-17 18:49:08JabberWokkyRm. inappropriate mild profanity. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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> The Unqualified Candidates scandal pertains to the ["Fall 2005 ASUCD Election"], and the circumstances related to ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28. In summary, the election ran smoothly until far after the voting was over, when it was discovered that two of the candidates elected were ineligible to serve due to disciplinary probation from ["Student Judicial Affairs"]. The inadvertant error on the part of the ["ASUCD"] ["Elections Committee"] led to an ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["Joe Harney"], which stopped the Senators-elect from being seated. However, the court did not have a sufficient number of justices to hear the case, so the ["ASUCD Senate"] rejected the Court's decision without looking at it and swore in the new Senators by eliminating the requirement that Senators be cleared with SJA. Many are <span>--X butthurt X-- </span>upset by this action, as evidenced by the large number of ["Livejournal"] posts. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Unqualified Candidates scandal pertains to the ["Fall 2005 ASUCD Election"], and the circumstances related to ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28. In summary, the election ran smoothly until far after the voting was over, when it was discovered that two of the candidates elected were ineligible to serve due to disciplinary probation from ["Student Judicial Affairs"]. The inadvertant error on the part of the ["ASUCD"] ["Elections Committee"] led to an ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["Joe Harney"], which stopped the Senators-elect from being seated. However, the court did not have a sufficient number of justices to hear the case, so the ["ASUCD Senate"] rejected the Court's decision without looking at it and swore in the new Senators by eliminating the requirement that Senators be cleared with SJA. Many are upset by this action, as evidenced by the large number of ["Livejournal"] posts. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-17 18:17:03PhilipNeustromchair of elections committe called into closed session--may be fired by senate <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 84: </td> <td> Line 84: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + On 2006-01-17 ["Joe Harney"] and ["Jonathon Leathers"], the chair of the Elections Committee, [http://www.livejournal.com/users/jtleathers/539.html recieved emails] notifying them of pending closed sessions with the Senate. These closed sessions, in regards to personnel matters, are usually to investigate firing the individuals.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-15 16:17:28JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 253: </td> <td> Line 253: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * "Regular Wikis" don't have NPOV -- that's a Wikipedia thing, not a Wiki thing. (And believe me, there's plenty of drama on Wikipedia). -- ["JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-15 15:32:34DanXie <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 244: </td> <td> Line 244: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> *I don't know why people keep saying that the two in question justifiably won the election. I can pretty much guarantee that if the average student knew that they were on disciplinary probation and then committed perjury, they wouldn't have voted for them. One could argue that they were selected by the student body only by means of deception. Other than that, and the fact that I feel all of this is just wrong, whatever, I'm glad now at least someone (whether they should be there or not) has the chance to accomplish something on Senate. Something needed to be done, and fortunately as a student government we can just chalk it up to a bad election and move on. --["DanXie"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> *I don't know why people keep saying that the two in question justifiably won the election. I can pretty much guarantee that if the average student knew that they were on disciplinary probation and then committed perjury, they wouldn't have voted for them. One could argue that they were selected by the student body only by means of deception. Other than that, and the fact that <span>deep down for some reason </span>I feel<span>&nbsp;like</span> all of this is just wrong, whatever, I'm glad now at least someone (whether they should be there or not) has the chance to accomplish something on Senate. Something needed to be done, and fortunately as a student government we can just chalk it up to a bad election and move on. --["DanXie"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-15 15:31:27DanXiecomment <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 244: </td> <td> Line 244: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ *I don't know why people keep saying that the two in question justifiably won the election. I can pretty much guarantee that if the average student knew that they were on disciplinary probation and then committed perjury, they wouldn't have voted for them. One could argue that they were selected by the student body only by means of deception. Other than that, and the fact that I feel all of this is just wrong, whatever, I'm glad now at least someone (whether they should be there or not) has the chance to accomplish something on Senate. Something needed to be done, and fortunately as a student government we can just chalk it up to a bad election and move on. --["DanXie"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 251: </td> <td> Line 252: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I much prefer it this way. It adds flavor and characterizes the mood of our campus much better than if it were regular Wiki. --["DanXie"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-15 01:16:39BrentLaabsreply to thomas (meta) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 248: </td> <td> Line 248: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - <br> - <br> - <br> - * PS: when are we going to allow Davis Wiki to become more like the real Wiki and stop treating it like a LJ?!? Sadly, my earlier question (regarding this fate) was answered by the drama that continues to unfold. --["ThomasLloyd"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ -----<br> + * PS: when are we going to allow Davis Wiki to become more like the real Wiki and stop treating it like a LJ?!? Sadly, my earlier question (regarding this fate) was answered by the drama that continues to unfold. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> + * Davis Wiki is a non-[wiki:WikiPedia:NPOV NPOV] wiki. We all have strong opinions (at least for now) and if we tried to enforce even a partially neutral point of view, it would just devolve into a [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Some_argue some argue] situation. Of its very nature, Davis Wiki is more like the [wiki:Wiki:FrontPage original wiki] than Wikipedia. Are you upset at the general [wiki:Wiki:ThreadMode thread mode] on this page, or something in specific? --["BrentLaabs"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 20:35:28ThomasLloydPS: davis wiki's fate is sealed by serial wiki-ites; davis wiki=LJ <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 248: </td> <td> Line 248: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + <br> + <br> + <br> + * PS: when are we going to allow Davis Wiki to become more like the real Wiki and stop treating it like a LJ?!? Sadly, my earlier question (regarding this fate) was answered by the drama that continues to unfold. --["ThomasLloyd"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 20:32:42ThomasLloydoh boy <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 243: </td> <td> Line 243: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * First, sorry Kris, I didnt mean to imply that you harbored any particular feelings- I was just making the note that you would be the only person around long enough to even have known what has happened. I have a lot of respect for you as the court's chair and I know that it is your job to act upon what's best for the court. Brent, I'm sorry if you felt your feelings were hurt and I undoubtedly agree with you that certain people are going to be upset by the actions of the senate. The fact though is 1) "raping" the bylaws is better than violating the constitution (though I don't characterize SB36 the same); and 2) the view people will have will be adopted from the tone set by those discussing them. I am no longer involved with ASUCD and I have no vested interest in seeing it succeed following my departure. However, I think that we're seeing the people most upset with the senate's actions are people that are too wrapped up in seeing the drama continue. At the end of the day, the senators who justifiably won the election were seated and ASUCD has the opportunity to move on. The ability of it to do so, sadly, seems tied to the maturity of those who are making the biggest stink. I ask simply: if you have any desire to see ASUCD do any of the good that I feel it has the potential to do- let things go and join the efforts of the new senators and help move on. Those who cant be a part of the solution I ask to step aside and let those who have been selected by the student body get on with doing their jobs. --["ThomasLloyd"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 19:39:41KrisFrickeI vote Kissinger stays abve the comment bar as a warning tht this is srs businss <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 155: </td> <td> Line 155: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ''"Student politics are the most vicious, precisely because the stakes are so small"'' -- [wiki:WikiPedia:Henry_Kissinger Henry Kissinger]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 246: </td> <td> Line 247: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - ''"Student politics are the most vicious, precisely because the stakes are so small"'' -- [wiki:WikiPedia:Henry_Kissinger Henry Kissinger]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 19:25:25JonathonLeatherscomments all at the bottom...some need to be attributed <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 68: </td> <td> Line 68: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Neither side was able to argue at the level of the other -- Harney did not address the spirit of the question effectively, and Russell did not address the law effectively. Had Harney talked about the spirit of fair play, and the upholding the consequences of actions is essential to the philosophy of a university, he would have fared better. And on the other side, Russell should have explained that the candidates had already been certified to the best of the ability of the Elections Committee Chair, and there would be no way to now know how the election would have been affected. And of course, neither side mentioned the voters at all. - Opinion<br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 81: </td> <td> Line 79: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - Hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse. - Opinion<br> - <br> - Besides making ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD, it manages to convey the idea that there is a double standard for popular people. It doesn't matter if they break the rules, but it definitely matters if the Court does. - Opinion<br> - <br> - Note that simple suspension of the bylaws would have sufficed, and that is exactly what was done. Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on. - opinion?<br> - <br> - * I think what Mr. Laabs is ignoring is the fact that accepting the invalid court opinion would have been breaking the constitution. On the other hand, writing legislation to address the problem (a problem that should have been fixed anyway) was a positive solution that did not break any rules.[[BR]]<br> - ASUCD Senate Bill 36, section 2: all court cases no longer applicable due to legislation are nullified. The court case no longer exists and the senator-elects were free to be seated. The only reason Senate had to questionably suspend the bylaws was due to not having the Elections Committee Chair present to certifiy the election. The reasoning behind this decision was that he was quoted in the meeting minutes of an earlier meeting as having certified the election results. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> - <br> - * This is not true. I never certified the election and there is nothing in the minutes to even suggest that I certified the election. Once again, the Senate loses. - ["JonathonLeathers"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 98: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The comments on these pages go through a lot of views, and it is interesting to see when the opposition gladly identify themselves, while supporters of the Senate's action often post anonymously. - Chad<br> - <br> - The legislative branch has shown a willingness to ignore the judicial branch and the resentments harboured by new Senators, Court members, and other student government geeks could persist for years. Not that many years, of course, because we all graduate eventually. But it remains to seen how well ASUCD will heal in the future. - Brent<br> - <br> - * I think this characterization of things is a little silly and overdramatic. Jonathan Leathers isn't resigning, he's moving on, like everyone else should. The legislative branch wasn't ignoring the judicial branch, the judicial branch didnt constitutionally meet the requirements to have made any decisions. The root of the problem was retroactively solved with ASUCD Senate Bill #36 and it was done in a manner that was the best available option. As for people going on for years, that's just silly. ASUCD doesn't have the institutional memory to harbor scandals for more than a couple months. There have been a number of court scandals in just the time of the current Chief Justice. However, with all the turnover in ASUCD, the only person left who can even still have feelings about those scandals is the Chief Justice himself. In that short of time, people currently involved in ASUCD wouldn't have any "need to heal" let alone have any idea what happened in the first place. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> - * You all don't know the outcome of your decision, because after ["Tiny Sanders"] asked "where is all of the outrage", you quickly moved into Senate discussion. I was starting to lean towards seating the candidates, but not in that way. Here's the thing Thomas. You were always the smartest, the best legal eagle of the Senate, by far. But you have always failed to look at the moral consequences of your actions. Your bills are well written and pragmatic, but the consequences are usually ill-considered. Take the bill which allowed the Commission Chairs to leave after their business was done. It was a good idea in theory, but in practice, the majority of the Chairs didn't want it. One of them cried -- you __hurt__ them, even if the bill was, in essence, a good idea. The same applies in the recent case. Sure, you all had to violate at least one government code to move on, that much is for certain. But Senate Bill #36 didn't just violate the spirit of the bylaws, it '''''raped''''' the spirit of the bylaws. You don't see the consequences I see, and didn't allow me to tell you, because you all went into closed session where you could all groupthink your solution. So, congratulations on making a legally exquisite bill which happens to make a mockery of the entire association. --["BrentLaabs"]<br> - * Well thanks for unnecessarily implying I'm brimming with bitterness Thomas, I feel that was quite relevant and showed a lot of good faith on your part. Incidently, by scandals I assume you mean the two removal hearings against me, since those are the closest the Court has ever come under me to being involved in a scandal. As to my part, I fully consider both of those to be completely meritless personal vendettas of Sara Henry. Yes I suppose I do still harbour feelings about them: I will forever think Sara Henry and Paloma Perez are weak and petty people. However, they are no longer involved in student government and as such I really don't think any feelings I have in that respect effects anything current. But I'm sure you brought it up with the best of intentions. -["KrisFricke"]<br> - * Thomas is right about me not resigning. The only way I'll leave my position is if the Senate fires me, and I wouldn't be surprised if they ''try'' to do so. :) - ["JonathonLeathers"]<br> - * Everybody needs to calm down. Take a break from politics for the holiday weekend and relax. This bickering isn't going to solve anything, and it isn't going to bring any new respect to the court, the senate, the elections committee, or the anyone else on the Third Floor. There are obviously many people with strong opinions about the events of the past two months, but hopefully we can all agree that a decision of some kind was needed Thursday night. Granted, it's not the perfect solution, but it's also not set in stone. I guarantee, though, that the atmosphere of conflict that we can all feel right now won't help us in fixing any problems presented by this solution. - ["PaulHarms"]<br> - * Respect is earned. There are good reasons people don't respect ASUCD, probably the same reasons no one votes. So, when people pick-up the Aggie on Monday and read that the ASUCD Senate made a ridiculous decision, I'm sure those reasons will be further justified. Also, I don't agree that a decision was ''needed'' on Thursday night. I don't want people to forget what happened on Thursday, so I'm not going to let it fade away. And, like I said, if the Senate doesn't like that, they can ''really'' take away my power by firing me. - ["JonathonLeathers"]<br> - * Honestly, what's left to be said? What's done is done, and now we need some CONSTRUCTIVE solutions to deal with the aftermath of this scandal. I just wonder who it will be that will earn our respect and put forth these solutions. - ["PaulHarms"]<br> - * Constructive is a relative term. Either the Senate (or ["ASUCD Politburo"] as I shall refer to it further) has to pass these solutions and that will only happen if the solutions involve giving them more power at the expense of other branches of ASUCD. The other alternative is by direct democracy and letting the voters approve suggested changes. Being on the Elections Committee I can't be involved in the latter (but others should know it's an option) and the ["ASUCD Politburo" Politburo] has lost my respect so I wouldn't waste my time with the former. As such, I'm just going to continue to do my job and complain about the ["ASUCD Politburo"] the whole fucking time. (Isn't this discussion even more entertaining in context of the quote below? I think so.) - ["JonathonLeathers"]<br> - <br> - ''"Student politics are the most vicious, precisely because the stakes are so small"'' -- [wiki:WikiPedia:Henry_Kissinger Henry Kissinger]<br> - </span> </td> <td> <span>+ Want more opinions? Just scroll down to the Comments section!</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 245: </td> <td> Line 218: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + REGARDING THE COURT CASE:<br> + Neither side was able to argue at the level of the other -- Harney did not address the spirit of the question effectively, and Russell did not address the law effectively. Had Harney talked about the spirit of fair play, and the upholding the consequences of actions is essential to the philosophy of a university, he would have fared better. And on the other side, Russell should have explained that the candidates had already been certified to the best of the ability of the Elections Committee Chair, and there would be no way to now know how the election would have been affected. And of course, neither side mentioned the voters at all. - ???<br> + ------<br> + REGARDING THE SENATE'S ACTIONS:<br> + Hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse. - ???<br> + <br> + Besides making ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD, it manages to convey the idea that there is a double standard for popular people. It doesn't matter if they break the rules, but it definitely matters if the Court does. - ???<br> + <br> + Note that simple suspension of the bylaws would have sufficed, and that is exactly what was done. Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on. - ???<br> + <br> + * I think what Mr. Laabs is ignoring is the fact that accepting the invalid court opinion would have been breaking the constitution. On the other hand, writing legislation to address the problem (a problem that should have been fixed anyway) was a positive solution that did not break any rules.[[BR]]<br> + ASUCD Senate Bill 36, section 2: all court cases no longer applicable due to legislation are nullified. The court case no longer exists and the senator-elects were free to be seated. The only reason Senate had to questionably suspend the bylaws was due to not having the Elections Committee Chair present to certifiy the election. The reasoning behind this decision was that he was quoted in the meeting minutes of an earlier meeting as having certified the election results. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> + * This is not true. I never certified the election and there is nothing in the minutes to even suggest that I certified the election. Once again, the Senate loses. - ["JonathonLeathers"]<br> + ------<br> + REGARDING THE AFTERMATH:<br> + The comments on these pages go through a lot of views, and it is interesting to see when the opposition gladly identify themselves, while supporters of the Senate's action often post anonymously. [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791885.html a call for recall], [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791657.html a Justice's View] and [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2790539.html another] - Chad<br> + <br> + The legislative branch has shown a willingness to ignore the judicial branch and the resentments harboured by new Senators, Court members, and other student government geeks could persist for years. Not that many years, of course, because we all graduate eventually. But it remains to seen how well ASUCD will heal in the future. - Brent<br> + <br> + * I think this characterization of things is a little silly and overdramatic. Jonathan Leathers isn't resigning, he's moving on, like everyone else should. The legislative branch wasn't ignoring the judicial branch, the judicial branch didnt constitutionally meet the requirements to have made any decisions. The root of the problem was retroactively solved with ASUCD Senate Bill #36 and it was done in a manner that was the best available option. As for people going on for years, that's just silly. ASUCD doesn't have the institutional memory to harbor scandals for more than a couple months. There have been a number of court scandals in just the time of the current Chief Justice. However, with all the turnover in ASUCD, the only person left who can even still have feelings about those scandals is the Chief Justice himself. In that short of time, people currently involved in ASUCD wouldn't have any "need to heal" let alone have any idea what happened in the first place. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> + * You all don't know the outcome of your decision, because after ["Tiny Sanders"] asked "where is all of the outrage", you quickly moved into Senate discussion. I was starting to lean towards seating the candidates, but not in that way. Here's the thing Thomas. You were always the smartest, the best legal eagle of the Senate, by far. But you have always failed to look at the moral consequences of your actions. Your bills are well written and pragmatic, but the consequences are usually ill-considered. Take the bill which allowed the Commission Chairs to leave after their business was done. It was a good idea in theory, but in practice, the majority of the Chairs didn't want it. One of them cried -- you __hurt__ them, even if the bill was, in essence, a good idea. The same applies in the recent case. Sure, you all had to violate at least one government code to move on, that much is for certain. But Senate Bill #36 didn't just violate the spirit of the bylaws, it '''''raped''''' the spirit of the bylaws. You don't see the consequences I see, and didn't allow me to tell you, because you all went into closed session where you could all groupthink your solution. So, congratulations on making a legally exquisite bill which happens to make a mockery of the entire association. --["BrentLaabs"]<br> + * Well thanks for unnecessarily implying I'm brimming with bitterness Thomas, I feel that was quite relevant and showed a lot of good faith on your part. Incidently, by scandals I assume you mean the two removal hearings against me, since those are the closest the Court has ever come under me to being involved in a scandal. As to my part, I fully consider both of those to be completely meritless personal vendettas of Sara Henry. Yes I suppose I do still harbour feelings about them: I will forever think Sara Henry and Paloma Perez are weak and petty people. However, they are no longer involved in student government and as such I really don't think any feelings I have in that respect effects anything current. But I'm sure you brought it up with the best of intentions. -["KrisFricke"]<br> + * Thomas is right about me not resigning. The only way I'll leave my position is if the Senate fires me, and I wouldn't be surprised if they ''try'' to do so. :) - ["JonathonLeathers"]<br> + * Everybody needs to calm down. Take a break from politics for the holiday weekend and relax. This bickering isn't going to solve anything, and it isn't going to bring any new respect to the court, the senate, the elections committee, or the anyone else on the Third Floor. There are obviously many people with strong opinions about the events of the past two months, but hopefully we can all agree that a decision of some kind was needed Thursday night. Granted, it's not the perfect solution, but it's also not set in stone. I guarantee, though, that the atmosphere of conflict that we can all feel right now won't help us in fixing any problems presented by this solution. - ["PaulHarms"]<br> + * Respect is earned. There are good reasons people don't respect ASUCD, probably the same reasons no one votes. So, when people pick-up the Aggie on Monday and read that the ASUCD Senate made a ridiculous decision, I'm sure those reasons will be further justified. Also, I don't agree that a decision was ''needed'' on Thursday night. I don't want people to forget what happened on Thursday, so I'm not going to let it fade away. And, like I said, if the Senate doesn't like that, they can ''really'' take away my power by firing me. - ["JonathonLeathers"]<br> + * Honestly, what's left to be said? What's done is done, and now we need some CONSTRUCTIVE solutions to deal with the aftermath of this scandal. I just wonder who it will be that will earn our respect and put forth these solutions. - ["PaulHarms"]<br> + * Constructive is a relative term. Either the Senate (or ["ASUCD Politburo"] as I shall refer to it further) has to pass these solutions and that will only happen if the solutions involve giving them more power at the expense of other branches of ASUCD. The other alternative is by direct democracy and letting the voters approve suggested changes. Being on the Elections Committee I can't be involved in the latter (but others should know it's an option) and the ["ASUCD Politburo" Politburo] has lost my respect so I wouldn't waste my time with the former. As such, I'm just going to continue to do my job and complain about the ["ASUCD Politburo"] the whole fucking time. (Isn't this discussion even more entertaining in context of the quote below? I think so.) - ["JonathonLeathers"]<br> + <br> + ''"Student politics are the most vicious, precisely because the stakes are so small"'' -- [wiki:WikiPedia:Henry_Kissinger Henry Kissinger]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 19:17:10KrisFrickeI believe we have a very strict NO TOP POSTING policy? <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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>- * Quick question: Is the Davis Wiki meant to be a live journal hijacked by a couple over-zealous individuals or is this meant to be something similar to the real Wikipedia and serve as an informational source? I have always held it to the standard of the latter, yet find myself continuously dissapointed. I think if you feel that it should serve more as the latter, please alter it so it serves as such and you can remove my question. Thanks. -["thomaslloyd" TL]<br> - * Thomas, I agree that this page is a mess w/ comments and facts appearing together. I'm attempting to clean it up. I'll return to this process later tonight. - ["JonathonLeathers"] <br> - <br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 246: </td> <td> Line 242: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + * Quick question: Is the Davis Wiki meant to be a live journal hijacked by a couple over-zealous individuals or is this meant to be something similar to the real Wikipedia and serve as an informational source? I have always held it to the standard of the latter, yet find myself continuously dissapointed. I think if you feel that it should serve more as the latter, please alter it so it serves as such and you can remove my question. Thanks. -["thomaslloyd" TL]<br> + * Thomas, I agree that this page is a mess w/ comments and facts appearing together. I'm attempting to clean it up. I'll return to this process later tonight. - ["JonathonLeathers"] </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 19:15:31JonathonLeatherssome clean up...some new info <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 30: </td> <td> Line 30: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On Thursday, December 8, the California Aggie published an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2005/12/08/Opinion/Editorial.Ineligible.Senators.Should.Not.Take.Seats-1124979.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com editorial] urging the candidates to withdraw. <span><br> - <br> - T</span>he examples of offenses the candidates could have made are <span>interesting</span>, <span>aren't they? - Brent</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> On Thursday, December 8, the California Aggie published an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2005/12/08/Opinion/Editorial.Ineligible.Senators.Should.Not.Take.Seats-1124979.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com editorial] urging the candidates to withdraw. <span>Some have questioned whether or not t</span>he examples of offenses the candidates could have made are <span>random or whether they are speculation by the California Aggie's editorial board. Only the candidates</span>, <span>SJA and the few who have been given access to those records know for sure.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 36: </td> <td> Line 34: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> = The Senate Meeting = </td> <td> <span>+</span> = The Senate Meeting <span>(Dec. 8) </span>= </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 40: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ The unedited letters, provided by SJA to the candidates, were only read by the Elections Committee. All other ASUCD officials who claim to know the reasons these candidates were put on disciplinary action are either speculating or taking someone else's word as fact. They did ''not'' see the official SJA letter. Additionally, the Elections Committee agreed to keep the specifics of the letters confidential between them and the candidates; an agreement that the Committee has upheld. Assumptions made by other ASUCD officials about the severity of their infractions and the liklihood of the candidates having their probations ended early have never and will never be publicly verified by SJA. <br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 42: </td> <td> Line 42: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Meanwhile, the Senators decided to give their farewell comments. But before that, the all of the Commission Chairs gave a rousing performance of "ASUCD Is Your Life" to the tune of "Good Riddance" by Green Day. It was awesome. The Senators gave somewhat stirring speeches about how much they loved everyone, including ["Thomas Lloyd" Thomas] who talks too much. After finishing in an hour (wow!), they waited to hear whether the Court would actually hear the case. ["Kareem Salem"], speaking for himself, Natalia, and Spencer, admitted to the open Senate that the investigation was about them, and that they were sorry about their past but would overcome their past to serve their constituents to the best of their ability. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Meanwhile, the Senators decided to give their farewell comments. But before that, the all of the Commission Chairs gave a rousing performance of "ASUCD Is Your Life" to the tune of "Good Riddance" by Green Day. It was awesome. The Senators gave somewhat stirring speeches about how much they loved everyone, including ["Thomas Lloyd" Thomas] who talks too much. After finishing in an hour (wow!), they waited to hear whether the Court would actually hear the case. <span><br> + <br> + </span>["Kareem Salem"], speaking for himself, Natalia, and Spencer, admitted to the open Senate that the investigation was about them, and that they were sorry about their past but would overcome their past to serve their constituents to the best of their ability. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 46: </td> <td> Line 48: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- In the end, everyone decided that we should wait for due process of law, and none of the Senators-elect were seated. The Senators-elect who were not involved felt deeply dissatisfied, but are resigned to the fact that they will not take their seats until January. The business of The People still needed attended to, and the old Senate decided to see legislation as usual.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ In the end, everyone decided that we should wait for due process of law, and none of the Senators-elect were seated. The Senators-elect who were not involved felt deeply dissatisfied, but were resigned to the fact that they would not take their seats until January. The business of The People still needed attended to, and the old Senate decided to see legislation as usual.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 52: </td> <td> Line 54: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> As of noon on Friday, December 9, the ASUCD Court released its finding as the whether to accept the case. The Court ha<span>s</span> decided, on the prima facie merits of the case, to see the case. [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/spmct/supcor28-01.doc This opinion] was made available to the candidates and on ["EMOSNAIL"]. Importantly, all of the candidates <span>are now considered "real parties to the case", and a</span>re entitled to defense counsel and the ability to file briefs. <br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> On December 11, Kareem Salem officially named ["Greg Russell"] as his counsel in Harney v. Leathers; Harney would keep his own council. Winter Break passed uneventfully, with a good mix of fun and brief writing for those involved. ["ASUCD Senate" Senate] held a meeting, pretty much as usual. ["Avni Patel"] wrote a letter from her trip in India, as <span>Jon Leathers</span> explained, "Attacking me from across the ocean." Again, Salem stayed the entire meeting, but some of the old crew was missing -- ["Janine Fiel"] had a job. And due to Army enlistment, it would be ["Keith Shively" Keith Shively's] last meeting. </td> <td> <span>+</span> As of noon on Friday, December 9, the ASUCD Court released its finding as the whether to accept the case. The Court ha<span>d</span> decided, on the prima facie merits of the case, to see the case. [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/spmct/supcor28-01.doc This opinion] was made available to the candidates and on ["EMOSNAIL"]. Importantly, all of the candidates <span>were considered "real parties to the case", and we</span>re entitled to defense counsel and the ability to file briefs. <br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> On December 11, Kareem Salem officially named ["Greg Russell"] as his counsel in Harney v. Leathers; Harney would keep his own council. Winter Break passed uneventfully, with a good mix of fun and brief writing for those involved. ["ASUCD Senate" Senate] held a meeting, pretty much as usual. ["Avni Patel"] wrote a letter from her trip in India, as <span>someone</span> explained, "Attacking me from across the ocean." Again, Salem stayed the entire meeting, but some of the old crew was missing -- ["Janine Fiel"] had a job. And due to Army enlistment, it would be ["Keith Shively" Keith Shively's] last meeting. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 59: </td> <td> Line 61: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Court acted as soon as they felt was legally and practially possible and scheduled a case for the following Tuesday, though this late of a date irked some Senators. As everyone showed up to the meeting, on January 10, at 8:00 PM in the ["Mee Room"], it became clear that something was wrong. The ASUCD Supreme Court could not make quorum -- one member had resigned since the Winter Break, and another had neglected to inform anyone on the Court that he was no longer a student. ["Chad Van Schoelandt"] felt that this was unfair, but ["Michael Tucker"] attempted to assume authority by telling Rev. Van Schoelandt, "You wanted a court case, and this is the court you get." <span>A</span>f<span>ter in</span>f<span>orming the ad</span>v<span>isor that he had not</span> bro<span>ught this particular case</span>, <span>Chad replied, "So to solve a case where a rule is</span> br<span>o</span>k<span>en, we're going to break</span> another one to do so?" </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Court acted as soon as they felt was legally and practially possible and scheduled a case for the following Tuesday, though this late of a date irked some Senators. As everyone showed up to the meeting, on January 10, at 8:00 PM in the ["Mee Room"], it became clear that something was wrong. The ASUCD Supreme Court could not make quorum -- one member had resigned since the Winter Break, and another had neglected to inform anyone on the Court that he was no longer a student. ["Chad Van Schoelandt"] felt that this was unfair, but ["Michael Tucker"] attempted to assume authority by telling Rev. Van Schoelandt, "You wanted a court case, and this is the court you get." <span>["Jonathon Leathers"] then in</span>f<span>ormed ["Michael Tucker"] that they (Jon and Chad) had not brought this particular case and in </span>f<span>act were the defendants. Chad added, "So to sol</span>v<span>e a case where a rule is</span> bro<span>ken</span>, <span>we're going to</span> br<span>ea</span>k another one to do so?" </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 62: </td> <td> Line 64: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Chief Justice ["Kris Fricke"] solved this dramatic stand-off by saying that the court would hear the case, <span>and</span> that the ruling may not be binding. So, in the interest of truth, the tribunal marched ahead with ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28. T<span>he form of the trial was</span> ill-suited to the type of case being presented. Leathers pleaded guilty, as he and Van Schoelandt sat awkwardly at the defense table. As Van Schoelandt had filed a brief supporting the <span>defense</span>, this was a somewhat odd arrangement.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> [[Thumbnail(1337snax0rz.jpg, 275, right, "Star Witness Paul Amnuaypayoat checks out the snacks provided at the court case.")]] After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from <span>eac</span>h Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["PaulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["BrentLaabs" along] ["RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> The defense called no witnesses, and the session moved into closing remarks. Harney argued that the law made no room for the candidates to be considered eligible. In fact, the wording of a particular section could be interpreted as implying that any disciplinary action would exclude a person from ASUCD "in perpetuity". Russell argued that this was ludicrous and contrary to the intent of the law. He also argued that <span>his candidates</span> had been denied the correct process, and that had h<span>is candidates</span> been able to contact SJA at the correct time, it is reasonable to assume that <span>they</span> would have been cleared to run. <span>They</span> had gotten the required number of votes, and should not be disqualified after <span>they</span> had already won. At the end, both sides officially objected to the fact that the case did not have quorum (but neither did at the beginning).<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Neither side was able to argue at the level of the other -- Harney did not address the spirit of the question effectively, and Russell did not address the law effectively. Had Harney talked about the spirit of fair play, and the upholding the consequences of actions is essential to the philosophy of a university, he would have fared better. And on the other side, Russell should have explained that the candidates had already been certified to the best of the ability of the Elections Committee Chair, and there would be no way to now know how the election would have been affected. And of course, neither side mentioned the voters at all.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> In any case, the snacks in the back were eaten and the Court began the consideration of the case. That night, ["Kris Fricke"] was struck with The Manila Solution: the <span>court would issue it'</span>s verdict in a sealed manila folder, to be opened if the Senate confirmed that the verdict of the four justices was in fact valid. The [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/dcmnt/supcor28-03.doc Manila Solution] also ordered that the outgoing senators would be allowed to vote to accept or reject the ruling, as explained [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/208738.html in E.M.O.S.N.A.I.L.] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Chief Justice ["Kris Fricke"] solved this dramatic stand-off by saying that the court would hear the case, <span>but</span> that the ruling may not be binding.<span>&nbsp;</span> So, in the interest of truth, the tribunal marched ahead with ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28. T<span>o everyone present, the form of the trial was clearly</span> ill-suited to the type of case being presented. Leathers pleaded guilty, as he and Van Schoelandt sat awkwardly at the defense table. As Van Schoelandt had filed a brief supporting the <span>plaintiff</span>, this was a somewhat odd arrangement.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+ Because Leathers had to represent the interests of all candidates, he filed a brief that stated only the facts of the situation and gave no suggested resolution to the Court. However, Salem had named Gregory Russell as his counsel and the arguments by Salem and Russell had to be put forward. Given that no other candidate had named counsel and that the defense could only have one counsel, Leathers let Russell speak for the defense instead of trying to put forward Russell's arguments and remain impartial. This information is meant to highlight the peculiar nature of the situation of the case and the hearing format.<br> + <br> +</span> [[Thumbnail(1337snax0rz.jpg, 275, right, "Star Witness Paul Amnuaypayoat checks out the snacks provided at the court case.")]] After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from <span>bot</span>h Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["PaulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["BrentLaabs" along] ["RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> The defense called no witnesses, and the session moved into closing remarks. Harney argued that the law made no room for the candidates to be considered eligible. In fact, the wording of a particular section could be interpreted as implying that any disciplinary action would exclude a person from ASUCD "in perpetuity". Russell argued that this was ludicrous and contrary to the intent of the law. He also argued that <span>Salem</span> had been denied the correct process, and that had h<span>e </span> been able to contact SJA at the correct time, it is reasonable to assume that <span>Salem</span> would have been cleared to run. <span>Salem</span> had gotten the required number of votes, and should not be disqualified after <span>he</span> had already won. At the end, both sides officially objected to the fact that the case did not have quorum (but neither did at the beginning).<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Neither side was able to argue at the level of the other -- Harney did not address the spirit of the question effectively, and Russell did not address the law effectively. Had Harney talked about the spirit of fair play, and the upholding the consequences of actions is essential to the philosophy of a university, he would have fared better. And on the other side, Russell should have explained that the candidates had already been certified to the best of the ability of the Elections Committee Chair, and there would be no way to now know how the election would have been affected. And of course, neither side mentioned the voters at all.<span>&nbsp;- Opinion</span><br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> In any case, the snacks in the back were eaten and the Court began the consideration of the case. That night, ["Kris Fricke"] was struck with The Manila Solution: the <span>Court would issue it</span>s verdict in a sealed manila folder, to be opened if the Senate confirmed that the verdict of the four justices was in fact valid. The [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/dcmnt/supcor28-03.doc Manila Solution] also ordered that the outgoing senators would be allowed to vote to accept or reject the ruling, as explained [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/208738.html in E.M.O.S.N.A.I.L.] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 74: </td> <td> Line 78: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> At a new Senate meeting two days later, all parties waited with great expectation. Sen. ["Kristen Birdsall"] started the meeting with a motion to certify the court's ruling; the motion failed 3-5-4. Most senators voted against the measure on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they felt that the best way to decide this case <span>i</span>s in closed session -- thus excluding the<span>ir scheme</span>s from the public ey<span>e. Hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espous</span>e. After they emerged from a 45-minute closed session, they had a bill.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> This new bill was called up urgent, and essentially railroaded through the senate with very little public comment. It did two things -- it removed the basis for Harney's case from the Government Codes '''''retroactively'''''; and, in an awesome display of stripping power from the ASUCD Court, passed a provision nullifying all cases which were altered with retroactive legislation. Besides making ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD, it manages to convey the idea that there is a double standard for popular people. It doesn't matter if they break the rules, but it definitely matters if the Court does. <span>The President, ["Caliph Assagai"] signed the bill minutes after it was passed, and they all congratulated themselves about how these changes were necessary anyway.</span><br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Note that simple suspension of the bylaws would have sufficed, and that is exactly what was done. Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on. </td> <td> <span>+</span> At a new Senate meeting two days later, all parties waited with great expectation. Sen. ["Kristen Birdsall"] started the meeting with a motion to certify the court's ruling; the motion failed 3-5-4. Most senators voted against the measure on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they felt that the best way to decide this case <span>wa</span>s in closed session -- thus excluding the<span>&nbsp;proces</span>s from the public eye. After they emerged from a 45-minute closed session, they had a bill.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> This new bill was called up urgent, and essentially railroaded through the senate with very little public comment. It did two things -- it removed the basis for Harney's case from the Government Codes '''''retroactively'''''; and, in an awesome display of stripping power from the ASUCD Court, passed a provision nullifying all cases which were altered with retroactive legislation. <span>This legislation also made ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD. The President, ["Caliph Assagai"] signed the bill minutes after it was passed, and the Senate and others all congratulated themselves about how these changes were necessary anyway.<br> + <br> + Prior to passing this bill, ["Jonathon Leathers"] made it clear that he disagreed with this bill and the Senate's planned course of action. As such, he said that he would not certify the election under these circumstances. Because the Government Codes require the Chair of the Elections Committee to certify the election and provide Certificates of Election to the Senators-elect, the Senate was forced to suspend the Government Codes in order to seat the candidates that it felt had won the election.<br> + <br> + ["ThomasLloyd" Some] have claimed that Leathers already certified the election at the Senate meeting on December 8, 2005. However, Leathers denies this claim and the minutes from that Senate meeting show that such a statement was never made.<br> + <br> + Hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse. - Opinion<br> + <br> + </span>Besides making ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD, it manages to convey the idea that there is a double standard for popular people. It doesn't matter if they break the rules, but it definitely matters if the Court does. <span>- Opinion</span><br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Note that simple suspension of the bylaws would have sufficed, and that is exactly what was done. Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on.<span>&nbsp;- opinion?</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 125: </td> <td> Line 137: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> In the event th<span>e two senators cannot take</span> their seats, there will<span>&nbsp;likely</span> be a ["Countback"] election, as per the ["Countback Amendment"]. Using ["StoveTop"] (a program that conducts a ["Choice Voting"] election), the winners of a Countback with Natalia and Kareem resigning would be as follows: </td> <td> <span>+</span> In the event th<span>at the two senators resign from their</span> their seats, there will be a ["Countback"] election, as per the ["Countback Amendment"]. Using ["StoveTop"] (a program that conducts a ["Choice Voting"] election), the winners of a Countback with Natalia and Kareem resigning would be as follows: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 157: </td> <td> Line 169: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Section 104.7 of the ASUCD Government Codes<span>, in black and white</span>: </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Section 104.7 of the ASUCD Government Codes: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 161: </td> <td> Line 173: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- This code will probably not come before the Internal Affairs Commission for revision/clarification before the next election.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ This code was eliminated by the legislation passed during the Senate meeting on January 14.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 18:09:58NigelAndrasseyfixed photo caption re: defense -> plaintiff <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 57: </td> <td> Line 57: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> [[Thumbnail(case28defense.jpg, 250, "The Defense lines up as it discusses strategy.")]][[Thumbnail(tehcourt.jpg, 250, "The ASUCD Supreme Court, Justice Fricke Presiding")]][[Thumbnail(case28plaintiff.jpg, 250, "Council for the d<span>efense lays out its case at the sparsely populated defense</span> table.")]][[BR]] </td> <td> <span>+</span> [[Thumbnail(case28defense.jpg, 250, "The Defense lines up as it discusses strategy.")]][[Thumbnail(tehcourt.jpg, 250, "The ASUCD Supreme Court, <span>Chief </span>Justice Fricke Presiding")]][[Thumbnail(case28plaintiff.jpg, 250, "Council for the <span>Plaintiff lays out its case at the sparsely populate</span>d<span>&nbsp;Plaintiff</span> table.")]][[BR]] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 17:49:38JonathonLeathers <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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> </td> <td> <span>+ * Thomas, I agree that this page is a mess w/ comments and facts appearing together. I'm attempting to clean it up. I'll return to this process later tonight. - ["JonathonLeathers"] </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On November 18, 2005, six candidates were elected to ["ASUCD Senate"] as normal. Sure there were complaints about ["../Turnout Controversy" voter turnout and unqualified candidates], but these complaints would soon be overshadowed. The next Monday morning, a ["Student Judicial Affairs"] official was reading ["The California Aggie"], and instantly realized that candidates had been in his office. </td> <td> <span>+</span> On November 18, 2005, six candidates were elected to ["ASUCD Senate"] as normal. Sure there were complaints about ["../Turnout Controversy" voter turnout and unqualified candidates], but these complaints would soon be overshadowed. The next Monday morning, a ["Student Judicial Affairs"] official was reading ["The California Aggie"], and instantly realized that candidates had been in h<span>er/h</span>is office. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 15: </td> <td> Line 16: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Elections Committee thought about the possible ways of remedying the situation, and notified ASUCD Senators, ASUCD President and VP, and the ASUCD Court. Elections Committee Events Coordinator ["RevChad" Chad Van Schoelandt] filed a case against his comrade, Elections Committee Chair ["JonathonLeathers" Jonathon Leathers], on the afternoon of Thursday, December 1. In this case, he alleges that Leathers did not follow the Government Codes and improperly certified the candidates. Jon <span>intends to argue that he </span>believed that the candidates were verified, however, due to the lack of a Student Government Advisor at the time, verification with SJA never actually took place. As such, he w<span>ill</span> leave it up to the <span>c</span>ourt to decide what should be done at this point. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Elections Committee thought about the possible ways of remedying the situation, and notified ASUCD Senators, ASUCD President and VP, and the ASUCD Court. Elections Committee Events Coordinator ["RevChad" Chad Van Schoelandt] filed a case against his comrade, Elections Committee Chair ["JonathonLeathers" Jonathon Leathers], on the afternoon of Thursday, December 1. In this case, he alleges that Leathers did not follow the Government Codes and improperly certified the candidates. Jon believed that the candidates were verified, however, due to the lack of a Student Government Advisor at the time, verification with SJA never actually took place. As such, he w<span>anted to</span> leave it up to the <span>C</span>ourt to decide what should be done at this point. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 20: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Elections Committee had asked the candidates to waive their right to privacy, and release the SJA records. They were, of course, under no obligation to do so<span>&nbsp;other than a belief in the tenets of democracy</span>. Leathers sent an e-mail to all of the Senators-elect asking the three individuals in question to step forward which they did the next day. In case this did not happen, Chad, the Elections Committee Events Coordinator, filed a case with SJA against all six Senators-elect on Tuesday, December 6. As each candidate signed a form stating that they were not on Disciplinary Probation at the start of their candidacy, any candidate who ran despite probation would have violated the [http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/ucpolicies/aos/uc100.html Code of Student Conduct] Section 102.02 which states that students shall not furnish false information to the University.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> An additional issue is timing, and the problem was exacerbated by the Student Government Advisor. The lame duck Senators Constitutionally had to leave office on Thursday, December 8. However, the Senators-elect were prohibited from taking office because of the ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["JoeHarney" Joe Harney] against the ["Elections Committee"]. <span>The Senate can conduct</span> b<span>usiness without the new senators (</span>the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] counts towards quorum<span>)</span>, <span>thou</span>g<span>h no</span> Senat<span>ors may</span> be <span>a</span>b<span>sent</span>.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;However, it is already known that two Senators will not be back from Winter Break for the first Senate meeting of the Winter quarter so the meeting will have to be cancelled</span>.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;Thankfully, </span>["ASUCD President"] ["Caliph Assagai"] had selected new ["ASUCD Court"] members, and the Senate confirmed them on Thursday, December 8. ["Joe Harney"], a nominee for Court as well as a candidate, will not be allowed to sit on this case due to ASUCD Government Codes enacted in reforms over the last year. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Elections Committee had asked the candidates to waive their right to privacy, and release the SJA records. They were, of course, under no obligation to do so. Leathers sent an e-mail to all of the Senators-elect asking the three individuals in question to step forward which they did the next day. In case this did not happen, Chad, the Elections Committee Events Coordinator, filed a case with SJA against all six Senators-elect on Tuesday, December 6. As each candidate signed a form stating that they were not on Disciplinary Probation at the start of their candidacy, any candidate who ran despite probation would have violated the [http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/ucpolicies/aos/uc100.html Code of Student Conduct] Section 102.02 which states that students shall not furnish false information to the University.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> An additional issue is timing, and the problem was exacerbated by the Student Government Advisor. The lame duck Senators Constitutionally had to leave office on Thursday, December 8. However, the Senators-elect were prohibited from taking office because of the ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["JoeHarney" Joe Harney] against the ["Elections Committee"]. <span>It was</span> b<span>elieved that </span>the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] counts towards quorum<span>&nbsp;and that if no Senators were absent the Senate could conduct business; this is not the case however</span>, <span>as the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] does ''not'' count towards quorum. However, it was already known that two Senators would not be back from Winter Break for the first Senate meetin</span>g<span>&nbsp;of the Winter quarter. It was believed that the first</span> Senat<span>e meeting of the quarter would have to</span> be <span>cancelled, however, Senators whose terms had ended, according to the Constitution, returned so that the Senate could meet quorum in January. There was precedent for this in the past, according to the Vice-President, ["Darnell Holloway"]. <br> + <br> + Returning to the Senate meeting on Decem</span>b<span>er 8</span>..<span>.</span>["ASUCD President"] ["Caliph Assagai"] had selected new ["ASUCD Court"] members, and the Senate confirmed them on Thursday, December 8. ["Joe Harney"], a nominee for Court as well as a candidate, will not be allowed to sit on this case due to ASUCD Government Codes enacted in reforms over the last year. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 27: </td> <td> Line 30: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On Thursday, December 8, the California Aggie published an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2005/12/08/Opinion/Editorial.Ineligible.Senators.Should.Not.Take.Seats-1124979.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com editorial] urging the candidates to withdraw. The examples of offenses the candidates could have made are interesting, aren't they? </td> <td> <span>+</span> On Thursday, December 8, the California Aggie published an [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2005/12/08/Opinion/Editorial.Ineligible.Senators.Should.Not.Take.Seats-1124979.shtml?norewrite&amp;sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com editorial] urging the candidates to withdraw. <span><br> + <br> + </span>The examples of offenses the candidates could have made are interesting, aren't they?<span>&nbsp;- Brent</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 73: </td> <td> Line 78: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Note that simple suspension of the bylaws would have sufficed, and that is<span>&nbsp;what</span> exactly what was done. Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Note that simple suspension of the bylaws would have sufficed, and that is exactly what was done. Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 81: </td> <td> Line 86: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Or can it? </span> There is no doubt that th<span>e case</span> has raised the anger of many people. <span>The Chair of the ["Elections Committee"] is considering resignation, the legislative branch has shown a willingness to ignore the judicial branch, and the resentments harboured by new </span>S<span>enators, Court members, and other student government geeks is likely to persist for years. Not that many years, of course, because we all graduate eventually. But it remains to seen how well ASUCD will heal in the future.</span><br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> A few student reactions can be read online, such as [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791885.html a call for recall], [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791657.html a Justice's View] and [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2790539.html another]. The comments on these pages go through a lot of views, and it is interesting to see when the opposition gladly identify themselves, while supporters of the <span>senate</span>s action often post anonymously. </td> <td> <span>+</span> There is no doubt that th<span>is situation</span> has raised the anger of many people. S<span>ome are simply glad that it is over while others staunchly disagree with the approach used to resolve the situation. </span><br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> A few student reactions can be read online, such as [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791885.html a call for recall], [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791657.html a Justice's View] and [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2790539.html another]. <span><br> + <br> + </span>The comments on these pages go through a lot of views, and it is interesting to see when the opposition gladly identify themselves, while supporters of the <span>Senate'</span>s action often post anonymously.<span>&nbsp;- Chad<br> + <br> + The legislative branch has shown a willingness to ignore the judicial branch and the resentments harboured by new Senators, Court members, and other student government geeks could persist for years. Not that many years, of course, because we all graduate eventually. But it remains to seen how well ASUCD will heal in the future. - Brent</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 17:21:02ThomasLloydquestion out to everyone about the validity/purpose of the wiki - very serious <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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>+ * Quick question: Is the Davis Wiki meant to be a live journal hijacked by a couple over-zealous individuals or is this meant to be something similar to the real Wikipedia and serve as an informational source? I have always held it to the standard of the latter, yet find myself continuously dissapointed. I think if you feel that it should serve more as the latter, please alter it so it serves as such and you can remove my question. Thanks. -["thomaslloyd" TL]<br> + <br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 16:17:31BrentLaabsadded pictures of the hearing <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 48: </td> <td> Line 48: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + [[Thumbnail(case28defense.jpg, 250, "The Defense lines up as it discusses strategy.")]][[Thumbnail(tehcourt.jpg, 250, "The ASUCD Supreme Court, Justice Fricke Presiding")]][[Thumbnail(case28plaintiff.jpg, 250, "Council for the defense lays out its case at the sparsely populated defense table.")]][[BR]]<br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 50: </td> <td> Line 53: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ [[Thumbnail(palpatine_tucker.jpg, 325, left, "Rev. Chad Van Schoelandt and Student Government Advisor Michael Tucker have a dramatic stand-off over Tucker's use of Advisorial Fiat to hold the case.")]]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 52: </td> <td> Line 56: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from each Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["PaulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["BrentLaabs" along] ["RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible. </td> <td> <span>+ [[Thumbnail(1337snax0rz.jpg, 275, right, "Star Witness Paul Amnuaypayoat checks out the snacks provided at the court case.")]]</span> After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from each Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["PaulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["BrentLaabs" along] ["RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 145: </td> <td> Line 149: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> This code will probably come before the Internal Affairs Commission for revision/clarification before the next election. </td> <td> <span>+</span> This code will probably<span>&nbsp;not</span> come before the Internal Affairs Commission for revision/clarification before the next election. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 16:04:10BrentLaabsUpload of image <a href="http://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal?action=Files&do=view&target=1337snax0rz.jpg">1337snax0rz.jpg</a>.Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 16:02:13BrentLaabsUpload of image <a href="http://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal?action=Files&do=view&target=tehcourt.jpg">tehcourt.jpg</a>.Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 16:01:22BrentLaabsUpload of image <a href="http://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal?action=Files&do=view&target=case28plaintiff.jpg">case28plaintiff.jpg</a>.Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 16:00:09BrentLaabsUpload of image <a href="http://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal?action=Files&do=view&target=case28defense.jpg">case28defense.jpg</a>.Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 15:59:29BrentLaabsUpload of image <a href="http://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal?action=Files&do=view&target=palpatine_tucker.jpg">palpatine_tucker.jpg</a>.Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 15:16:36JimSchwabComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 216: </td> <td> Line 216: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-01-14 16:16:36'' [[nbsp]] Where do you we go from here? --["JimSchwab"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 15:09:56BrentLaabssummary added <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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>- Hopefully I'll have pictures coming soon</span> </td> <td> <span>+ The Unqualified Candidates scandal pertains to the ["Fall 2005 ASUCD Election"], and the circumstances related to ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28. In summary, the election ran smoothly until far after the voting was over, when it was discovered that two of the candidates elected were ineligible to serve due to disciplinary probation from ["Student Judicial Affairs"]. The inadvertant error on the part of the ["ASUCD"] ["Elections Committee"] led to an ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["Joe Harney"], which stopped the Senators-elect from being seated. However, the court did not have a sufficient number of justices to hear the case, so the ["ASUCD Senate"] rejected the Court's decision without looking at it and swore in the new Senators by eliminating the requirement that Senators be cleared with SJA. Many are --X butthurt X-- upset by this action, as evidenced by the large number of ["Livejournal"] posts.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- This information pertains to the ["Fall 2005 ASUCD Election"], and the circumstances related to ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28.</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 14:55:09PhilipNeustromlinked some lj posts <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 147: </td> <td> Line 147: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + = More information =<br> + Somewhat related ["LiveJournal"] posts:<br> + * In UCD LiveJournal:<br> + * [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2790539.html 2006-01-13 00:16:00 codetoad]<br> + * [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791657.html 006-01-13 18:33:00] ["EMOSNAIL"]<br> + * [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791885.html 2006-01-13 23:54:00 thetalesend] (posted two additional, but they are nearly identical)<br> + * [http://www.livejournal.com/users/basicallyasap/92268.html?mode=reply 2006-01-13 15:31:00 basicallyasap]<br> + * [http://www.livejournal.com/users/kirkjr41/120337.html 2006-01-14 13:18:00] kirkjr41<br> + * [http://www.livejournal.com/users/revchad/40634.html#cutid1 2006-01-12 22:57:00] ["RevChad"]<br> + * [http://www.livejournal.com/users/revchad/40826.html?#cutid1 2006-01-14 14:03:00] ["RevChad"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 14:42:09PhilipNeustromint. comments note. also, could someone write a _short_ summary at the top? <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 149: </td> <td> Line 149: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + [[Include(IntegrateComments)]]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-14 10:03:21RevChadlj links for student views <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 76: </td> <td> Line 76: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + A few student reactions can be read online, such as [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791885.html a call for recall], [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2791657.html a Justice's View] and [http://www.livejournal.com/community/ucdavis/2790539.html another]. The comments on these pages go through a lot of views, and it is interesting to see when the opposition gladly identify themselves, while supporters of the senates action often post anonymously.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 23:41:56JonathonLeathers <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 84: </td> <td> Line 84: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Constructive is a relative term. Either the Senate (or ["ASUCD Politburo"] as I shall refer to it further) has to pass these solutions and that will only happen if the solutions involve giving them more power at the expense of other branches of ASUCD. The other alternative is by direct democracy and letting the voters approve suggested changes. Being on the Elections Committee I can't be involved in the latter (but others should know it's an option) and the ["ASUCD Politburo" Politburo] has lost my respect so I wouldn't waste my time with the former. As such, I'm just going to continue to do my job and complain about the ["ASUCD Politburo"] the whole fucking time. (Isn't this discussion even more entertaining in context of the quote below? I think so.) - ["JonathonLeathers"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 21:35:53PaulHarmsmy last word before i go on vacation <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 83: </td> <td> Line 83: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Honestly, what's left to be said? What's done is done, and now we need some CONSTRUCTIVE solutions to deal with the aftermath of this scandal. I just wonder who it will be that will earn our respect and put forth these solutions. - ["PaulHarms"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 21:20:10JonathonLeathersresponse to paul <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 82: </td> <td> Line 82: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Respect is earned. There are good reasons people don't respect ASUCD, probably the same reasons no one votes. So, when people pick-up the Aggie on Monday and read that the ASUCD Senate made a ridiculous decision, I'm sure those reasons will be further justified. Also, I don't agree that a decision was ''needed'' on Thursday night. I don't want people to forget what happened on Thursday, so I'm not going to let it fade away. And, like I said, if the Senate doesn't like that, they can ''really'' take away my power by firing me. - ["JonathonLeathers"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 14:58:13PaulHarms <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 81: </td> <td> Line 81: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Everybody needs to calm down. Take a break from politics for the holiday weekend and relax. This bickering isn't going to solve anything, and it isn't going to bring any new respect to the court, the senate, the elections committee, or the anyone else on the Third Floor. There are obviously many people with strong opinions about the events of the past two months, but hopefully we can all agree that a decision of some kind was needed Thursday night. Granted, it's not the perfect solution, but it's also not set in stone. I guarantee, though, that the atmosphere of conflict that we can all feel right now won't help us in fixing any problems presented by this solution. - ["PaulHarms"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 14:17:46JonathonLeathersyou'll have to fire me to get me to leave <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 80: </td> <td> Line 80: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Thomas is right about me not resigning. The only way I'll leave my position is if the Senate fires me, and I wouldn't be surprised if they ''try'' to do so. :) - ["JonathonLeathers"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 14:09:42JonathonLeathersI NEVER CERTIFIED THE ELECTION!!! <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 72: </td> <td> Line 72: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * This is not true. I never certified the election and there is nothing in the minutes to even suggest that I certified the election. Once again, the Senate loses. - ["JonathonLeathers"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 14:06:57KrisFrickeoh so we're dragging _my_ name thruogh the mud now? <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 78: </td> <td> Line 78: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Well thanks for unnecessarily implying I'm brimming with bitterness Thomas, I feel that was quite relevant and showed a lot of good faith on your part. Incidently, by scandals I assume you mean the two removal hearings against me, since those are the closest the Court has ever come under me to being involved in a scandal. As to my part, I fully consider both of those to be completely meritless personal vendettas of Sara Henry. Yes I suppose I do still harbour feelings about them: I will forever think Sara Henry and Paloma Perez are weak and petty people. However, they are no longer involved in student government and as such I really don't think any feelings I have in that respect effects anything current. But I'm sure you brought it up with the best of intentions. -["KrisFricke"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 13:56:17BrentLaabsreply to thomas <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 77: </td> <td> Line 77: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * You all don't know the outcome of your decision, because after ["Tiny Sanders"] asked "where is all of the outrage", you quickly moved into Senate discussion. I was starting to lean towards seating the candidates, but not in that way. Here's the thing Thomas. You were always the smartest, the best legal eagle of the Senate, by far. But you have always failed to look at the moral consequences of your actions. Your bills are well written and pragmatic, but the consequences are usually ill-considered. Take the bill which allowed the Commission Chairs to leave after their business was done. It was a good idea in theory, but in practice, the majority of the Chairs didn't want it. One of them cried -- you __hurt__ them, even if the bill was, in essence, a good idea. The same applies in the recent case. Sure, you all had to violate at least one government code to move on, that much is for certain. But Senate Bill #36 didn't just violate the spirit of the bylaws, it '''''raped''''' the spirit of the bylaws. You don't see the consequences I see, and didn't allow me to tell you, because you all went into closed session where you could all groupthink your solution. So, congratulations on making a legally exquisite bill which happens to make a mockery of the entire association. --["BrentLaabs"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 13:40:02BrentLaabspreserving Lloyd's comments <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 69: </td> <td> Line 69: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I think what Mr. Laabs is ignoring is the fact that accepting the invalid court opinion would have been breaking the constitution. On the other hand, writing legislation to address the problem (a problem that should have been fixed anyway) was a positive solution that did not break any rules.[[BR]]<br> + ASUCD Senate Bill 36, section 2: all court cases no longer applicable due to legislation are nullified. The court case no longer exists and the senator-elects were free to be seated. The only reason Senate had to questionably suspend the bylaws was due to not having the Elections Committee Chair present to certifiy the election. The reasoning behind this decision was that he was quoted in the meeting minutes of an earlier meeting as having certified the election results. --["ThomasLloyd"]<br> + <br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 72: </td> <td> Line 76: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I think this characterization of things is a little silly and overdramatic. Jonathan Leathers isn't resigning, he's moving on, like everyone else should. The legislative branch wasn't ignoring the judicial branch, the judicial branch didnt constitutionally meet the requirements to have made any decisions. The root of the problem was retroactively solved with ASUCD Senate Bill #36 and it was done in a manner that was the best available option. As for people going on for years, that's just silly. ASUCD doesn't have the institutional memory to harbor scandals for more than a couple months. There have been a number of court scandals in just the time of the current Chief Justice. However, with all the turnover in ASUCD, the only person left who can even still have feelings about those scandals is the Chief Justice himself. In that short of time, people currently involved in ASUCD wouldn't have any "need to heal" let alone have any idea what happened in the first place. --["ThomasLloyd"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 81: </td> <td> Line 86: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> There <span>i</span>s also the possibility that the disciplinary probations of particular candidates should have been terminiated before the election -- that is, SJA had made an error. </td> <td> <span>+</span> There <span>wa</span>s also the possibility that the disciplinary probations of particular candidates should have been terminiated before the election -- that is, SJA had made an error. <span>These rumours are in fact, false, as each candidate was given a document saying when their probation ended. Both candidates knew at one point when their probation ended, but they may have forgotten.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 13:33:27BrentLaabsRevert to version dated 2006-01-13 11:33:39, for the sake of justice. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 63: </td> <td> Line 63: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> At a new Senate meeting two days later, all parties waited with great expectation. Sen. ["Kristen Birdsall"] started the meeting with a motion to certify the court's ruling; the motion failed 3-5-4. Most senators voted against the measure on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they felt that the best way to decide this case is in closed session. After they emerged from a 45-minute closed session, they had a bill.<span><br> - * Brent Laabs feels that "hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse."</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> At a new Senate meeting two days later, all parties waited with great expectation. Sen. ["Kristen Birdsall"] started the meeting with a motion to certify the court's ruling; the motion failed 3-5-4. Most senators voted against the measure on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they felt that the best way to decide this case is in closed session<span>&nbsp;-- thus excluding their schemes from the public eye. Hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse</span>. After they emerged from a 45-minute closed session, they had a bill. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 65: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- This new bill was called up urgent. It did two things -- it retroactively removed the basis for Harney's case from the Government Codes; and passed a provision nullifying all cases which were altered with retroactive legislation. The President, ["Caliph Assagai"] signed the bill minutes after it was passed, and they all congratulated themselves about how these changes were necessary anyway. <br> - * Brent Laabs feels that "Besides making ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD, it manages to convey the idea that there is a double standard for popular people. It doesn't matter if they break the rules, but it definitely matters if the Court does."<br> - * I think what Mr. Laabs is ignoring is the fact that accepting the invalid court opinion would have been breaking the constitution. On the other hand, writing legislation to address the problem (a problem that should have been fixed anyway) was a positive solution that did not break any rules. ["thomaslloyd" TL]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ This new bill was called up urgent, and essentially railroaded through the senate with very little public comment. It did two things -- it removed the basis for Harney's case from the Government Codes '''''retroactively'''''; and, in an awesome display of stripping power from the ASUCD Court, passed a provision nullifying all cases which were altered with retroactive legislation. Besides making ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD, it manages to convey the idea that there is a double standard for popular people. It doesn't matter if they break the rules, but it definitely matters if the Court does. The President, ["Caliph Assagai"] signed the bill minutes after it was passed, and they all congratulated themselves about how these changes were necessary anyway.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 70: </td> <td> Line 67: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * Brent Laabs feels that "</span>Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on.<span>"<br> - * ASUCD Senate Bill 36, section 2: all court cases no longer applicable due to legislation are nullified. The court case no longer exists and the senator-elects were free to be seated. The only reason Senate had to questionably suspend the bylaws was due to not having the Elections Committee Chair present to certifiy the election. The reasoning behind this decision was that he was quoted in the meeting minutes of an earlier meeting as having certified the election results. ["thomaslloyd" TL]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Note that simple suspension of the bylaws would have sufficed, and that is what exactly what was done. </span>Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 74: </td> <td> Line 70: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Or can it? <br> - * Brent Laabs feels that "There is no doubt that the case has raised the anger of many people. The Chair of the ["Elections Committee"] is considering resignation, the legislative branch has shown a willingness to ignore the judicial branch, and the resentments harboured by new Senators, Court members, and other student government geeks is likely to persist for years. Not that many years, of course, because we all graduate eventually. But it remains to seen how well ASUCD will heal in the future."<br> - <br> - * I think this characterization fo things is a little silly and overdramatic. Jonathan Leathers isn't resigning, he's moving on, like everyone else should. The legislative branch wasn't ignoring the judicial branch, the judicial branch didnt constitutionally meet the requirements to have made any decisions. The root of the problem was retroactively solved with ASUCD Senate Bill #36 and it was done in a manner that was the best available option. As for people going on for years, that's just silly. ASUCD doesn't have the institutional memory to harbor scandals for more than a couple months. There have been a number of court scandals in just the time of the current Chief Justice. However, with all the turnover in ASUCD, the only person left who can even still have feelings about those scandals is the Chief Justice himself. In that short of time, people currently involved in ASUCD wouldn't have any "need to heal" let alone have any idea what happened in the first place. -["thomaslloyd" TL]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Or can it? There is no doubt that the case has raised the anger of many people. The Chair of the ["Elections Committee"] is considering resignation, the legislative branch has shown a willingness to ignore the judicial branch, and the resentments harboured by new Senators, Court members, and other student government geeks is likely to persist for years. Not that many years, of course, because we all graduate eventually. But it remains to seen how well ASUCD will heal in the future.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 10:57:18ThomasLloydhopefully this clears some things up- trying to keep factual <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 63: </td> <td> Line 63: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> At a new Senate meeting two days later, all parties waited with great expectation. Sen. ["Kristen Birdsall"] started the meeting with a motion to certify the court's ruling; the motion failed 3-5-4. Most senators voted against the measure on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they felt that the best way to decide this case is in closed session<span>&nbsp;-- thus excluding their schemes from the public eye. Hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse</span>. After they emerged from a 45-minute closed session, they had a bill. </td> <td> <span>+</span> At a new Senate meeting two days later, all parties waited with great expectation. Sen. ["Kristen Birdsall"] started the meeting with a motion to certify the court's ruling; the motion failed 3-5-4. Most senators voted against the measure on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they felt that the best way to decide this case is in closed session. After they emerged from a 45-minute closed session, they had a bill.<span><br> + * Brent Laabs feels that "hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse."</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 65: </td> <td> Line 66: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- This new bill was called up urgent, and essentially railroaded through the senate with very little public comment. It did two things -- it removed the basis for Harney's case from the Government Codes '''''retroactively'''''; and, in an awesome display of stripping power from the ASUCD Court, passed a provision nullifying all cases which were altered with retroactive legislation. Besides making ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD, it manages to convey the idea that there is a double standard for popular people. It doesn't matter if they break the rules, but it definitely matters if the Court does. The President, ["Caliph Assagai"] signed the bill minutes after it was passed, and they all congratulated themselves about how these changes were necessary anyway.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ This new bill was called up urgent. It did two things -- it retroactively removed the basis for Harney's case from the Government Codes; and passed a provision nullifying all cases which were altered with retroactive legislation. The President, ["Caliph Assagai"] signed the bill minutes after it was passed, and they all congratulated themselves about how these changes were necessary anyway. <br> + * Brent Laabs feels that "Besides making ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD, it manages to convey the idea that there is a double standard for popular people. It doesn't matter if they break the rules, but it definitely matters if the Court does."<br> + * I think what Mr. Laabs is ignoring is the fact that accepting the invalid court opinion would have been breaking the constitution. On the other hand, writing legislation to address the problem (a problem that should have been fixed anyway) was a positive solution that did not break any rules. ["thomaslloyd" TL]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 67: </td> <td> Line 70: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Note that simple suspension of the bylaws would have sufficed, and that is what exactly what was done. </span>Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on. </td> <td> <span>+ * Brent Laabs feels that "</span>Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on.<span>"<br> + * ASUCD Senate Bill 36, section 2: all court cases no longer applicable due to legislation are nullified. The court case no longer exists and the senator-elects were free to be seated. The only reason Senate had to questionably suspend the bylaws was due to not having the Elections Committee Chair present to certifiy the election. The reasoning behind this decision was that he was quoted in the meeting minutes of an earlier meeting as having certified the election results. ["thomaslloyd" TL]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 70: </td> <td> Line 74: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Or can it? There is no doubt that the case has raised the anger of many people. The Chair of the ["Elections Committee"] is considering resignation, the legislative branch has shown a willingness to ignore the judicial branch, and the resentments harboured by new Senators, Court members, and other student government geeks is likely to persist for years. Not that many years, of course, because we all graduate eventually. But it remains to seen how well ASUCD will heal in the future.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Or can it? <br> + * Brent Laabs feels that "There is no doubt that the case has raised the anger of many people. The Chair of the ["Elections Committee"] is considering resignation, the legislative branch has shown a willingness to ignore the judicial branch, and the resentments harboured by new Senators, Court members, and other student government geeks is likely to persist for years. Not that many years, of course, because we all graduate eventually. But it remains to seen how well ASUCD will heal in the future."<br> + <br> + * I think this characterization fo things is a little silly and overdramatic. Jonathan Leathers isn't resigning, he's moving on, like everyone else should. The legislative branch wasn't ignoring the judicial branch, the judicial branch didnt constitutionally meet the requirements to have made any decisions. The root of the problem was retroactively solved with ASUCD Senate Bill #36 and it was done in a manner that was the best available option. As for people going on for years, that's just silly. ASUCD doesn't have the institutional memory to harbor scandals for more than a couple months. There have been a number of court scandals in just the time of the current Chief Justice. However, with all the turnover in ASUCD, the only person left who can even still have feelings about those scandals is the Chief Justice himself. In that short of time, people currently involved in ASUCD wouldn't have any "need to heal" let alone have any idea what happened in the first place. -["thomaslloyd" TL]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 10:33:39GregoryRussellSlight change to Court case, "would" to "reasonable to assume" <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 55: </td> <td> Line 55: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The defense called no witnesses, and the session moved into closing remarks. Harney argued that the law made no room for the candidates to be considered eligible. In fact, the wording of a particular section could be interpreted as implying that any disciplinary action would exclude a person from ASUCD "in perpetuity". Russell argued that this was ludicrous and contrary to the intent of the law. He also argued that his candidates had been denied the correct process, and that had his candidates been able to contact SJA at the correct time, they would have been cleared to run. They had gotten the required number of votes, and should not be disqualified after they had already won. At the end, both sides officially objected to the fact that the case did not have quorum (but neither did at the beginning). </td> <td> <span>+</span> The defense called no witnesses, and the session moved into closing remarks. Harney argued that the law made no room for the candidates to be considered eligible. In fact, the wording of a particular section could be interpreted as implying that any disciplinary action would exclude a person from ASUCD "in perpetuity". Russell argued that this was ludicrous and contrary to the intent of the law. He also argued that his candidates had been denied the correct process, and that had his candidates been able to contact SJA at the correct time, <span>it is reasonable to assume that </span>they would have been cleared to run. They had gotten the required number of votes, and should not be disqualified after they had already won. At the end, both sides officially objected to the fact that the case did not have quorum (but neither did at the beginning). </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-13 03:21:46BrentLaabsmajor update: the case, and the senate's rejection of the verdict <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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>- = To be resolved =<br> - === ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28 ===<br> - === Time: Tuesday, January 10, 8:00 PM ===<br> - === Location: MU, Mee Room ===</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Hopefully I'll have pictures coming soon</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> This information pertains to the ["Fall 2005 ASUCD Election"]. </td> <td> <span>+ [[TableOfContents]]<br> +</span> This information pertains to the ["Fall 2005 ASUCD Election"]<span>, and the circumstances related to ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28</span>. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ = Initial Investigation =</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''T<span>hree</span> of the six senators-elect were on ["Disciplinary Probation"], and were therefore not eligible to run for ASUCD Senate.''' </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''T<span>wo</span> of the six senators-elect were on ["Disciplinary Probation"], and were therefore not eligible to run for ASUCD Senate.'''<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;A third had been under investigation, so at this time, it was believed that there were three candidates ineligible.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 12: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Career employees within ["ASUCD"] were notified, and they reacted slowly. SJA will not release personal information about disciplinary actions, so there would be little that could be done. The ["Elections Committee"] was not notified immediately. Student Government Advisor ["Michael Tucker"] knew <span>&nbsp;</span>for one week before notifying the Elections Committee. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Career employees within ["ASUCD"] were notified, and they reacted slowly. SJA will not release personal information about disciplinary actions, so there would be little that could be done. The ["Elections Committee"] was not notified immediately. Student Government Advisor ["Michael Tucker"] knew for one week before notifying the Elections Committee. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 30: </td> <td> Line 29: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> <span>=</span>= The Senate Meeting =<span>=</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> = The Senate Meeting = </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 43: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- == The Aftermath ==</span> </td> <td> <span>+ = Winter Break and The Manila Solution =</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 48: </td> <td> Line 47: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- On December 11, Kareem Salem officially named ["Greg Russell"] as his counsel in Harney v. Leathers.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ On December 11, Kareem Salem officially named ["Greg Russell"] as his counsel in Harney v. Leathers; Harney would keep his own council. Winter Break passed uneventfully, with a good mix of fun and brief writing for those involved. ["ASUCD Senate" Senate] held a meeting, pretty much as usual. ["Avni Patel"] wrote a letter from her trip in India, as Jon Leathers explained, "Attacking me from across the ocean." Again, Salem stayed the entire meeting, but some of the old crew was missing -- ["Janine Fiel"] had a job. And due to Army enlistment, it would be ["Keith Shively" Keith Shively's] last meeting.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 50: </td> <td> Line 49: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The Court case will presumably be held at the beginning of Winter Quarter.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ The Court acted as soon as they felt was legally and practially possible and scheduled a case for the following Tuesday, though this late of a date irked some Senators. As everyone showed up to the meeting, on January 10, at 8:00 PM in the ["Mee Room"], it became clear that something was wrong. The ASUCD Supreme Court could not make quorum -- one member had resigned since the Winter Break, and another had neglected to inform anyone on the Court that he was no longer a student. ["Chad Van Schoelandt"] felt that this was unfair, but ["Michael Tucker"] attempted to assume authority by telling Rev. Van Schoelandt, "You wanted a court case, and this is the court you get." After informing the advisor that he had not brought this particular case, Chad replied, "So to solve a case where a rule is broken, we're going to break another one to do so?"</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 52: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''I'll update the intervening information soon'' --["BrentLaabs" bl]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Chief Justice ["Kris Fricke"] solved this dramatic stand-off by saying that the court would hear the case, and that the ruling may not be binding. So, in the interest of truth, the tribunal marched ahead with ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28. The form of the trial was ill-suited to the type of case being presented. Leathers pleaded guilty, as he and Van Schoelandt sat awkwardly at the defense table. As Van Schoelandt had filed a brief supporting the defense, this was a somewhat odd arrangement.<br> + <br> + After brief and generally unmemorable opening statements from each Harney and Russell, Harney called his star witness, ["PaulAmnuaypayoat" "Libertarian" Paul Amnuaypayoat]. As a coauthor of the major Elections Reform Act of 2005 (["BrentLaabs" along] ["RevChad" with] ["Kahliah Laney" a] ["Jonathon Leathers" lot] ["Rob Roy" of] ["Marvin Zamora" other] ["Eric Zamora" people]), he explained the intent of an amendment made to Government Code 102: "The Elections Committee does not have any power which is not explicitly granted to them from the Government Codes." Under his interpretation, the committee does not have the power to decide whether the candidates "would have been eligible" had SJA been consulted at the correct time, only if they were currently eligible.<br> + <br> + The defense called no witnesses, and the session moved into closing remarks. Harney argued that the law made no room for the candidates to be considered eligible. In fact, the wording of a particular section could be interpreted as implying that any disciplinary action would exclude a person from ASUCD "in perpetuity". Russell argued that this was ludicrous and contrary to the intent of the law. He also argued that his candidates had been denied the correct process, and that had his candidates been able to contact SJA at the correct time, they would have been cleared to run. They had gotten the required number of votes, and should not be disqualified after they had already won. At the end, both sides officially objected to the fact that the case did not have quorum (but neither did at the beginning).<br> + <br> + Neither side was able to argue at the level of the other -- Harney did not address the spirit of the question effectively, and Russell did not address the law effectively. Had Harney talked about the spirit of fair play, and the upholding the consequences of actions is essential to the philosophy of a university, he would have fared better. And on the other side, Russell should have explained that the candidates had already been certified to the best of the ability of the Elections Committee Chair, and there would be no way to now know how the election would have been affected. And of course, neither side mentioned the voters at all.<br> + <br> + In any case, the snacks in the back were eaten and the Court began the consideration of the case. That night, ["Kris Fricke"] was struck with The Manila Solution: the court would issue it's verdict in a sealed manila folder, to be opened if the Senate confirmed that the verdict of the four justices was in fact valid. The [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/dcmnt/supcor28-03.doc Manila Solution] also ordered that the outgoing senators would be allowed to vote to accept or reject the ruling, as explained [http://www.livejournal.com/users/emosnail/208738.html in E.M.O.S.N.A.I.L.]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 56: </td> <td> Line 63: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The senate has decided not to accept the court's decision, on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they feel that the best way to decide this case is in closed session -- thus excluding their schemes from the public eye. For those senators who promoted how certifying people regardless of the court's decision would best represent the electorate, shame on you. Hiding behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and can only further isolate you from the people you represent and the morals you espouse.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ At a new Senate meeting two days later, all parties waited with great expectation. Sen. ["Kristen Birdsall"] started the meeting with a motion to certify the court's ruling; the motion failed 3-5-4. Most senators voted against the measure on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they felt that the best way to decide this case is in closed session -- thus excluding their schemes from the public eye. Hiding from the electorate behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and will further isolate the Senators from their electorate they represent and the morals they espouse. After they emerged from a 45-minute closed session, they had a bill.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 58: </td> <td> Line 65: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ This new bill was called up urgent, and essentially railroaded through the senate with very little public comment. It did two things -- it removed the basis for Harney's case from the Government Codes '''''retroactively'''''; and, in an awesome display of stripping power from the ASUCD Court, passed a provision nullifying all cases which were altered with retroactive legislation. Besides making ''ex post facto'' law a precident in ASUCD, it manages to convey the idea that there is a double standard for popular people. It doesn't matter if they break the rules, but it definitely matters if the Court does. The President, ["Caliph Assagai"] signed the bill minutes after it was passed, and they all congratulated themselves about how these changes were necessary anyway.<br> + <br> + Note that simple suspension of the bylaws would have sufficed, and that is what exactly what was done. Although the basis for the court case had been removed, the case itself had not, and the candidates could still not be certified. The Senate overrided this, and the candidates were sworn in. Thus a possible Catch-22 of an no-quorum Senate and and a no-quorum Court was averted, and at the very minimum, everyone was happy that business could go on.<br> + <br> + = Aftermath =<br> + Or can it? There is no doubt that the case has raised the anger of many people. The Chair of the ["Elections Committee"] is considering resignation, the legislative branch has shown a willingness to ignore the judicial branch, and the resentments harboured by new Senators, Court members, and other student government geeks is likely to persist for years. Not that many years, of course, because we all graduate eventually. But it remains to seen how well ASUCD will heal in the future.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 63: </td> <td> Line 76: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + = Raw Facts =</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-12 18:31:25PhilipNeustromthey apparently did know they were on probation <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 167: </td> <td> Line 167: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-20 12:02:52'' [[nbsp]] It's not fair to call it ignorance; I don't think anyone really knew they were on probation and not eligible. I'm sure if everyone knew, the voting may very well have come out differently. --["EdwinSaada"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-20 12:02:52'' [[nbsp]] It's not fair to call it ignorance; I don't think anyone really knew they were on probation and not eligible. I'm sure if everyone knew, the voting may very well have come out differently. --["EdwinSaada"]<span>&nbsp;'''Update''': Apparently, all ineligible candidates were notified by SJA in writing that they were on probation.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-12 18:16:48BrentLaabssecret senate meeting to decide election <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 51: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ''I'll update the intervening information soon'' --["BrentLaabs" bl]<br> + <br> + = Constitutional Crisis =<br> + <br> + The senate has decided not to accept the court's decision, on the basis that the court did not meet quorum. However, they feel that the best way to decide this case is in closed session -- thus excluding their schemes from the public eye. For those senators who promoted how certifying people regardless of the court's decision would best represent the electorate, shame on you. Hiding behind closed doors to make this decision was the worst possible course of action, and can only further isolate you from the people you represent and the morals you espouse.<br> + <br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-08 19:16:42BrentLaabsincreasing visibility even more <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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> <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28<br> <span>-</span> <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> Time: Tuesday, January 108:00 PM <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> Location: MU, Mee Room </td> <td> <span>+</span> <span>===</span> ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28<span>&nbsp;===</span><br> <span>+</span> <span>===</span> Time: Tuesday, January 10<span>, </span>8:00 PM <span>===<br> +</span> <span>===</span> Location: MU, Mee Room <span>===</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2006-01-08 18:26:27RevChadcourt timespace where it will be seen <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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>+ = To be resolved =<br> + ASUCD Supreme Court Case #28<br> + Time: Tuesday, January 108:00 PM Location: MU, Mee Room <br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-21 22:21:34PaulHarms <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 104: </td> <td> Line 104: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> This code will probably come before the Internal Affairs Commission for revision before the next election. </td> <td> <span>+</span> This code will probably come before the Internal Affairs Commission for revision<span>/clarification</span> before the next election. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-21 22:18:34PaulHarmsclarification in "candidates on probation." addition of "government codes" <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 53: </td> <td> Line 53: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> There <span>are</span> also <span>var</span>i<span>ous rumours f</span>l<span>oa</span>t<span>ing around</span> that the disciplinary probations of particular candidates should have been terminiated before the election -- that is, SJA had made an error. <span>These rumours are in fact untrue, the basis of which is a miscommunication between SJA and one candidate.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> There <span>is</span> also <span>the poss</span>i<span>bi</span>l<span>i</span>t<span>y</span> that the disciplinary probations of particular candidates should have been terminiated before the election -- that is, SJA had made an error. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 55: </td> <td> Line 55: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> == "False Positive" Candidate<span>s</span> == </td> <td> <span>+</span> == "False Positive" Candidate == </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 97: </td> <td> Line 97: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + == Government Codes ==<br> + <br> + The Section 104.7 of the ASUCD Government Codes, in black and white:<br> + <br> + "No student may run for an ASUCD elected officed if the student has one or more of the following disciplinary actions placed by Student Judicial Affairs: suspension, disciplinary probation, activities dismissal, interim suspension."<br> + <br> + This code will probably come before the Internal Affairs Commission for revision before the next election.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-21 19:48:49BrianMcFadden <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 96: </td> <td> Line 96: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ["Brian McFadden"] was not excluded from the above Countback simulation, but has expressed a desire to withdraw from ASUCD politics, partially from a need to fulfill other obligations, and partially out of disgust with a system in which it is possible for two out of six candidates to be elected on a fraudulent basis. In the unlikely case of a recount in which he is elected, Mr. McFadden has stated that he will refuse to take office.<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 19:34:39BrentLaabsanswer for edwin <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 151: </td> <td> Line 151: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * This was an interesting issue. Everyone within the student government knew who was on probation by the time of the Senate meeting last Thursday, excluding the Elections Committee and the Court who were trying to avoid knowing. However, it was all heresay -- we can't necessarily go up and ask anyone for hard documenation of any wrongdoing. However, the forms the candidates sign allow a designee of the Elections Committee access to SJA files, so it depends entirely on how the University chooses to interpret it. In this case, SJA allowed Jon Leathers to designate himself, and Jon now knows who was on probation and the reasons for such action. --["BrentLaabs"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 19:06:09PhilipNeustromcountback fun <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 67: </td> <td> Line 67: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ == Countback ==<br> + In the event the two senators cannot take their seats, there will likely be a ["Countback"] election, as per the ["Countback Amendment"]. Using ["StoveTop"] (a program that conducts a ["Choice Voting"] election), the winners of a Countback with Natalia and Kareem resigning would be as follows:<br> + <br> + {{{<br> + Excluded candidates:<br> + Joe Harney<br> + <br> + The ASUCD Senate Elections ASUCD STV tally is finished.<br> + <br> + After 5 rounds, the final totals are:<br> + <br> + Katie Webber 334.897193564<br> + Jenny Yu 297.92782738<br> + Michael Kongo Aguilera 0.0<br> + Joe Harney 0.0<br> + Jimmy Moresco 0.0<br> + Brian McFadden 0.0<br> + Behrad Brad Golshani 0.0<br> + <br> + The winners are:<br> + Jenny Yu<br> + Katie Webber<br> + Final votes: 297.92782738<br> + Threshold: 302<br> + Percent threshold obtained: 98.6515984701<br> + }}}<br> + <br> + ["Joe Harney"] was excluded from the Countback election because he has maintained he would not run. These results can easily change if other candidates decide to not run, and thus should be taken with several grains of salt.<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 17:20:37TravisGrathwellisn't including the ones not on probation kind of redundant? <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 58: </td> <td> Line 58: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- == Candidates who were not on Probation ==<br> - * ["Joe Harney"]<br> - * ["Brian McFadden"]<br> - * ["Christine Rogers"] -- The ["STEP Program"] does not hire students on probation<br> - * ["Avni Patel"]<br> - * ["Tiny Sanders"]<br> - * ["Jenny Yu"]<br> - * ["Katie Webber"]<br> - * ["Jimmy Moresco"]<br> - * ["Behrad Golshani"]<br> - * ["Michael Aguilera"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 14:42:24EdwinSaada+name <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 132: </td> <td> Line 132: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not some sort of conspiracy thing, with a chain of hushed commands. I can't go to the Registrars office and get a copy of your transcript, can I? No, it's yours and you'd have to authorize it. So I suppose you could ask why and ask who told them why and so forth, but I don't really see the point of that. Now, same thing if you go to Student Judicial Affairs and try to ask about students. Without thier authorization, they won't give you info. If you start asking why, they may just mention the Federal Educational and Privacy Rights Act of 1974 (FERPA), and thier records are subject to protection under the privacy provisions of the California State Constitution. The only way the info would be released is if they consent to disclose it; hence why this election was a real problem: What should they have done if the three people don't fess up? Disqualify all 6? </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not some sort of conspiracy thing, with a chain of hushed commands. I can't go to the Registrars office and get a copy of your transcript, can I? No, it's yours and you'd have to authorize it. So I suppose you could ask why and ask who told them why and so forth, but I don't really see the point of that. Now, same thing if you go to Student Judicial Affairs and try to ask about students. Without thier authorization, they won't give you info. If you start asking why, they may just mention the Federal Educational and Privacy Rights Act of 1974 (FERPA), and thier records are subject to protection under the privacy provisions of the California State Constitution. The only way the info would be released is if they consent to disclose it; hence why this election was a real problem: What should they have done if the three people don't fess up? Disqualify all 6?<span>&nbsp;-["EdwinSaada" ES]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 14:40:37EdwinSaadashort replys. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 130: </td> <td> Line 130: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ * I'm not talking about how people vote or what they look into beyond posters; I was merely responding to people not knowing about the probations making them ineligable. I felt it was unfair to call them ignorant for not researching it (mainly because you can't, it's private info). And as you said, we would have trusted ASUCD to already have known/dealt with it, and as people acknowledged on this page, mistakes were obviously made. -["EdwinSaada" ES]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 132: </td> <td> Line 132: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I'm not sure what you mean here. It's not some sort of conspiracy thing, with a chain of hushed commands. I can't go to the Registrars office and get a copy of your transcript, can I? No, it's yours and you'd have to authorize it. So I suppose you could ask why and ask who told them why and so forth, but I don't really see the point of that. Now, same thing if you go to Student Judicial Affairs and try to ask about students. Without thier authorization, they won't give you info. If you start asking why, they may just mention the Federal Educational and Privacy Rights Act of 1974 (FERPA), and thier records are subject to protection under the privacy provisions of the California State Constitution. The only way the info would be released is if they consent to disclose it; hence why this election was a real problem: What should they have done if the three people don't fess up? Disqualify all 6?</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 12:01:17ArlenAbrahamalmost did that right <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 130: </td> <td> Line 130: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 12:00:33ArlenAbrahamevil, evil comment box <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 78: </td> <td> Line 78: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- [[Comments]]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ [[Comments(Start a New Thread Here)]]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 123: </td> <td> Line 123: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 127: </td> <td> Line 126: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------<br> -</span> ''2005-12-20 12:02:52'' [[nbsp]] It's not fair to call it ignorance; I don't think anyone really knew they were on probation and not eligible. I'm sure if everyone knew, the voting may very well have come out differently. --["EdwinSaada"]<br> <span>- ------<br> -</span> ''2005-12-20 12:06:45'' [[nbsp]] Yes, they didn't know. I'm sure the information, if researched, could have been discovered. The fact that people chose not to research it, that's ignorance! People just expect information to find them; I think it's really stupid. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>- ------<br> -</span> ''2005-12-20 12:34:16'' [[nbsp]] You're right, we should always double-check that they're eligible...how exactly? That kind of information is private, I can't just go up to Student Judicial Affairs and ask whether someone else is in trouble or not. They won't tell. That's why this was a scandal - it slipped through, and unless the senators waived thier privacy right, the information couldn't be released, and no one would know who it was. So no, it couldn't be researched. And the info from this comment is all in the page above, it would be quite ignorant if people condemn others ignorance for the lack of research, without even researching themselves to see if it's even possible/feasible (even when the information is right there) :P --["EdwinSaada"]<br> <span>- ------<br> -</span> ''2005-12-20 12:55:16'' [[nbsp]] See, but I wouldn't know that it wasn't feasible to access that information. As a journalist (or wannabe journalist) I follow the instinct to question everything. If I voted in this election (which I didn't) would I have thought to research if the student was on probation? Probably not, I would have trusted ASUCD to have known that before making them candidates ... but that doesn't mean I would not have gone out of my way to find information that wasn't already on a poster or designated information page, etc. And uh, yeah, about me not voting ... the elections seem to have gotten so much more trivial from when I arrived at Davis (not 'cause of me or anything). --["SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>- ------<br> -</span> ''2005-12-20 12:58:15'' [[nbsp]] Oh, and yeah. In the future, if I decide to vote, I will specifically give those in charge of knowing those facts about probation before deciding to vote. Then if I do all that I can and they tell me no, there's no question as to who is accountable for that information not being available. I don't really care whether or not someone tells me it's "private". If someone tells me that, I want to know who told them, and who told them it was private. I'd want to know the specific reason it was private, and who would have the authority to change that. Obviously it might be some arbitrary reason no one gives a rat's ass about, and again, it would be my fault for not speaking up and trying to change that. --["SaulSugarman"] </td> <td> <span>+ </span> ''2005-12-20 12:02:52'' [[nbsp]] It's not fair to call it ignorance; I don't think anyone really knew they were on probation and not eligible. I'm sure if everyone knew, the voting may very well have come out differently. --["EdwinSaada"]<br> <span>+ </span> ''2005-12-20 12:06:45'' [[nbsp]] Yes, they didn't know. I'm sure the information, if researched, could have been discovered. The fact that people chose not to research it, that's ignorance! People just expect information to find them; I think it's really stupid. --["SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>+ </span> ''2005-12-20 12:34:16'' [[nbsp]] You're right, we should always double-check that they're eligible...how exactly? That kind of information is private, I can't just go up to Student Judicial Affairs and ask whether someone else is in trouble or not. They won't tell. That's why this was a scandal - it slipped through, and unless the senators waived thier privacy right, the information couldn't be released, and no one would know who it was. So no, it couldn't be researched. And the info from this comment is all in the page above, it would be quite ignorant if people condemn others ignorance for the lack of research, without even researching themselves to see if it's even possible/feasible (even when the information is right there) :P --["EdwinSaada"]<br> <span>+ </span> ''2005-12-20 12:55:16'' [[nbsp]] See, but I wouldn't know that it wasn't feasible to access that information. As a journalist (or wannabe journalist) I follow the instinct to question everything. If I voted in this election (which I didn't) would I have thought to research if the student was on probation? Probably not, I would have trusted ASUCD to have known that before making them candidates ... but that doesn't mean I would not have gone out of my way to find information that wasn't already on a poster or designated information page, etc. And uh, yeah, about me not voting ... the elections seem to have gotten so much more trivial from when I arrived at Davis (not 'cause of me or anything). --["SaulSugarman"]<br> <span>+ </span> ''2005-12-20 12:58:15'' [[nbsp]] Oh, and yeah. In the future, if I decide to vote, I will specifically give those in charge of knowing those facts about probation before deciding to vote. Then if I do all that I can and they tell me no, there's no question as to who is accountable for that information not being available. I don't really care whether or not someone tells me it's "private". If someone tells me that, I want to know who told them, and who told them it was private. I'd want to know the specific reason it was private, and who would have the authority to change that. Obviously it might be some arbitrary reason no one gives a rat's ass about, and again, it would be my fault for not speaking up and trying to change that. --["SaulSugarman"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 11:58:15SaulSugarmanComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 135: </td> <td> Line 135: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-20 12:58:15'' [[nbsp]] Oh, and yeah. In the future, if I decide to vote, I will specifically give those in charge of knowing those facts about probation before deciding to vote. Then if I do all that I can and they tell me no, there's no question as to who is accountable for that information not being available. I don't really care whether or not someone tells me it's "private". If someone tells me that, I want to know who told them, and who told them it was private. I'd want to know the specific reason it was private, and who would have the authority to change that. Obviously it might be some arbitrary reason no one gives a rat's ass about, and again, it would be my fault for not speaking up and trying to change that. --["SaulSugarman"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 11:55:16SaulSugarmanComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 133: </td> <td> Line 133: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-20 12:55:16'' [[nbsp]] See, but I wouldn't know that it wasn't feasible to access that information. As a journalist (or wannabe journalist) I follow the instinct to question everything. If I voted in this election (which I didn't) would I have thought to research if the student was on probation? Probably not, I would have trusted ASUCD to have known that before making them candidates ... but that doesn't mean I would not have gone out of my way to find information that wasn't already on a poster or designated information page, etc. And uh, yeah, about me not voting ... the elections seem to have gotten so much more trivial from when I arrived at Davis (not 'cause of me or anything). --["SaulSugarman"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 11:34:16EdwinSaadaComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 131: </td> <td> Line 131: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-20 12:34:16'' [[nbsp]] You're right, we should always double-check that they're eligible...how exactly? That kind of information is private, I can't just go up to Student Judicial Affairs and ask whether someone else is in trouble or not. They won't tell. That's why this was a scandal - it slipped through, and unless the senators waived thier privacy right, the information couldn't be released, and no one would know who it was. So no, it couldn't be researched. And the info from this comment is all in the page above, it would be quite ignorant if people condemn others ignorance for the lack of research, without even researching themselves to see if it's even possible/feasible (even when the information is right there) :P --["EdwinSaada"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 11:06:45SaulSugarmanComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 129: </td> <td> Line 129: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-20 12:06:45'' [[nbsp]] Yes, they didn't know. I'm sure the information, if researched, could have been discovered. The fact that people chose not to research it, that's ignorance! People just expect information to find them; I think it's really stupid. --["SaulSugarman"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 11:02:52EdwinSaadaComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 127: </td> <td> Line 127: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-20 12:02:52'' [[nbsp]] It's not fair to call it ignorance; I don't think anyone really knew they were on probation and not eligible. I'm sure if everyone knew, the voting may very well have come out differently. --["EdwinSaada"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-20 10:56:24SaulSugarmanComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 125: </td> <td> Line 125: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-20 11:56:24'' [[nbsp]] "The fact still remains that enough students gave me their vote during the election to allow me to be elected to one of the six open seats. No one disputes these results." Dude, that doesn't speak to your merits. That speaks to the ignorance of the people who voted for you. --["SaulSugarman"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-14 09:20:59JonathonLeathersfixed the page. all the info should be true now <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Ho</span>we<span>ver, if the involved candidates a</span>re never identified, presumably the ["ASUCD Court"] won't <span>even be able to br</span>ing <span>about their disqualification</span>, as neither they nor the ["Elections Committee"] kn<span>o</span>w<span>s</span> which candidates were not eligible to run for ASUCD Senate. Student Judicial Affairs matters are not a matter of public record; their documents are sealed. In fact, the Elections Committee Chair does not usually check records before the election, the Student Government Advisor does. Since ["Michael Tucker"] had not yet been hired at the beginning of the election cycle, Jon Leathers had someone from the Student Services office check candidates' records. He believed that the records had been properly checked for probation status, but they had not. </td> <td> <span>+ If the involved candidates </span>were never identified, presumably the ["ASUCD Court"] wo<span>uld</span>n't <span>have had the option of disqualify</span>ing <span>the candidates</span>, as neither they nor the ["Elections Committee"] kn<span>e</span>w which candidates were not eligible to run for ASUCD Senate. Student Judicial Affairs matters are not a matter of public record; their documents are sealed. <span>(However, the candidates have since come forward.) </span>In fact, the Elections Committee Chair does not usually check records before the election, the Student Government Advisor does. Since ["Michael Tucker"] had not yet been hired at the beginning of the election cycle, Jon Leathers had someone from the Student Services office check candidates' records. He believed that the records had been properly checked for probation status, but they had not. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 13: </td> <td> Line 13: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The Elections Committee ha<span>s</span> asked the candidates to waive their right to privacy, and release the SJA records. They <span>a</span>re, of course, under no obligation to do so other than a belief in the tenets of democracy. In case this d<span>oes</span> not happen,<span>&nbsp;the</span> Chad, the Elections Committee Events Coordinator,<span>&nbsp;has</span> filed a case with SJA against all six Senators-elect on Tuesday, December 6. As each candidate signed a form stating that they were not on<span>&nbsp;Academic nor</span> Disciplinary Probation at the start of their candidacy, any candidate who ran despite probation would have violated the [http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/ucpolicies/aos/uc100.html Code of Student Conduct] Section 102.02 which states that students shall not furnish false information to the University. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The Elections Committee ha<span>d</span> asked the candidates to waive their right to privacy, and release the SJA records. They <span>we</span>re, of course, under no obligation to do so other than a belief in the tenets of democracy. <span>Leathers sent an e-mail to all of the Senators-elect asking the three individuals in question to step forward which they did the next day. </span>In case this d<span>id</span> not happen, Chad, the Elections Committee Events Coordinator, filed a case with SJA against all six Senators-elect on Tuesday, December 6. As each candidate signed a form stating that they were not on Disciplinary Probation at the start of their candidacy, any candidate who ran despite probation would have violated the [http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/ucpolicies/aos/uc100.html Code of Student Conduct] Section 102.02 which states that students shall not furnish false information to the University. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 15: </td> <td> Line 15: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The identity of the candidates on probation is currently unknown. There are rumors circulating around the third floor that '''six''' of the candidates in total were on probation. This would mean that three of the non-elected candidates would also not be qualified to run for office. This is significant due to the recent passage of the ["Countback Amendment"], wherein replacement candidates would be chosen from the last election.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ An additional issue is timing, and the problem was exacerbated by the Student Government Advisor. The lame duck Senators Constitutionally had to leave office on Thursday, December 8. However, the Senators-elect were prohibited from taking office because of the ["ASUCD Court"] case filed by ["JoeHarney" Joe Harney] against the ["Elections Committee"]. The Senate can conduct business without the new senators (the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] counts towards quorum), though no Senators may be absent. However, it is already known that two Senators will not be back from Winter Break for the first Senate meeting of the Winter quarter so the meeting will have to be cancelled. Thankfully, ["ASUCD President"] ["Caliph Assagai"] had selected new ["ASUCD Court"] members, and the Senate confirmed them on Thursday, December 8. ["Joe Harney"], a nominee for Court as well as a candidate, will not be allowed to sit on this case due to ASUCD Government Codes enacted in reforms over the last year.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 17: </td> <td> Line 17: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- An additional issue is timing, and the problem was exacerbated by the Student Government Advisor. The lame duck Senators Constitutionally have to leave office at this week's meeting (Thursday, December 8). However, the new Senators are prohibited from taking office while there is an elections complaint active with the ASUCD Court or SJA. The Senate can conduct business without the new senators (the ["Darnell Holloway" VP] counts towards quorum), though no Senators may be absent. Chad Van Schoelandt intends to call lots of quorum calls, apparently/annoyingly. And while the Senate would have quorum, the Court would not: the ["ASUCD Court"] currently has three or four members out of nine seats. ["ASUCD President"] ["Caliph Assagai"] has selected new members, and the Senate has the option to confirm them this Thursday. ["Joe Harney"], a nominee for Court as well as a candidate, will not be allowed to sit on this case due to ASUCD Government Codes enacted in reforms over the last year.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ At the Senate meeting on December 8, a closed session was called on Jon Leathers and Chad VanSchoelandt (as members of the Elections Committee) by Senator ["Ari Kalfayan"]. Chad and Jon both agreed to have it be an open-closed session so that the public could remain in the room during the process. This simply consisted of the Senate asking questions to Jon and Chad. No action was taken by the Senate following this closed session.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- There are rumors of a closed session being called on the Elections Committee, substantiated only by the fact that Chad Van Schoelandt went around the third floor and asked everyone and their brother to attend his open closed session tomorrow night. Rumors also state that ["Ari Kalfayan"] and other Senators may charge the Elections Committee with not putting on a fair and impartial election, as well as not fullfilling their duty to check the candidate's background.<br> - <br> - There are also plans in the works to suspend the bylaws so that the new senators can take their seats, regardless of any Court case that may be active. It is unclear whether this vote will pass, and even less clear of the outcome after this. Article II Section 4 of the ASUCD Constitution may in fact allow a seated senator to be removed, but this is also up to debate.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ There was discussion at the Senate meeting to suspend the bylaws so that the Senators-elect can take their seats, regardless of any Court case that may be active. It was clear that such a vote would have failed. Article II Section 4 of the ASUCD Constitution may in fact allow a seated senator to be removed, but this is also up to debate.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 25: </td> <td> Line 23: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Before the ASUCD Senate meeting, the Elections Committee met with Student Judicial Affiars. SJA informed the committee that all of the senators-elect should be allowed to take their seats. Chad Van Schoelandt withdrew his ASUCD Court case at Senate, so the senators could be seated. However, candidate Joe Harney had in the meantime filed a complaint against the elections results, so the senators-elect cannot be seated without suspending the bylaws. Harney alleges that it's not the initial disciplinary probation that truly matters -- it's the fact that the candidates lied about it.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Before the ASUCD Senate meeting, the Elections Committee Chair met with the three Senators-elect in question who provided statements from Student Judicial Affiars stating what they were put on probation for and that SJA would have considered ending their probation early to allow them to run for Senate. Chad Van Schoelandt withdrew his ["ASUCD Court"] case at the Senate meeting. However, candidate ["Joe Harney"] had filed a similar complaint against the ["Elections Committee"], so the Senators-elect could not have been seated without suspending the bylaws. Harney alleges that it's not the initial disciplinary probation that truly matters -- it's the fact that the candidates lied about it.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 29: </td> <td> Line 27: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The first action in the Senate meeting was the so-called "open closed session" on Chad Van Schoelandt and Jon Leathers. At this time Jon revealed that he had met with SJA, and the candidates had agreed to let him view their confidential files. At this time, it was revealed that only two of the candidates were on disciplinary probation -- the third had his case dismissed. SJA also told him that had they been consulted at the proper time, they would have considered ending the probation early so the candidates could run, though this outcome would be uncertain. Some interpret this as a sign that the candidates would in fact be approved, though SJA used neutral language. After a difficult decision on the part of Chad, he officially withdrew his case against Jon.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ The first action in the Senate meeting was the so-called "open closed session" on Chad Van Schoelandt and Jon Leathers. At this time Jon revealed that he had met with the three Senators-elect in question and they had agreed to give him letters from SJA stating what they were on probation for. At this time, it was revealed that only two of the candidates were on disciplinary probation -- the third had his case dismissed. The letters from SJA also stated that had SJA been consulted at the proper time, they would have considered ending the probation early so the candidates could run, though this outcome would be uncertain. Some interpret this as a sign that the candidates would in fact be approved, though SJA used neutral language as it cannot state what it ''would'' have done. After a difficult decision on the part of Chad, he officially withdrew his case against Jon.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 33: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Meanwhile, the Senators decided to give their farewell comments. But before that, the all of the Commission Chairs gave a rousing performance of "ASUCD Is Your Life" to the tune of "Good Riddance" by Green Day. It was awesome. The Senators gave somewhat stirring speeches about how much they loved everyone, including ["Thomas Lloyd" Thomas] who talks too much. After finishing in an hour (wow!), they waited to hear whether the Court would actually hear the case. ["Kareem Salem"], speaking for himself, Natalia, and Spencer, admitted to the open Senate that the<span>y</span> investigation was about them, and that they were sorry about their past but would overcome their past to serve their constituents to the best of their ability. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Meanwhile, the Senators decided to give their farewell comments. But before that, the all of the Commission Chairs gave a rousing performance of "ASUCD Is Your Life" to the tune of "Good Riddance" by Green Day. It was awesome. The Senators gave somewhat stirring speeches about how much they loved everyone, including ["Thomas Lloyd" Thomas] who talks too much. After finishing in an hour (wow!), they waited to hear whether the Court would actually hear the case. ["Kareem Salem"], speaking for himself, Natalia, and Spencer, admitted to the open Senate that the investigation was about them, and that they were sorry about their past but would overcome their past to serve their constituents to the best of their ability. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 37: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> -<span>&nbsp;In the end, everyone decided that we should wait for due process of law, and none of the new senators</span> were seated. The <span>senators</span> who were not involved felt deeply dissatisfied, but are resigned to the fact that they will not take their seats until January. The business of The People still needed attended to, and the old Senate decided to see legislation as usual. </td> <td> <span>+ In the end, everyone decided that we should wait for due process of law, and none of the Senators</span>-<span>elect</span> were seated. The <span>Senators-elect</span> who were not involved felt deeply dissatisfied, but are resigned to the fact that they will not take their seats until January. The business of The People still needed attended to, and the old Senate decided to see legislation as usual. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 66: </td> <td> Line 64: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''add more names here''</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * ["Jenny Yu"]<br> + * ["Katie Webber"]<br> + * ["Jimmy Moresco"]<br> + * ["Behrad Golshani"]<br> + * ["Michael Aguilera"]<br> + All of the candidates were checked with SJA by the Student Government Advisor, ["Michael Tucker"], after the three Senators-elect in question came forward to the Elections Committee Chair. This was done in case a new election was going to have to be run and individuals would have to be excluded from the election.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 121: </td> <td> Line 124: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-13 17:04:50'' [[nbsp]] <span>Just so everyone knows, t</span>his page ha<span>s</span> some wrong information but I <span>do</span>n<span>'t</span> <span>have time to</span> fix it <span>right now</span>. --["JonathonLeathers"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-13 17:04:50'' [[nbsp]] <span>T</span>his page ha<span>d</span> some wrong information <span>on it </span>but I <span>thi</span>n<span>k</span> <span>I</span> fix<span>ed</span> it <span>all</span>. --["JonathonLeathers"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-13 16:04:50JonathonLeathersComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 120: </td> <td> Line 120: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-13 17:04:50'' [[nbsp]] Just so everyone knows, this page has some wrong information but I don't have time to fix it right now. --["JonathonLeathers"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-13 13:20:11PaulHarms <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 118: </td> <td> Line 118: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ While the current elections controversy certainly has raised doubts about specific candidates, to claim that the legitimacy of the ASUCD itself is in question is extreme and unfair to those who, through ASUCD, devote themselves to serving the student body.<br> + ------</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-11 15:40:54ThomasLloydplacing candidate statements where they can be seen <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 68: </td> <td> Line 68: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ == Candidate Statements ==<br> + As you've read above, I was prevented from taking my seat along with the five other senators-elect because of the filing of Harney v. Leathers. As such, we cannot be seated so long as this case is pending in regards to the election. Mr. Harney was within his rights as a member of this association to file such a suit, although I believe that his reading of the law is mistaken. It is unfortunate that the system did not work as it was designed to, but this is not a time to throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water. The fact still remains that enough students gave me their vote during the election to allow me to be elected to one of the six open seats. No one disputes these results. <br> + <br> + There is currently much work facing the senate, and I am fully committed to seeing to the business of ASUCD. Although I have not yet officially taken office, I have begun meeting with important figures in the community to address issues such as increasing entertainment options and better student-police relations. Though keeping me from being seated as a full senator, this case has not prevented me from living up to the standards of professionalism and hard work that the students ought to expect from their elected officials. I am fully confident that the court will find in favor of my constituents and allow me to take my seat when the case has been decided. --["KareemSalem"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 114: </td> <td> Line 118: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- "2005-12-11 15:04:27" [[nbsp]] As you've read above, I was prevented from taking my seat along with the five other senators-elect because of the filing of Harney v. Leathers. As such, we cannot be seated so long as this case is pending in regards to the election. Mr. Harney was within his rights as a member of this association to file such a suit, although I believe that his reading of the law is mistaken. It is unfortunate that the system did not work as it was designed to, but this is not a time to throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water. The fact still remains that enough students gave me their vote during the election to allow me to be elected to one of the six open seats. No one disputes these results. <br> - <br> - There is currently much work facing the senate, and I am fully committed to seeing to the business of ASUCD. Although I have not yet officially taken office, I have begun meeting with important figures in the community to address issues such as increasing entertainment options and better student-police relations. Though keeping me from being seated as a full senator, this case has not prevented me from living up to the standards of professionalism and hard work that the students ought to expect from their elected officials. I am fully confident that the court will find in favor of my constituents and allow me to take my seat when the case has been decided. --["KareemSalem"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-11 14:13:23KareemSalem <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 113: </td> <td> Line 113: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + "2005-12-11 15:04:27" [[nbsp]] As you've read above, I was prevented from taking my seat along with the five other senators-elect because of the filing of Harney v. Leathers. As such, we cannot be seated so long as this case is pending in regards to the election. Mr. Harney was within his rights as a member of this association to file such a suit, although I believe that his reading of the law is mistaken. It is unfortunate that the system did not work as it was designed to, but this is not a time to throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water. The fact still remains that enough students gave me their vote during the election to allow me to be elected to one of the six open seats. No one disputes these results. <br> + <br> + There is currently much work facing the senate, and I am fully committed to seeing to the business of ASUCD. Although I have not yet officially taken office, I have begun meeting with important figures in the community to address issues such as increasing entertainment options and better student-police relations. Though keeping me from being seated as a full senator, this case has not prevented me from living up to the standards of professionalism and hard work that the students ought to expect from their elected officials. I am fully confident that the court will find in favor of my constituents and allow me to take my seat when the case has been decided. --["KareemSalem"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-11 14:06:14KareemSalem <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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> As of noon on Friday, December 9, the ASUCD Court released its finding as the whether to accept the case. The Court has decided, on the prima facie merits of the case, to see the case. [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/spmct/supcor28-01.doc This opinion] was made available to the candidates and on ["EMOSNAIL"]. Importantly, all of the candidates are now considered "real parties to the case", and are entitled to defense coun<span>ci</span>l and the ability to file briefs. </td> <td> <span>+</span> As of noon on Friday, December 9, the ASUCD Court released its finding as the whether to accept the case. The Court has decided, on the prima facie merits of the case, to see the case. [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/spmct/supcor28-01.doc This opinion] was made available to the candidates and on ["EMOSNAIL"]. Importantly, all of the candidates are now considered "real parties to the case", and are entitled to defense coun<span>se</span>l and the ability to file briefs.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;+ <br> + On December 11, Kareem Salem officially named ["Greg Russell"] as his counsel in Harney v. Leathers.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-10 18:18:06KrisFrickechanged the definitive statement on the supposed powers of the court in ths case <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> However, the ["ASUCD Court"] won't even be able to disqualif<span>y candidates</span>, as neither they nor the ["Elections Committee"] knows which candidates were not eligible to run for ASUCD Senate. Student Judicial Affairs matters are not a matter of public record; their documents are sealed. In fact, the Elections Committee Chair does not usually check records before the election, the Student Government Advisor does. Since ["Michael Tucker"] had not yet been hired at the beginning of the election cycle, Jon Leathers had someone from the Student Services office check candidates' records. He believed that the records had been properly checked for probation status, but they had not. </td> <td> <span>+</span> However,<span>&nbsp;if the involved candidates are never identified, presumably</span> the ["ASUCD Court"] won't even be able to <span>bring about their </span>disqualif<span>ication</span>, as neither they nor the ["Elections Committee"] knows which candidates were not eligible to run for ASUCD Senate. Student Judicial Affairs matters are not a matter of public record; their documents are sealed. In fact, the Elections Committee Chair does not usually check records before the election, the Student Government Advisor does. Since ["Michael Tucker"] had not yet been hired at the beginning of the election cycle, Jon Leathers had someone from the Student Services office check candidates' records. He believed that the records had been properly checked for probation status, but they had not. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-09 22:21:06BrentLaabsjoining comments <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 106: </td> <td> Line 106: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''2005-12-09 21:43:51'' [[nbsp]] Now I know what Henry Fonda's character must have felt in twelve angry men. There are two separate issues at dispute here. The first is whether or not the Elections Committee failed to correctly certify the eligibility of all the candidates. Whether this mistake was done due to lack of training and/or lack of University faculty support is immaterial. The second issue is encapsulated in John Leathers' statement during the open closed hearing that SJA would have cleared the candidates to participate in the election. According to Section 104 paragraph 7 of the elections code states, “ No Student may run for an elected ASUCD office if the student has one or more of the following disciplinary actions placed by Student Judicial Affairs: suspension, disciplinary probation, activities dismissal, interim suspension." This rule can be easily interpreted that once sanctioned by SJA for any of the listed offenses that a student is ineligible to run for office permanently. --["JoeHarney"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2005-12-09 21:44:30'' [[nbsp]] Whether or not currently on disciplinary probation at the time becomes immaterial, the mere fact that any potential candidate was sanctioned is enough to disqualify them. I hope we can all agree that this issue has called into question the legitimacy of the ASUCD Student Government as an institution. The only way that confidence in the integrity of the institution will be restored is for due process of the law to proceed. --["JoeHarney"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2005-12-09 21:44:49'' [[nbsp]] As the plaintiff in this case I have already recused myself from the ASUCD Supreme Court for this case. To remove any further possible conflicts of interest in this case I officially withdraw my candidacy for the Fall 2005 ASUCD Senate election. This will prevent any freak incident of electoral math to seat me upon the senate. This case is not about my personal dissatisfaction with the results of the election. This is about making sure the Rule of Law reigns supreme, and that the students of the University of California Davis can trust in the integrity of both the ASUCD Student Government and the students who are elected to represent them. --["JoeHarney"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ ''2005-12-09 21:44:49'' [[nbsp]] Now I know what Henry Fonda's character must have felt in twelve angry men. There are two separate issues at dispute here. The first is whether or not the Elections Committee failed to correctly certify the eligibility of all the candidates. Whether this mistake was done due to lack of training and/or lack of University faculty support is immaterial. The second issue is encapsulated in John Leathers' statement during the open closed hearing that SJA would have cleared the candidates to participate in the election. According to Section 104 paragraph 7 of the elections code states, “ No Student may run for an elected ASUCD office if the student has one or more of the following disciplinary actions placed by Student Judicial Affairs: suspension, disciplinary probation, activities dismissal, interim suspension." This rule can be easily interpreted that once sanctioned by SJA for any of the listed offenses that a student is ineligible to run for office permanently. <br> + <br> + Whether or not currently on disciplinary probation at the time becomes immaterial, the mere fact that any potential candidate was sanctioned is enough to disqualify them. I hope we can all agree that this issue has called into question the legitimacy of the ASUCD Student Government as an institution. The only way that confidence in the integrity of the institution will be restored is for due process of the law to proceed.<br> + <br> + As the plaintiff in this case I have already recused myself from the ASUCD Supreme Court for this case. To remove any further possible conflicts of interest in this case I officially withdraw my candidacy for the Fall 2005 ASUCD Senate election. This will prevent any freak incident of electoral math to seat me upon the senate. This case is not about my personal dissatisfaction with the results of the election. This is about making sure the Rule of Law reigns supreme, and that the students of the University of California Davis can trust in the integrity of both the ASUCD Student Government and the students who are elected to represent them. --["JoeHarney"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-09 20:44:49JoeHarneyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 109: </td> <td> Line 109: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-09 21:44:49'' [[nbsp]] As the plaintiff in this case I have already recused myself from the ASUCD Supreme Court for this case. To remove any further possible conflicts of interest in this case I officially withdraw my candidacy for the Fall 2005 ASUCD Senate election. This will prevent any freak incident of electoral math to seat me upon the senate. This case is not about my personal dissatisfaction with the results of the election. This is about making sure the Rule of Law reigns supreme, and that the students of the University of California Davis can trust in the integrity of both the ASUCD Student Government and the students who are elected to represent them. --["JoeHarney"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-09 20:44:30JoeHarneyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 107: </td> <td> Line 107: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-09 21:44:30'' [[nbsp]] Whether or not currently on disciplinary probation at the time becomes immaterial, the mere fact that any potential candidate was sanctioned is enough to disqualify them. I hope we can all agree that this issue has called into question the legitimacy of the ASUCD Student Government as an institution. The only way that confidence in the integrity of the institution will be restored is for due process of the law to proceed. --["JoeHarney"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-09 20:43:51JoeHarneyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 105: </td> <td> Line 105: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-09 21:43:51'' [[nbsp]] Now I know what Henry Fonda's character must have felt in twelve angry men. There are two separate issues at dispute here. The first is whether or not the Elections Committee failed to correctly certify the eligibility of all the candidates. Whether this mistake was done due to lack of training and/or lack of University faculty support is immaterial. The second issue is encapsulated in John Leathers' statement during the open closed hearing that SJA would have cleared the candidates to participate in the election. According to Section 104 paragraph 7 of the elections code states, “ No Student may run for an elected ASUCD office if the student has one or more of the following disciplinary actions placed by Student Judicial Affairs: suspension, disciplinary probation, activities dismissal, interim suspension." This rule can be easily interpreted that once sanctioned by SJA for any of the listed offenses that a student is ineligible to run for office permanently. --["JoeHarney"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-09 17:20:22PhilipNeustromminor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 98: </td> <td> Line 98: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2005-12-08 17:55:59'' [[nbsp]] "However, the ASUCD Court won't even be able to disqualify candidates, as neither they nor the Elections Committee knows which candidates were not eligible to run for ASUCD Senate. Student Judicial Affairs matters are not a matter of public record; their documents are sealed." How can Jon or the Elections Committee be guilty of not disqualifying the ineligible candidates a few weeks ago when, even now, they're not allowed to know the names of the ineligible people? --["ChrisJerdonek"]<span><br> - ------<br> - ''2005-12-08 17:59:28'' [[nbsp]] The only solution to preserving students' confidentiality seems to be to have applications for office be submitted directly to SJA, and then have SJA pass along only the applications of the eligible candidates to the Elections Commitee. --["ChrisJerdonek"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2005-12-08 17:55:59'' [[nbsp]] "However, the ASUCD Court won't even be able to disqualify candidates, as neither they nor the Elections Committee knows which candidates were not eligible to run for ASUCD Senate. Student Judicial Affairs matters are not a matter of public record; their documents are sealed." How can Jon or the Elections Committee be guilty of not disqualifying the ineligible candidates a few weeks ago when, even now, they're not allowed to know the names of the ineligible people?<span><br> + <br> + The only solution to preserving students' confidentiality seems to be to have applications for office be submitted directly to SJA, and then have SJA pass along only the applications of the eligible candidates to the Elections Commitee.</span> --["ChrisJerdonek"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-09 14:46:53ArlenAbrahamComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 103: </td> <td> Line 103: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-09 15:46:53'' [[nbsp]] Should this be reanmed to controversy? all the other ones are named controversy --["ArlenAbraham"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-09 14:34:27RocksandDirtComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 101: </td> <td> Line 101: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2005-12-09 15:34:27'' [[nbsp]] Outstanding. UC student politics is an institution that never ever fails to entertain. --["RocksandDirt"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-09 14:09:12PaulHarmsupdate. fact checking. court case accepted. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 27: </td> <td> Line 27: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The first action in the Senate meeting was the so-called "open closed session" on Chad Van Schoelandt and Jon Leathers. At this time Jon revealed that he had met with SJA, and the candidates had agreed to let him view their confidential files. At this time, it was revealed that only two of the candidates were on disciplinary probation -- the third had h<span>as h</span>is case dismissed. SJA also told him that had they been consulted at the proper time, they would have <span>like</span>ly <span>ended the pro</span>b<span>ation ear</span>ly <span>so the candidates could ru</span>n.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;After a difficult decision on the part of Chad, he officially withdrew his case against Jon.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ == The Senate Meeting ==<br> + <br> +</span> The first action in the Senate meeting was the so-called "open closed session" on Chad Van Schoelandt and Jon Leathers. At this time Jon revealed that he had met with SJA, and the candidates had agreed to let him view their confidential files. At this time, it was revealed that only two of the candidates were on disciplinary probation -- the third had his case dismissed. SJA also told him that had they been consulted at the proper time, they would have <span>considered ending the probation ear</span>ly <span>so the candidates could run, though this outcome would </span>b<span>e uncertain. Some interpret this as a sign that the candidates would in fact be approved, though SJA used neutral language. After a difficult decision on the part of Chad, he official</span>ly <span>withdrew his case against Jo</span>n. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 41: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ == The Aftermath ==<br> + <br> + As of noon on Friday, December 9, the ASUCD Court released its finding as the whether to accept the case. The Court has decided, on the prima facie merits of the case, to see the case. [http://www.geocities.com/winged_snail/spmct/supcor28-01.doc This opinion] was made available to the candidates and on ["EMOSNAIL"]. Importantly, all of the candidates are now considered "real parties to the case", and are entitled to defense council and the ability to file briefs.<br> + <br> + The Court case will presumably be held at the beginning of Winter Quarter.<br> + <br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 53: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> There are also various rumours floating around that the disciplinary probations of particular candidates should have been terminiated before the election -- that is, SJA had made an error. These rumours are <span>largely unconfirmed</span>. </td> <td> <span>+</span> There are also various rumours floating around that the disciplinary probations of particular candidates should have been terminiated before the election -- that is, SJA had made an error. These rumours are <span>in fact untrue, the basis of which is a miscommunication between SJA and one candidate</span>. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-09 00:00:24BrentLaabsmajor update. a most entertaining senate meeting <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 25: </td> <td> Line 25: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Before the ASUCD Senate meeting, the Elections Committee met with Student Judicial Affiars. SJA informed the committee that all of the senators-elect should be allowed to take their seats. Chad Van Schoelandt withdrew his ASUCD Court case, so the senators could be seated. However, candidate Joe Harney had in the meantime filed a complaint against the elections results, so the senators-elect cannot be seated without suspending the bylaws. Harney alleges that it's not the initial disciplinary probation that truly matters -- it's the fact that the candidates lied about it. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Before the ASUCD Senate meeting, the Elections Committee met with Student Judicial Affiars. SJA informed the committee that all of the senators-elect should be allowed to take their seats. Chad Van Schoelandt withdrew his ASUCD Court case<span>&nbsp;at Senate</span>, so the senators could be seated. However, candidate Joe Harney had in the meantime filed a complaint against the elections results, so the senators-elect cannot be seated without suspending the bylaws. Harney alleges that it's not the initial disciplinary probation that truly matters -- it's the fact that the candidates lied about it. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 27: </td> <td> Line 27: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ The first action in the Senate meeting was the so-called "open closed session" on Chad Van Schoelandt and Jon Leathers. At this time Jon revealed that he had met with SJA, and the candidates had agreed to let him view their confidential files. At this time, it was revealed that only two of the candidates were on disciplinary probation -- the third had has his case dismissed. SJA also told him that had they been consulted at the proper time, they would have likely ended the probation early so the candidates could run. After a difficult decision on the part of Chad, he officially withdrew his case against Jon.<br> + <br> + In the other case, filed by Harney, he had forgotten to specifically mention the section which would stop the election (Judicial Code 402). The Senate confirmed the new members of the ASUCD Court, and at 7:30 PM, the Court met quorum for the first time in weeks and discussed their first case. As the Senate meeting was simultaneously occuring across the hall, life was very exciting. The Court ruled that Section 402 was automatically triggered in the complaint, and that the bylaws did not allow for the seating of the candidates. If the candidates were to be seated, the bylaws would have to be suspended.<br> + <br> + Meanwhile, the Senators decided to give their farewell comments. But before that, the all of the Commission Chairs gave a rousing performance of "ASUCD Is Your Life" to the tune of "Good Riddance" by Green Day. It was awesome. The Senators gave somewhat stirring speeches about how much they loved everyone, including ["Thomas Lloyd" Thomas] who talks too much. After finishing in an hour (wow!), they waited to hear whether the Court would actually hear the case. ["Kareem Salem"], speaking for himself, Natalia, and Spencer, admitted to the open Senate that they investigation was about them, and that they were sorry about their past but would overcome their past to serve their constituents to the best of their ability.<br> + <br> + After this, the Senate listened to yet another musical performance (this time with accordion) by Project Compost in their Unit Director's Report. They confirmed ["IAC"] and ["B&amp;F"] members. They waited. And eventually the Court came out with their decision. Sort of. The Court decided that they would issue a written decision on Friday morning, and everyone's hearts sank. The ASUCD Senate thourougly debated the best course of action that would represent the students of UCD.<br> + <br> + In the end, everyone decided that we should wait for due process of law, and none of the new senators were seated. The senators who were not involved felt deeply dissatisfied, but are resigned to the fact that they will not take their seats until January. The business of The People still needed attended to, and the old Senate decided to see legislation as usual.<br> + <br> + Senate ended at 10:53 PM, after many comments of mutual respect were shared amongst the Senate Table. ["Kareem Salem"] was the only Senator-elect to stay until the end of the meeting, to his credit. After this, most of the crew headed over to ["Soga's"].</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 42: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * ["Spencer Higgins"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 36: </td> <td> Line 46: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ == "False Positive" Candidates ==<br> + * ["Spencer Higgins"], who was under investigation, but the investigation was dropped.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandalhttp://daviswiki.org/Fall_2005_ASUCD_Election/Unqualified_Candidates_Scandal2005-12-08 20:08:58EdwinSaadareply to brent <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Unqualified Candidates Scandal<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 74: </td> <td> Line 74: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Damn it, and I was 2 for 3. -["EdwinSaada" ES]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div>