- The Newspeak Dictionary, 1st edition
Becca Lovell was fired from her job at the Coffee House (also known as CoHo) because she had been giving free espresso and other drinks to her friends. She was let go November 14, 2007. She is currently trying to become a Senator, which oversees the Coffee House.
According to Senator Sundstrom, "Lovell spoke with her boss today and she is leaving the CoHo to pursue a more career-oriented job." However, many others have confirmed getting free drinks, and one CoHo supervisor referred the matter to Sharon Coulson, director of the Coffee House, shortly before Lovell left the job. It is rumored that Lovell was subsequently referred to Student Judicial Affairs as a result of this controversy, but due to various privacy policies, no one is able to properly confirm or deny such a referral.
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2007-11-14 18:52:03 Is this alleged, or is there a link/claim/source that she was fired for that reason? —EdWins
2007-11-14 18:53:21 Back when I was in SOSSS, each candidate took a solemn vow: To embezzle unmore than other senators. We kept our word, but it doesn't look like Becca will be taking that vow. —BrentLaabs
2007-11-14 18:55:50 Again, Davis Wiki is the source. You don't remember the days when dwiki was like the only source for open information on ASUCD. You're just going to have to trust that I wouldn't make anything up. Though some of my case on the other page might have come from overstated information, I trust the wiki to find the truth within a day. —BrentLaabs
2007-11-14 18:59:19 I do remember. I started to love reading the wiki when it was first pushing for publicity :P But we *now* have people from multiple political groups always trying to snip at each other, it gets harder to take things written as is, despite the source (unless of course it was SteveO). But it's more about fairness - I may trust you personally, but it's not too fair for yours to go unquestioned while someone else's is. —EdWins
2007-11-14 19:02:19 I agree with Edwin. The Davis wiki is supposed to be about facts, not about leaning towards the political majority, which seems to be LEAD and their allies at the moment. We really need some more evidence of this controversy even occuring to be WRITTEN here, not just talked about by even the most trustworthy of sources. —PaulAmnuaypayoat
2007-11-14 22:27:11 I disagree with the "if it wasn't written somewhere else it didn't happen" mentality expressed in comments above. This is all well and good for issues out in the real world where its plausible that if it isn't written somewhere else it probably in fact DID not happen, but Daviswiki is still a primary source of information for Davis. There will be saucy allegations and messy counterclaims, but in the end, the truth will come out. As to this bit of information, I have no particular reason to believe Brent Laabs would be making it up (which isn't to say I'm 100% certian its true). —KrisFricke
That's great to say, but then you have 5 different people reverting all night or for days about "what did happen"....Like virtually everything Steve Ostrowski touched on the wiki - sure, the truth eventually came out. Sometimes in days, but sometimes after many months. I don't think it's too crazy of a thing to ask whether there are any existing sources when someone posts information, if only for the sake of avoiding a potential debate/revert war before it can begins Especially when it involves stupid ASUCD politics, which I am pretty sure is (cumulatively) the #1 source of reverts and edit wars on the wiki. -ES
I'm by no means saying you can't ask if there are other sources. However, I don't agree with Paul in that it should not even be written about until confirmed somewhere else. Obviously evaluating the truthiness of entries is somewhat of a subjective process that requires the editors to evaluate the credentials of the person adding it. Extremely few people, with the possible exception of Ostrowski would actually post an outright lie on the wiki. Next up in shadiness, we would definitely want to take anything posted by an ASUCD partisan with a grain of salt and expect there to be another side of the story. As to Laabs, I do think he's done shady things in the past, and may lean towards Lead, but I think we can expect that he has not suddenly started posting things that have no basis whatsoever. Ultimately it is the human elemant of the editors which should make the determination between things posted by Ostrowski or rabid partisans, or real people. ~KrisFricke
2007-11-14 22:53:33 I vaguely remember her offering free coffee to whoever helped her chalk in the morning. —GregWebb
"2007-11-14 23:00:00" She was definitely fired today. Thatisall.
2007-11-15 13:09:45 Hahaha. Espressogate. Classic! Back to post something for my fraternity (DX Toys for Tots- Dec 6!) and I see it's my favorite time of fall quarter in Davis. I see the same characters here discussing the same issues still - some things never change I suppose. My two cents: there's gossip and there's fact, and a gray area in between, and it really depends on where the wiki wants to be on that spectrum. Want Daviswiki to be like PerezHilton.com (the Fricke/Laabs contingent)? Or more like the gold-standard Wikipedia (Amnuaypayoat)? I do (not surprisingly) come down on the side of this issue with Paul (which is what IS surprising - a first?). But I guess, like everything Daviswiki, it's up to the users. Good luck on that philosophical adventure... [PS: if any of you end up in Berkeley- shoot me an email. We can catch coffee or something and relive the old days] —ThomasLloyd
2007-11-16 14:20:33 It's inaccurate to say she left the job as she was forced to leave her job. Apparently, the management of the Coffee House is preventing anyone from testifying that she was fired, so I'm not quite sure how a hearing would take place. - RubyThursday
2007-11-16 15:43:16 I would like to remind everybody to please respect Becca's privacy rights. There are only 5 people that know exactly what happened and, looking at the names that have contributed to this page, none of you are a part of that five.
Unfortunately, when one becomes a public figure, such as a student politician, some right to privacy is given up in pursuit of elected positions. Her alleged actions, if true, do reflect upon her character and ability to be a voting member of the ASUCD Senate. As wiki users, our responsability is to provide accurate information for the good of the community, and so when we see that this page was created, with some possibility of truth, we as wiki users need to contribute whatever information we can to create an accurate accounting of this entry given the limited public information available. If, after due process is completed, and Becca is found to be completely innocent, we will edit this entry to reflect her innocence. Also, if Becca is found completely innocent and she feels that the creator of this page sought to libel her, then Becca might have some recourse also. But, for now we assume that there is some degree of truth to these allegations and will react accordingly. - Paul Amnuaypayoat
I'm sorry...which of Becca's actions does GO condemn? And what does condemn mean? That she is no longer affiliated? GO is good at composing press releases, so maybe an official press release from the GO leadership would help clarify the situation. - PH
2007-11-18 19:18:40 Paul A: Thank you for your comment. Paul H: Becca is still a member of GO, however, GO does not support her involvement in what has been labeled 'Espressogate'. If you have any further questions, Paul, I would be happy to talk to you in person. —Motamed
I'm sure I'll be speaking to Becca soon in person. -PaulHarms