During the Fall 2007 ASUCD Election, the newly formed slate GO was accused of violating a myriad of rules in this election. Most of the allegations below seem to have died out shortly after the election due to lack of proof or lack of merit regarding the claims. Many of the complaints were posated by one man: Mr. Brent Laabs, UC Davis graduate student, self proclaimed ASUCD Historian, and LEAD partisan, as evidenced by the fact that he was the initializer of this wiki entry. However, anyone involved in the election knew that the below allegations originated from many sources, particularly freshmen and other supporters affiliated with the LEAD slate. Most people making the accusations on this page decided to not persue them.
John Dreyer allegedly campaigned in the dorms, was caught by Student Housing, and was allegedly referred to Student Judicial Affairs. (Hey, isn't this a little familiar?) It is difficult to assess this claim, as SJA keeps closed records and nobody has ever come forward to make the allegation publicly. No time or other details were revealed, so this remains a rumor.
According to a several freshmen, GO allegedly sent its volunteers to go door-to-door, which would violate Student Housing's policy against solicitation. They allegedly collected the names of more than seventy freshmen who they "helped" to vote. Eric Friedman claims that campaigning in dorms was common during the election cycle, citing reports that LEAD candidate Lula Ahmed-Falol campaigned in the dorms, and sisters of LEAD candidate Lauren Thomas campaigned for her in the dorms.
GO posted illegal signs on campus. They have stapled signs to trees and other objects which are definitely not bulletin boards. They have posted many duplicate signs on the same board, and have already been warned that they can lose SPAC registration, yet they persist in putting up new signs in illegal places. Despite allegations, no complaints were filed.
A "kite", that did not violate ASUCD election law, was put up that said "VOTE GO", suspended by balloons from the trees on the East Quad. The space was not reserved, but it was just 20 feet away from the Symbolic Structure Area, where such a display would have been allowed. The Grounds Division eventually removed the sign — it is uncertain whether the cost to remove the sign counts as a campaign expenditure or not. The display did, however, get blown within 100 feet of the MU Station, a polling place, but the current Elections Committee chair stated that this is not an issue because this incident is a form of passive campaigning, which is allowed near polling places.
Expenses and Donations
On November 14, 2007, GO supporters were sighted on Third Street holding a sign that promised a free Monster Energy Drink in exchange for voting for "GO" candidates. Individuals were directed to the yellow house affiliated with TKE on University Avenue to vote. The drinks were donated to TKE by Monster, Inc, and Andrew Kim (a member of TKE) provided them (gratis?) to the Slate. The event was accounted for in the expenditure forms. However, registered SPAC organizations like TKE as well as non-students like Monster Inc, are barred from donating anything to slates.
On November 14, 2007, GO attached their name to an event already occurring at The Graduate and was selling tickets for the event. It was alleged by some FUCK supporters that GO had rented out the venue without having enough campaign funds remaining, but the current Elections Committee chair has stated that these allegations are false, and also suggests that LEAD could have used the same tactic for free publicity if LEAD had wanted to. GO says that venue was provided free of cost.
On the campaign expenditure form, all of the GO candidates submitted a receipt for T-shirts printed on one side. The problem? Their campaign shirts are printed on both sides. The current Elections Committee chair states that this is merely a mistake, but will review the issue after the second expenditure forms are turned in. FUCK supporters allege that GO is willfully trying to bypass the terms of the spending agreement, which they undertook voluntarily, but the current Elections Committee chair will have the final decision on the truth of this allegation. GO claims that it was an honest mistake.
GO used the ASUCD logo on their election website, http://goucdavis.com/. This action is alleged to be a violation of the ASUCD Bylaws by Brent Laabs, who filed a court case against GO. For a brief while they took it down then put it back up. ASUCD Court Case #42 was heard on October 31, 2007 and was dismissed due to the Plaintiff's (Brent Laabs) lack of ASUCD membership. Additionally, the ASUCD Court voted to censure Laabs. Steve Ostrowski and Edward Baraona refiled the case and it was heard on November 14, 2007. This case was dismissed as well due to the improper naming of Defendants. The issues at hand were whether GO allegedly violated copyright laws and whether the presence of the ASUCD logo on the GO website implies an endorsmemnt of the slate by ASUCD.
An original, unofficial GO candidate, Brian Goldberg, was told he couldn't run because of being on Academic Probation. According to the current Elections Committee chair, the probation was in effect for an academic problem that Goldberg had already corrected (in terms of GPA) prior to the election period. He was also not the only candidate to drop out during this election cycle. GO released a press release addressing the issue, posted on the GO page.
According to Brent Laabs, GO allegedly vandalized apartment complexes, such as Temescal Apartments and The Colleges, with chalking saying "VOTE GO today". If the chalk could wash off, it wouldn't be vandalism, but it doesn't. This allegation also violates Student Housing's rule against solicitation at the Colleges. The current Elections Committee chair recommends that this allegation be reported to Student Judicial Affairs as well as the Davis Police Department, if the claims are indeed true. According to Eric Friedman GO used Washable Crayola Kids Chalk and was only used on the sidewalks, never on any private property. Brent Laabs also asserts that hairspray can be used to prevent chalk (citing an ASUC court case) from washing off the sidewalk, implying that GO employed such practices. This is unsubstantiated and according to Eric Friedman, Andrew Kim, Cem Turhal and many others who chalked on election night, hairspray was not used.
During the Senate Forum in Segundo on Wednesday, November 6th, 2007, a friend of Jesse Rosales from Alpha Gamma Rho, while wearing a GO shirt, used the word "faggot" during a LEAD candidate's speech. There is current debate over the use, with some saying it was said once, others saying it was yelled repeatedly. However, it was acknowledged by both sides that the word was used at some point at the candidate. Jesse subsequently apologized.
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2007-11-14 18:46:40 Looks lame overall, but any set of issues look shadier in bulk than individually. Although it does seem to add up, I don't know how ASUCD works when people break rules and such. Some of this stuff isn't exactly easy to pin to someone, and I imagine it'd be annoying to argue about loopholes, denials, accusations, etc. Any additional sources/links? But the fact that the chalk doesn't wash off is kind of funny, I wonder what kind it was. —EdWins
2007-11-14 18:46:48 Please do not link to this from the features page, or from anywhere on the front page. This should be linked to from the election page, AFTER we can confirm the validity of each point. For example, #2 still has to go to court first, and #3-9 still need complaints to be filed and resolved. —PaulAmnuaypayoat
2007-11-14 19:06:01 3. Candidates be aware: we can investigate and WILL find out when you're getting freshmen to vote in the dorms. 4. this seems to be a mistake as even with the increased t-shirt expense, they still do not go over the spending limits (though this will be 100% clear when the second expenditure forms are turned in).
5. GO isn't renting out the grad, they're just sticking their name on an event that's already there and selling tickets for it...they aren't paying, just being smart/sneaky (depending on how you look at it) by going for some free publicity...LEAD could have done the same if it wanted.
6. The illegal signs are very possible...this is something to report (if anyone sees a problem) to SPAC and the grounds department.
7. that a kite, a form of passive campaigning was blown within 100 feet of a polling place is not relevant since again, it is not active campaigning.
8. This ought to be reported to the administration of the apartment complexes, SJA (in the case of the colleges), and the davis police department (vandalism is a crime) if necessary.
9. He was not on AP because of his GPA, but rather because of a past academic problem (you can be on AP for additional time even if you have improved your record in the interim). But I nevertheless had to enforce the rules and ask him to withdraw. —JeremyRoss
2007-11-14 19:35:47 How about the blackface incident?? Or the GO members threatening Erin at the forum?? Its deplorable. Oh, and is anyone going to post about Friedman's status in AEPi? Or are we too afraid he'll sue? Wait...no one is posting about him walking out of a meeting because he can't handle a job he signed up for? Wow, he's a winner. Why do GOers let him play politics, anyway? He's a bane on their slate. —JillWeinstein
They figure that he won a seat, he knows what he is doing. -wl
2007-11-14 21:01:21 6. Reported. Seen on trees, posts, above lecture hall doors etc. 7. Reported to SPAC and grounds, grounds removed the infringement I saw. They had not reserved the Quad, and it is illegal to tie things to trees.
What about Becca's illegal posting of her flier in an ASUCD Unit (the CoHo) even after being warned not to? What about the fact that at least one of their candidates (Mr. Dreyer) thinks that the diversity on this campus is fine despite the report found by the Regents that "change is urgently needed to bring UC to the level of diversity it needs to fulfill its mission and to create campus climates that support this diversity and ensure that all members of the campus community receive the full benefits of a diverse environment." Or the fact that Mr. Rosales ran on the same thing a year ago, and didn't seem to take any action on his campaign issues, waiting to run on them again - he must think they're really urgent and important if he did nothing in the last year (or get involved in student government).
This election is being made a farce by GO and their complete disregard for ASUCD and campus regulations. —DanXie
2007-11-14 21:36:20 Has no one even mentioned the homophobic threats AGR made at the Candidates' Dorm Forum? —BrentLaabs
2007-11-14 22:39:59 I just have a general question. Whenever a slate is questioned, wronged, faulted, or otherwise cast in a negative light, is it always the opposing slate's responsibility to own that light? If I were to go to Senate to speak out about the derogatory comments spoken at the Candidate forum, does that automatically mean I'm a LEAD supporter, or in total opposition to GO? If I think advocating for more bars downtown is a joke, can't I also think that massage chairs should be Campus Union's job, and not ASUCD? People are way to caught up in this light/dark -force mentality. Last time I checked, there wasn't that much harp'age on Brian outside of this forum, which doesn't really serve any purpose greater than that of a bulletin board. Kareem and Natalia got their fair share though. Either way, it was the fault of the Elections Committee back then. Good job Jerr-Bear! Anyway, how about we stop perpetuating this drama. Most of the voting has already occurred, and even if we get a skewed set of mis-guided noobs elected to ASUCD Senate, at least we can start figuring out how to work with them instead of prematurely fucking our relationship with them before they take office. —AndrewBianchi
2007-11-14 21:58:59 Wait, the issue surrounding Brian Goldberg (point #10) is still being contested ["Fall 2007 ASUCD Election/Talk" here]. To summarize my point in the other discussion, we should not hammer Goldberg for doing this since LEAD member Kareem Salem (current ASUCD President) did in the Fall 2005 scandal. It would be hypocritical for a bunch of LEAD supporters and sympathizers to condemn Goldberg without condemning Kareem Salem for the same "crime". I say we discuss the Goldberg withdrawal more generally in the election history section, or simply not talk about it. —PaulAmnuaypayoat
I'm not a LEAD supporter. I can condemn anyone I want. -wl
2007-11-14 22:44:49 I heard about GO Candidates going door-to-door in the dorms and honestly couldn't believe it. Until one of my friends in the dorms confirmed it. I am so appalled!! I hope that a recall is in the works! —ArianeMetz
2007-11-15 18:25:30 In my investigation I heard that in Tercero some sorority girls were going door to door, but my friend wouldn't give details of what they were demanding. And my other friend in Cuarto said his friend in GO went door to door...but as of right now he hasn't given me a name... —ArianeMetz
Ariane, in my experience, I have heard of Student Focus people going into student's homes, in the dorms and off campus, asking the student's to log into the voting web site, then the Student Focus person will fill out the ballot for the student, and then ask the student to hit the submit button. This more or less means that certain candidates and their supporters were "voting" for other people, which I believe was made explicitly illegal in January of 2005. I am not certain that what I described is currently happening now in your situation, but it is a possibility. The best recourse in this situation is to submit complaints to Student Judicial Affairs, Student Housing, and the Elections Committee. I would advise that you notify them now, even if you are still gathering information, this way they are all more prepared when they receive the final version of your formal complaint. - Paul Amnuaypayoat
2007-11-15 23:31:01 The one issue is is that all the people who have told me what happened, as soon as I mention Student Judicial Affairs they...well...they clam up! So, while I now have confirmations that a certain sorority did endorse a certain candidate in door-to-door solicitation in Tercero, and that a nameless individual went door-to-door promoting, and possibly influencing voting for a particular slate in Cuarto, the actual people who told me this will not come forward, and so...a stalemate. —ArianeMetz
2007-11-15 23:32:51 well...he isn't nameless...but I don't think I should mention his name right now... —ArianeMetz
Yes, for now it's probably best we do not name this individual, since he hasn't been officially sanctioned by anyone yet (innocent until proven guilty, etc). I would like to suggest that you go ahead and report this person's name to the proper authorities (and remember to include the Elections Committee, please) with any evidence you might have. After due process is completed, then we might be able to name this person on the wiki as a matter of public record. - Paul Amnuaypayoat
To put this all in perspective, it is estimated that between 1/2 to 1/3 of the Freshman class has voted. On Wednesday, over 2000 votes were cast from the Freshman dorms. As in, more freshmen voted in one day than the whole undergrad in some elections. And, if the allegations are correct, there will be patterns in the voting, and identifications of candidates who actively went door to door in the dorms and did in fact vote in the freshmen's stead. 1 Violation pt for being w/in 100 feet of the dorms, and 1 violation pt for each person they "help" vote. And you only need 3 to be disqualified. —MM
I think the issue here is that the people that were allegedly in the dorms were not necessarily the candidates themselves, but agents (friends and volunteers, etc.) of the candidates. Thus, the only sanctions available are those that can be meted out by Student Judicial Affairs since candidates are not responsible for the behavior of other individuals. We can only wait and see if anyone can verify that actual candidates were taking such action, as opposed to only non-candidates. -Paul Amnuaypayoat
I've heard three reports of John Dreyer himself in the dorms. Volunteers in the dorms is general shadiness, of course, but any candidate going door to door in the dorms should either resign immediately or face disqualification. I realize these are still technically allegations, though. -PaulHarms
LOL, so we just gotta wait for someone to resign in order to "spend more time with the family" then, ;) - Paul Amnuaypayoat
2007-11-16 00:19:13 I just sent the following Message:
Greetings ASUCD Elections Committee, Student Judicial Affairs and Student Housing,
After discussing the information I have unearthed about some mis-deeds occurring during this year's ASUCD Election, I was told to pass on what information I had to the Departments you represent.
Firstly, after being informed that the GO slate in this year's election might be participating in activities that are considered unlawful according to the ASUCD Elections Guidelines, I did some investigating with my friends in the dorms and uncovered the following pieces of information:
#1. That in Tercero, a sorority endorsed a certain candidate through door-to-door solicitation. The sorority and the nature of their solicitation was kept from me.
#2. Through a source living in Cuarto, a ***** supporter named ***** went door-to-door in the dorms, endorsing his particular slate, and possibly manipulating freshman votes.
These two pieces of information I received from word of mouth alone, and I have no idea if what was claimed actually occurred. Nevertheless, I thought that this would be important to share with you. Whether or not you would like to seek the legitimacy in these claims is up to your discretion, I simply wanted to make sure that the proper entities were aware. If you would like to see copies of the discussions I had with my sources, I would be happy to provide you with them.
Also, please excuse me if I violated any sort of protocol by immediately emailing you, or If I have mailed this to the wrong person. My only excuse is that I am a Freshman, and I only want to see things done fairly.
Thank you very much,
-Ariane Metz —ArianeMetz
2007-11-18 20:49:11 There seems to be a lot of editing around item 12 (the one about Jesse Rosales's friend using the slur during a speech). Was there yelling/shouting or not? What was the context in which this utterance was used? Are there any more details that the wiki community should know about? Let's utilize the talk page if we need to clarify the facts amongst ourselves vefore having an edit war, please. —PaulAmnuaypayoat
2007-12-06 22:46:26 "according to Eric Friedman, Andrew Kim, Cem Turhal and many others who chalked on election night, hairspray was not used." Isn't chalking already against rules? I remember Steve Ostrowski saying that. —EdWins
Posting General Policy #7. It's pretty vague though. —BL
You may not be looking in the right place, it's not necessarily against posting policies rather it's considered to be vandalism of University property. CALPIRG had to negotiate to remain on campus in 2001 for violating this policy, ignorance is about the only way to challenge this since it isn't obvious in any rules. —AlexMandel
2007-12-06 23:00:35 We chalked OFF CAMPUS EdWins (except at the colleges). University policy doesn't apply off campus. —EricFriedman
2007-12-07 14:42:40 "No person shall in any public place be guilty of conduct annoying to persons passing or being upon the streets or public grounds or upon adjacent premises. (Code 1964, § 7-8.106.)"
Are you kidding? Only in Davis would such a law be on the books. Please file a complaint against me saying I violated this law!! I can't wait to go to court.