Fall 2007 ASUCD Election/Talk

This page is for discussing the contents of Fall 2007 ASUCD Election.

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

Disputed Text

Section One

Unqualified Candidates

On Monday, October 29th GO candidate Brian Goldberg, after signing a document affirming that he was not on academic probation, was forced to remove himself as a candidate, because he was on Academic Probation. This was the first time in over two years that a candidate who had both turned in petition signatures and signed the election contract confirming eligibility was forced to withdraw mid-election. (Earlier in the quarter, before the candidate petition process had started, one of the prospective LEAD candidates also decided not to run for this reason, as has happened pretty much ASUCD election since the beginning of time.)

The above actually doesn't have to be spun as a completely negative. In fact, it could be argued that Brian Goldberg showed a very high level of integrity by voluntarily stepping down after realizing he wasn't eligible to run. Let's not forget about the Fall 2005 scandal where 2 of the candidates were still on disciplinary probation and ran anyway. Neither of the 2 ineligible persons gave up their seats after that election, and as a result of their actions, ASUCD was tremendously harmed to the point where a lot of good people gave up on the government. I know this because I witnessed much of what happened. It should be noted that the ineligible LEAD person involved in the Fall 2005 scandal went on to become the current ASUCD President. I would argue that Brian Goldberg may very well have more professional integrity than the current ASUCD President because Brian decided to not force a repeat of what happened during the Fall 2005 scandal. I am just providing a different viewpoint, and hopefully those involved in the elections now will make the right decisions regarding the Brian Goldberg incident. I would also like to ask that those who live in glass houses not throw stones. - Paul Amnuaypayoat
Who left ASUCD after the Fall 2005 election because of the scandal? -JamesSchwab

I don't think anyone physically left the government immediately after the Fall 2005 scandal broke out, but there was a lot of disillusionment amongst those involved. The ASUCD Court was robbed of its power, the Friends Urging Campus Kindness slate was more or less disbanded after the scandal, the Elections Committee at the time became very cynical of the rest of ASUCD, and Katie Webber and Jenny Yu were wrongfully denied their Senate seats because they were "defeated" by the ineligible candidates. Actually, I think Katie Webber and Jenny Yu were the most directly harmed by this scandal and I am surprised that neither filed their own court cases against anyone. And of course voter turnout doesn't improve when stuff like this happens. All this because 2 individuals didn't want to give up something they never should have had in the first place. In light of this, I think Brian Goldberg did the right thing by leaving, and I would like to suggest to everyone that we completely delete Section 2 (I was a supporter of FUCK, and thus not GO aligned, in case anyone is wondering about my partiality). - Paul Amnuaypayoat

Goldberg was given a choice to either resign or be disqualified, he decided to resign. Jenny Yu went on to chair EAC after her loss. Voter turnout has only increased since Fall 2005. You can re-argue the Fall 2005, but in the end it was a systemic failure that caused that issue- all parties held blame. And FUCK was never meant to be "banded" or to continue, so there never was a future. The two FUCK senators supported Kareem and Natalia being sworn in and the rest of FUCK did not. There might have been disillusionment within FUCK, but there was no long term affect in ASUCD. By the time Kareem and Spencer ran, for better or worse, the Fall 2005 scandal was never even brought up. The Court was not robbed of its power, it has actually grown more influential since 2005 and has had regular members for quite some time now. -JamesSchwab

2007-11-04 19:56:05 Eric — what are your complaints with the text you keep removing. What is the specific reason that they should be removed? Are they untrue? The bit pointing out the use of the ASUCD logo seems really quite odd to me... there's also a UC Davis logo there, which makes sense: Go is a ASUCD Slate at UC Davis. Is there some reason the ASUCD logo shouldn't be there? —JabberWokky

2007-11-04 20:04:54 I just checked the edit history, and it seems that the controversy heading titled "GO Campaigning in the Dorms, Part II" was added by Paul Harms, which is what I was originally asking about earlier tonite. I would like to ask if PH or any other persons know of a "Part II" to the controversy actually occurring, or if the addition was hearsay. If it is indeed fact, we need to add the appropriate text quickly, otherwise we should delete it. As for the other stuff being objected to, Eric or someone needs to explain why it should be deleted. —PaulAmnuaypayoat

2007-11-04 20:07:09 The information posted was false. If you are interested in releasing accurate information, please run anything you would like to post regarding GO by me. —EricFriedman

How was it false? —jw
By the way, that's simply not how things work in the real world. Is the Aggie and people involved in random dorm conversations "running things past you"? I would hope you are not implying that you feel you have flat control over all discussions and information regarding a particular group. I'm certainly interested in figuring out what is correct here. You're not telling anybody how it was incorrect. Was it purely invented, or was it factually misleading or what? —jw

2007-11-04 20:15:36 I was solicited to sign a list serve for the John Dreyer senate campaign in the hallway of my dorm building. I have also heard of similar incidents in other buildings. —JackZwald

2007-11-04 20:19:18 Is it always that when there is an ASUCD election there is childish drama? I dunno, it just seems silly to me that people are so petty about things, they are not concerned with the whole 'getting along' or 'progress', certainly not some 'greater good', I wonder why all the drama, and crap, that keeps happening? —DavidPoole

2007-11-04 20:22:53 I'd agree David, but election law is fairly important seeing as those who follow it are at a disadvantage compared to those who don't. —JackZwald

Which of the above are actually relevant to election law? Is there some sort of thing about the ASUCD logo? There seem to be five allegations (or four, since one lacks any real content). Are they all actually applicable to the election? The content free one seems like it could go. —jw

You mean the election bylaw that bars people running for ASUCD office from using copyrighted material? How bout the housing rule against campaigning in the dorms that has been violated time and time again (there is currently an investigation underway for the record)? Don't obfuscate: there is talk of real relevant violations of election law, university policy, etc. -Jeremy Ross
it is about some stipulation in the bylaws that the asucd logo cannot be applied in certain ways, eg without permission and not to support a certain political view and some stuff like that, I think the case is posted somewhere. ~DP

2007-11-04 20:28:08 Eric is totally wrong about the case. It wasn't lost, it was withdrawn because Brent didn't pay his ASUCD fees and couldn't file a case in the court. Somebody has refiled it and the case will go forward. —WilliamLewis

2007-11-04 20:28:13 Campaigning in the dorms violates ASUCD Bylaw 410 B, " The Elections Committee, after receiving a complaint of a candidate’s violation of University and/or Student Housing Policy including, but not limited to, spamming, solicitations in residence halls and prohibited posting/distribution of campaign materials, will notify Student Judicial Affairs and/or Student Housing of the violations as needed. Note: Complaints may be filed directly with Student Judicial Affairs and/or Student Housing." —JackZwald

Okay, how about changing it to:

GO Campaigns in the Dorms

The California Aggie reported on September 28, 2007 that GO members were asked to leave the student dorms because they were soliciting their slate to freshmen. This was in violation of ASUCD Bylaw 410B, which prohibits such campaigning. GO members (who?) claimed they had the right to be in the dorms, as they were current and former ASUCD Senators. According to the GO officials, they were not doing any form of solicitation, but rather trying to help out freshmen and their families. According to the Tercero Area Service Desk employees who were observing them, they were soliciting. A source inside GO said the GO senators had planned on campaigning while using ASUCD promotion and "helping out" as a cover. (this is kind of odd... is that in the Aggie article?) An editoral in the Aggie appeared a few days after the incident.

JW, where you asked "this is kind of odd... is that in the Aggie article?", I believe based on the edit history, there was some back and forth between Paul Harms and Brent Laabs about how to articulate that point. We really need them to participate in this discussion for more clarification. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

Jack, I just checked Facebook and you seem like a real person, so is the "Part 2" bit really true? What I'd like to know is why Paul Harms added that particular controversy, and no one talked about it's potential content until just now? - Paul Amnuaypayoat

2007-11-04 20:35:06 I am a real person and it is true. To answer your questions: I suppose Paul would add it because he heard about it and knows how to use the wiki, and I was unfamiliar with how to use the wiki and hoped somebody else would articulate it. —JackZwald

2007-11-04 20:38:50 It's drama, not about fairness. Just play fair and get elected. —GregWebb

2007-11-04 20:44:34 As far as I know 1-4 are true and 5 isn't. I'd be willing to add content to four. —JackZwald

Well, 5 isn't completely false. The case (for Brent, at least) was politically motivated. However, it was withdrawn (not lost) and the court was disappointed that they didn't get to hear the issue at hand. This would indicate that the court did not think that it was frivolous. The censure was for withdrawing the case the night of the hearing, getting everyone together and all dressed up, just to do nothing. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case. -wl

2007-11-04 20:48:36 When I heard multiple complaints of GO candidate Dreyer and supporters campaigning door-to-door in the dorms, including Jack's incident, I felt it would be more than appropriate to add a "Part II" to the campaigning in the dorms section. I assure you that this is a real controversy, and that actual complaints have been filed with the elections committee. I would just rather allow someone with clearer details than me post those details under the "Part II" heading. —PaulHarms

2007-11-04 20:49:15 "Frivolous, Politically Motivated" shouldn't go into that. The ASUCD court was bored and Laabs files cases so that they won't be bored. I don't see political motivation in that. —GregWebb

2007-11-04 20:51:11 Ah! Shouldn't three and five be merged into one? They seem to be the same issue. —JabberWokky

2007-11-04 20:51:25 When I heard multiple complaints of GO candidate Dreyer and supporters campaigning door-to-door in the dorms, including Jack's incident, I felt it would be more than appropriate to add a "Part II" to the campaigning in the dorms section. I assure you that this is a real controversy, and that actual complaints have been filed with the elections committee. I would just rather allow someone with clearer details than to me post those details under the "Part II" heading. —PaulHarms

2007-11-04 20:58:43 Yeah, I think at this point Section One is pretty well cited as an event. I'm uncertain about Two, as there were lots of candidates that appeared to drop out... was Brian the only to do so after the filing? He claimed his GPA was over the lower limit, and he signed in good faith. If that section is kept, and that is true, it should decidedly be included. As it is, it seems fairly minor (if it was an honest technicality). —JabberWokky

* for the record, yes Brian was the only candidate to resign (or in any way cease to be a candidate) after the petitions were turned in.

jeremyross

2007-11-04 21:00:35 Paul Harms, you and Brent had some back and forth about this sentence in Section 1: "A source inside GO said the GO senators had planned on campaigning while using ASUCD promotion and "helping out" as a cover." Could you tell everyone if the sentence, as written, is factually true please? —PaulAmnuaypayoat

If it's true, Brent will know. All I know is what the Tercero Area Service Desk employees told me (and they approached me!) I've never really talked to GO insiders about it. -PH

2007-11-04 21:23:20 P.S. I love how much GO is acting like Student Focus ... http://daviswiki.org/Fall_2004_Election/Campaigning_in_Dorms_Controversy ... I'm not sure Chris Herold would have allowed this to happen, though. —PaulHarms

In response to the link above, Kris Fricke wrote in an Aggie guest opinion "I want both the candidates and members of the Elections Committee to know that rigorous adherence to the rules and justice in ASUCD are goals that are attainable." (http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2004/11/18/Opinion/Guest.Opinion-1318807.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com) I think this quote should be integrated into this Fall 2007 Election page, if possible.

2007-11-05 21:48:50 I'd like to point out another issue that I feel senate and ASUCD as a whole should tackle. I know it may not belong here, so please move/revert it accordingly.

Last Thursday and Friday I was approached by Brent Laabs, asking me for help with the early voting booth inside the MU. When I went to the booth (which was across from the campus post office) I was told by two ladies who worked for the election office that the turnout and support they get from the student body will determine whether or not a voting booth will continue to be available at the MU during elections. Laabs had made it clear to me that the representatives from the election office were not receiving the assistance they needed, something that ASUCD should've promised to the Yolo County election offices. I understand that during the elections there are multiple places within Davis where an individual can vote (some which are spitting distance away from campus), but to lose the on campus voting station is a reflection of our political apathy. I would strongly recommend that senators and other officials who are purveyors of free speech and equality also look to remind the community of their duty to vote. —EmilyTung

2007-11-05 22:38:13 Jack Zwald is an intern for Andrew Peake, I thought I would just that add that in there. —RonPayne

LOL, now it makes sense. I thought it was funny that some no-name freshman could just tell some other stranger that they were violating the bylaws, considering that the freshmen dorm residents would have been UCD students for an entire six weeks as of November 2, 2007. This probably won't affect the outcome of any pending investigations but will likely result in this wiki page citing another incident of a LEAD aligned person stirring the pot, which would then lessen the impact on public opinion. Please review the above proposed content for section 4 and let me know if it is accurate enough for the actual article. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

Though I don't see why it matters who I work for or who I'm aligned with, the proposed description of the incident seems alright to me.

2007-11-05 23:28:41 In a world where Brent is considered a LEAD sympathizer, you know GO must be doing something really fucking wrong.

Paul, you'd be surprised now how many freshmen get involved now in ASUCD their first week on campus. Over the past two years everyone has been strongly outreaching to freshmen and getting them involved early. —JamesSchwab

That's good to hear, James, considering that so many still graduate from UCD without knowing anything about ASUCD. Let's just hope that everyone continues to outreach in a positive and effective manner, rather than resort to illegal methods during elections seasons. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

2007-11-05 23:53:40 It looks like Jason Aller uploaded a picture of a vandalized GO sign to the article's files, but has not yet added the code needed to display the picture. Does anyone know any info surrounding that picture? Do we need to discuss another controversy item surrounding it? —PaulAmnuaypayoat

It appears that GO decided to steal the anarchy logo as well - GregWebb

2007-11-06 08:06:04 All of your complaints and whining mean absolutely nothing because the elections committee is not issuing any violation points against JD. It doesn't matter if a fraternity brother of JD's asked you to vote for him in the dorms. Did JD ask you? The Bylaw you cite specifically says if a candidate violates student housing policy, they will be punished accordingly. Are you aware of student housing policy? Did the elections committee receive a complaint from student housing claiming that JD violated such policy?

Jack: You're credibility is severely in question. An impressionable freshmen LEAD drone who knows nothing about the ASUCD elections codes saying they were solicited in the dorms by the opposing party.

Speaking of violating policy, I was wondering if anyone knew anything about one of the GO a-frames being vandalized? It seems like certain people really don't want us to win this election. We'll, in my mind that means we're doing a good job. =) —EricFriedman

Eric: Your credibility is severely in question. You don't know the difference between you're and your, or at least which one is appropriate to use at which time. You also outright lied on the wiki about Brent's court case. You tried to censor material here, presumably after seeing it didn't work with Ostrowski. Also, three of your candidates don't have wiki pages as of this comment. One of your candidates even left your slate when he heard what kinds of shady things you were planning on doing. You didn't do due diligence to see that all your candidates were eligible for office. You might want to consider letting someone who has half a clue or better take over your position as campaign manager. You're doing one hell of a job.

P.S. Please stfu about representing the Jewish community. The only Jew you represent is yourself. -wl

2007-11-06 08:09:01 I move to strike everything in the disputed text section.

Let me say again, GO's a-frames were vandalized!! This will be reported to the Elections committee and SPAC. —EricFriedman

2007-11-06 08:30:14 Wow Eric, looks like someone knows how to only break the spirit of the law and not the written law. Good job on that. Good thing GO is only sending non-candidates into the dorms, because that doesn't break any rules at all. Thats what I like about GO/Student Focus, they find the cheap loopholes in the by-laws which then allows ASUCD folks to close those loopholes. Unless the rules have change since I managed campaigns, the elections committee says to the slates "Do not campaign in the dorms", I don't recall there ever being an exception like "Do not campaign in the dorms, except for your fraternity brothers, friends, or volunteers." Either way, if a candidate of non-candidate got caught campaigning in the dorms, it is noteworthy. You still have not denied that GO has campaigned in the dorms, so you have not disputed Jack's statement.

*Enough of this talk. The supposed violation is in the hands of Student Judicial Affairs. I filed a complaint with them after a student filed a complaint with me as required by the bylaws. jeremyross

From what I heard, Guy Fawkes Day may have something to do with the vandalism. —JamesSchwab

That would make sense, most people I have talked to had no idea that the Go Vote A frames had anything to do with ASUCD. Most people figure that they are for the election and are to remind people to vote. The syntax is a little confusing. Anyway, even though I am positive that this had nothing to do with LEAD, if it will make Eric feel better I will fix the sign myself. Andrew

2007-11-06 09:23:39 WL: I don't know who this is, but obviously you are too much of a coward and anti-semite to use your full name. Lied about the court case? Is it not true that Brent Laabs got censured by the court? What candidate are you talking about? Goldberg left because he couldn't run due to his GPA. You are straight up lying. I would like to meet you in person so you can say these things to my face.

I assume by your comments that you are Jewish. Obviously one of those self hating types. If you're associated with Brent Laabs, definitely one of those self hating types.

Schwab: These are not loopholes. The Bylaws are very clear, it's not up to interpretation. Freshmen that are fed misinformation create this drama

You know, I'm tired of this back and forth. This is all politics. We have a week to go. May the best slate win! —EricFriedman

Thanks for proving my point Eric. Also have you looked beyond the by-laws to student housing rules? Its called solicitation. Student Housing won't even let people go into the dorms to register people to vote. So sending a volunteer into the dorms to talk to freshmen is definitely considered solicitation by student housing. It can result in a Student Judicial Affairs referral which is not the best reward for volunteering for GO. So even if it does not directly affect a candidate, it directly affets the volunteer. I think it's pretty fucked up for GO not to tell its volunteers that. -JamesSchwab

I don't mind using my full name. I'm William Lewis. I am one of the most prolific editors on DavisWiki. I'm especially proud of my work on the various bike pages on here. I've been on here since mid-2005, before I even came to Davis. Typing "-wl" is faster than linking to my user page and those who have been here for awhile recognize that as my short signature. I'm not ashamed of anything. You'll also notice that other people do the same thing I'm doing.

You claimed that Brent lost the case and was censured because it was frivolous and politically motivated. Neither of those things are true. The case was withdrawn by the plaintiff because he knew it would be dismissed anyway since he hadn't paid his ASUCD fees at the time of filing. The court stated that the censure was for dropping the case with insufficient notice, too soon to cancel the hearing. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case. In fact, the court was disappointed that they couldn't hear the case because they thought the question under consideration was an interesting one. Since your campaign was a party to the case, you should have known this and ignorance doesn't seem like a probable excuse.

As for the person who left GO because you guys were shady, I was misinformed. I apologize for this. The person who left you guys wasn't a candidate, but Jack Zwald, a freshman who was trying to get involved in student politics when he fell in with you guys. Surely you know the rest of the story and I don't need to reiterate it for you.

I am amused that you labeled me an anti-Semite. What did I say that was degrading or insulting to Semitic people at large? I only complained about your particular behavior, not that of the Jewish people as a whole. What is up with people throwing out that label whenever Judaism comes up and the other party disagrees, anyway? The terminology is stupid as the Jews aren't the only Semitic people. -wl

WL: Congratulations on your Wiki accomplishments. My belief is that Brent Laabs filed the case for political reasons. That is my belief and it's OK to disagree with me. I was very upset that he withdrew the case, as I was looking forward to arguing it. We had a slam dunk and lucky for Brent, it seems that Ostroski will now get humiliated.

Jack came to our first meeting and then decided to join LEAD. He obviously has more in common with LEAD than GO. That's OK. GO wasn't right for him and he recognized that. I wish him the best of luck, but I am concerned that he is starting to participate in what LEAD does best: negative campaigning.

What is it about my behavior that upsets you? Is it my perseverance? Is it my firm belief that what I am doing is right and for the greater good of ASUCD and the student body. I have never met you, so you are in no position to comment on my behavior.—Eric

Negative campaigning? I am curious, what are some examples? I am curious because in every LEAD campaign I've either managed or volunteered for, we stress over and over again to keep it positive. And as candidates, to only talk about yourself and what you want to do. If someone is going negative, publicly I would like to hear about it. -JamesSchwab
"The Difference Between LEADing and GOing", by Andrew Peake

GO's promises.

So every year prospective ASUCD Senators promise to do things. Wonderful things. Thanks to DavisWiki.org many of these promises live on today on the internets.

So who kept their promises?

Eric Friedmen promised to work on 10 different specific issues. He accomplished one.

Alex Frick is zero for four.

Mara didn't promise anything that I could find.

Here is what the three outgoing senators from GO promised last year when they ran:
-Bring more bands and performers to the quad free of cost to you
-Increase sports and recreation events that you can participate i
-Work for the expansion and reliability of wireless internet access on campus
-Work toward getting you units for taking classes at the Experimental College
-Adopt-a-club - We'll regularly come to your clubs and groups even after we're elected to keep you informed
-Create a centralized website for you to learn about student organizations and for existing groups to post infor for new members

How many of this things were accomplished?

ZERO

So when you see these new Student Focus/GO candidates ask them how they will be different then their mentors.

I know I didn't include the LEAD Senators.

Why?

Because we achieve or goals. That is why we are LEADers.

Sounds pretty negative to me.

Thank you for citing the above text from Andrew Peake, Emily. Unfortunately, LEAD is not completely innocent of the negativity that exists during an election. I think it's unfortunate that Jack is currently connected to Andrew Peake, since regardless of the legitimacy of the complaint he filed, it will still be viewed as a LEAD aligned attack against GO, and thus a negative campaigning action. If we want to make this part of the controversy more objective, we should cite a completely neutral person (as in completely unconnected to any ASUCD person) filing a complaint. We know there were at least 2 others who filed a complaint besides Jack, right? Let's see if they would be willing to reveal themselves to us. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

* Only one complaint that I'm aware of, and I'm the elections chair.
jeremyross

Yeah, it is pretty negative. Sometimes facts are negative. Sometimes facts are positive. Oh, to provide context, this was a note on facebook, if I had known it was going on the wiki I might have paid more attention to the grammar.

And I agree with Paul, it does hurt Jack's case that he is a LEAD member, but this wasn't from LEAD down, I didn't know about the dorm issue until I read it on the Wiki. - Andrew

I agree, not completing any of your promises is pretty negative. -JamesSchwab

I'm sorry James, but if you can't accept the fact that what Andrew wrote on his Facebook was some form of "negative campaigning" then there is no purpose to have any conversation about this with you. Negative campaigning, in my opinion, is saying anything that is mean spirited and disparaging. Andrew may have pointed out facts (and I think he may have done it in response to Eric's comments, I don't know), but he did so to put another group/individual in a negative light. There's nothing wrong with negative campaigning and you don't need to be ashamed by the fact that some of your former party members do do it. -EmilyTung

I guess we don't share the same definition of negative. Could the note have been written in a more respectful manner? Of course. But pointing out promises not kept is not negative, even if it does cast people in a bad light, the truth is the truth. Elected officials need to have light shone on them to keep them honest, if its negative light maybe they'll clean up their act. If you are not involved in ASUCD, it is rare that you know the day to day routine in ASUCD. Most people learn about the candidates from flyers, face to face or on a website. Like Joe Chatham rightly pointed out, there is no neutral source of information. The Aggie hardly covers anything in ASUCD. So when a few GO members go around telling people that LEAD did not keep any of their promises over the past two years, or that LEAD only cares about "mexicans, palenstians and gays", responding to that with a note like Andrews would seem appropriate. -JamesSchwab

2007-11-06 09:40:46 the volunteers you are referring to live in the dorms. We can't prevent people that live in the dorms from talking about the elections with their friends. Would you have the same objection if dorms residents were talking about the '08 Presidential election with their friends? Orthe election that is occurring today? Random people are not soliciting in the dorms as you are asserting. All you are doing is speculating base on a false piece of information. —EricFriedman

"Talking with their friends" isn't the same as approaching a stranger to talk about a fraternity brother, come on. That sounds weasle-like. I think the freshman just got unlucky that the other freshman is ASUCD involved, but it doesn't change what it really is/was. I feel like I've heard about people in the dorms every year since I was a freshman, I doubt that ASUCD involved people will claim ignorance to the spirit of the law. edit for: Heh, there are links above to dorm campaigning, I knew it wasn't just deja vu. -ES
I live in the dorms, but after talking to the Segundo Conduct Coordinator (this was before I went public with my allegations) I found out that it is in fact solicitation. I couldn't do what he was doing, troll for names with a clipboard, in my own building let alone somebody else's. And in regards to claims that I don't know the Bylaws I'll claim I don't know them backwards and forwards, but I looked at them shortly after this happened to find out if it is against regulation. And as far as I can tell it is, 410 B. "The Elections Committee, after receiving a complaint of a candidate’s violation of University and/or Student Housing Policy including, but not limited to, spamming, solicitations in residence halls and prohibited posting/distribution of campaign materials, will notify Student Judicial Affairs and/or Student Housing of the violations as needed. Note: Complaints may be filed directly with Student Judicial Affairs and/or Student Housing.”

2007-11-06 10:11:41 One, Four and Five all look good. Three seems to duplicate Five. Anybody have any objections to making One, Four and Five live and gutting this talk page down to the remaining Section Two? —JabberWokky

2007-11-06 15:09:30 GO has a funny way of increasing outreach to freshmen: get them involved in ASUCD by learning the by-laws because they believe GO is breaking the rules. It's a bit awkward, but it appears to be working. —JamesSchwab

Don't forget SPAC regulations James. I perused those as well.

2007-11-06 15:27:18 The a-frame was vandalized in the exact same way the wall of Young Hall was vandalized, which currently features a large Anarchy symbol. I doubt the defacing of the GO a-frame was politically motivated. It's a shame though. I caught brothers of an opposing candidate ripping down my freshly tacked fliers during my campaign, so I understand GO's pain. :( Also, I was just wondering how a brother of JD can be a freshman in the dorms? Do they initiate 4 weeks after recruitment? —AndrewBianchi

2007-11-06 19:59:14 I certainly don't think it's fair to say that Jack Zwald is engaging in "negative campaigning" for complaining about solicitation in his place of residence. It's not Jack's fault, my fault, the Election Committee's fault, or Student Judicial Affairs' fault that GO chose to break the rules. GO could have kept their volunteers and candidates away from the residence halls. GO could also remove the ASUCD logo from their website at any time. GO still has a chance to properly account for all campaign expenditures. I'm wondering how many more sections will be added to this Election/Talk before next Friday. —PaulHarms

2007-11-06 23:14:28 Controversies: Section 5. Andrew Peake writes hurtful facebook note. Any takers? —PaulHarms

2007-11-07 00:23:40 Stop being petty and start getting shit done. —RobRoy

ROFL, Rob. I think you and I both know that when it comes to nearly any government, such a request will go nowhere during an election season. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

2007-11-07 16:25:04 It's been a day: anybody want to move One, Four and Five back into the main entry and remove them? They seem to have stabilized, and the time I suggested it, nobody complained. That way the talk entry can be deleted or at least cropped down to just Section Two. —JabberWokky

2007-11-08 11:05:59 In the subtitles I'd like to have GO Campaigns in the dorms part I and I changed to GO Allegedly Campaigns in the dorms part I and II. I know on the first incident no campaigning was going on, and while I'm unsure exactly what went down in the second incident, considering that the only witness is a "LEAD"er, that makes me feel highly skeptical. Since these incidents are being batted around in a "he said" "she said" manner, I feel its inappropriate to have them titled in such a way that takes a side on that matter. —JoseBleckman