Jesse Rosales is a member of the ASUCD Senate, having won office in the Fall 2007 ASUCD Election running on the GO slate.

His platform to bring a rail jam to UC Davis still remains. Progress has been made in conjunction with the Ski Or Snowboard Club.

Rosales became a center for controversy during the 2008 ASUCD budget hearings, where the president determined that he was extremely intoxicated while attending. The president asked Rosales to leave as a result of that determination. See http://theaggie.org/article/822 and http://theaggie.org/article/824 for more information.

Fall 2007 Election

Rosales received the Davis College Republicans endorsement on November 14, 2007.

2007 Candidate Statement

I will bring professional snowboarders, UFC fighting and increased Ag-outreach to the UC Davis campus. What I will do:

  • I have already been working with the Ski or Snowboard club to bring you a Rail Jam on Toomey Field. This event will feature the exhibition of world-class snowboarding talent performing tricks in front of and for college students.
  • I have also been actively pursuing UFC as an event being held in the ARC Pavilion. UFC Fighting, enough said.
  • As a top-tier agriculture school I feel it necessary to increase Agriculture Awareness and Outreach on the UC Davis campus through increased interaction with Ag student-organizations.

Qualifications:

  • Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity Recruitment Chair
  • Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology Field Assistant
  • Ski or Snowboard Club
  • Seneca Foods Corporation Field Representative, Yuba City/Marysville

Furthermore, my motives for running are simple and sincere. The events I am planning are rare for college campuses to host and as a result, will gain UC Davis much deserved attention and excite students about more events to come. Thanks for your time and your consideration.

Fall 2006 Election

He previously ran for ASUCD Senate on the Student Focus slate in the Fall 2006 ASUCD Election. A minor controversy involved his giving out free energy drinks at a table adorned with his campaign fliers. No court case was filed because his bid was unsuccessful and the drinks were part of a promotion unrelated to his Senate bid (Senate candidates are often involved with multiple organizations, due to the candidates' level of activity on campus). The first time he ran for ASUCD Senate he promised to bring a rail jam to the campus on the UC Davis quad. At the time he didn't have any cost estimates.

Comments:

You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2007-11-17 13:07:22   Forget the controversy about the 2006 elections, what about the Thursday Mixed Shoes party. They placed three commuters connected to the Internet right next to the beer kegs. Every time a person would go up for a drink, one of the AGR members would "carefully" ask you if you heard about Jesse, I was asked, "do you know Jesse Morales, did you vote for him? You should vote for him." And they passed the drink. Then I turned my back, and saw the three computers conveniently logged onto the ucd-voting page. I may be wrong, but that sounds alot worse then free energy drinks while campaigning. —AndrewVatobob

  • Heh, wow, funny you bring this up now. I don't think anyone has thought about this in the past. Well, I believe the US government has some laws against distributing alcohol too close to their own polling places, but I don't know exactly how one would find it for reference. Since ASUCD is modeled after the US government, it might be a good idea for someone, or perhaps a group of people, to create some legislation making such activity illegal. At the very least, you might as well let the Elections Committee know of your suspicion. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

2007-11-17 16:19:14   There is no need to go into detail, because I know this will just turn into an arguement, but I know for a fact that what you are reporting is inaccurate. Maybe, it had something to do with the fact that you were drinking and intoxicated, and just can't remember what actually happened? —HSeigenfeld


2007-11-17 16:34:31   LOL, this is funny. I did a quick Facebook investigation and at this time can conclude that AndrewVatobob is really Andrew Vargas, and that HSeigenfeld is using his real name". Based on each person's Facebook profile picture history, I can conclude that HSeigenfeld is a GO supporter, but that AndrewVatobob's political bias is currently unknown, if there even is any. I don't know if the allegations are true or not, but I still think it would be a good idea to legislate against such behavior for future ASUCD elections. —PaulAmnuaypayoat

  • Legislate against such things? Campaigning by polling stations is already against the ASUCD bylaws. GO or whoever Eric Friedman affiliates himself with will just continue to ignore the rules anyway. They already campaigned in the dorms when that's not ok. -wl
    • I remember that William because I was part of the coalition back in January 2005 that created the massive election reform bill. I was specifically referring to the need for ASUCD to have a "no alcohol at the polling station" election rule similar to the no alcohol rule that the US government has for its elections. I am sure that once the investigations are complete, the GO people will be sanctioned appropriately for their misdeeds. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

2007-11-17 17:33:20   Andrew's story isn't an isolated incident, someone who lives on my floor said the exact same thing to me two days ago. I suppose it's too easy to blame intoxication when you caused it, eh? —EliYani


2007-11-18 01:43:36   The point is no beer was given for a vote, many people voted for different candidates or not at all, and more importantly what occurred did not violate any bylaws. —HSeigenfeld

  • H Seigenfeld, while what occurred may not have been against the bylaws, it definitely raises some moral questions about creating an environment of intoxicated voting. As I stated above, the US government (our real government), has laws against distributing alcohol too close to its own polling places for good reason. The fact that you publicly defended such action is quite frankly a bad idea in my opinion. Anyone trying to research you over the internet, such a future employer, will eventually see that you defended a grossly unfair set of actions in a very serious process (remember we are supposed to choose people who will manage TEN MILLION DOLLARS). Ask yourself, would you hire someone who just said what you said, especially when you need someone to be trustworthy? Remember, being "immoral" is not a protected class, and people will be allowed to discriminate against you for that. As for the bylaws, there is a chance that there will be bylaws created in the future to make illegal what you just tried to defend. I see from your profile that you are still kinda new to ASUCD, and I would like to suggest that instead of joining the potentially wrong side of it, you might want to explore a better side of it. There is still time for you to help make a positive difference in ASUCD, if you choose to do so. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

ASUCD Bylaw 411(C) States: "Any candidate actively campaigning under one of the following conditions on any ASUCD Election Day shall receive one (1) violation point per offence. (1) Within any one hundred (100) foot horizontal plane from any potential stationary polling station. (2) Inside any computer lab on campus, including departmental computer labs and UC Davis Residence Hall computer labs. (3) Actively campaigning to an individual while the individual is using any potential mobile polling station, such as an electronic device with Internet access.

Any 'non-candidate' in violation of these rules will be removed from the premises and subject to referral to Student Judicial Affairs." Now, I'm pretty sure that what you described above could fall under 411(C)(3). However, if it wasn't Jesse, then no violation points can be assessed. Either way, it still isn't legal, and SJA could come knocking soon. -MM


2007-11-18 13:06:04   You do have the correct bylaws, the only problem is you do not know the definition of "active campaigning": flyering or wearing a partisan shirt is the current definition of active campaigning until that changes, it is "legal". While this may sound unethical, both sides were taking adavantage of this situation, I know for a fact lead members were campaigning (non-activdeely) and directing and a polling station within one hundred feet of a lead candidate on campus. So in light of fairness do not direct your biased attention towards the opposing slate, show respect and seek to change the bylaws if this is such an irritation. —HSeigenfeld

  • Hmmmm let me see....
  • <dt> ASUCD Bylaw 401 (C) states:</dt><dd>

(1) Active campaigning shall be defined as verbal or physical actions taken by a candidate, group of candidates, or other individual(s) in an attempt to persuade voters to support their chosen cause such as the Election itself, specific candidate(s), Ballot Measures, or any other issue/idea related to any entity participating in an ASUCD Election. -JimSchwab


2007-11-18 13:30:33   Working in the legislature you must know there is a difference between how a law is written and how it is interpreted, while you may have the less important written portion down, you are lacking the interpretation, which is levied by the elections committee, an attempt to mess with that interpretation would breed consequences for both slates, and I doubt you would want anything to happen to the lead candidates —HSeigenfeld

  • I do know. I also know the LEAD candidates did not cheat. -JimSchwab
  • HSeigenfeld, could you, or anyone for that matter, elaborate for us what LEAD candidates have done that might be considered controversial, please? If at all possible, please follow the same format used on this page. I feel that this wiki community has definitely seen a anti-GO slant these past few days with regards to potential elections violations, and it would be enlightening for the rest of the Davis community if we could see what the LEAD people have allegedly done. - Paul Amnuaypayoat
    • I think that's a bit of false logic to say the GO controversies are a pro-LEAD slant. The GO controversies are better labeled an anti-GO slant, if you want to label them at all. When FUCK posted all the crap about Student Focus it was not labeled pro-FUCK/SOSSS (as cool as that sounds). -JamesSchwab
      • You are right James, I fixed the above. I also laughed when I said your statement out loud :D - Paul Amnuaypayoat

2007-11-18 15:11:51   By the silo two known lead members (not wearing shirts) were within striking distance of candidate Tracey Zeng and other African American Lead supporters wearing their shirts actively campaigning within 100 feet of the two individuals manning the poll, Jeremy Ross is aware of this and did nothing and I left it at that. So please when reporting information on the "anti-go slant" do so fully informed and fairly to the anti-lead slant. As you may have noticed I am not hear nor on Tracey Zeng's page representing this information, but was asked to give it. The problem in my eyes is the bias put out in this and every other attack. Yes this is problem and it should be dealt with, but stop associating it with one slate and not the other. Lead has made it their agenda to misrepresent and assign blame and controversy to GO, we have not and will not ever lower ourselves to this level and I encourage you to flex your strength over the organization you founded and keep this pettiness out of politics.

HSeigenfeld

  • I think one factor here is that there are not enough regular GO users on this wiki to properly counter balance anything that anti-GO users might write about. For example, when Brent created the Fall 2007 ASUCD Election/GO Controversies entry and tried to link to it from the Featured Page, I was the one that had to go in and delete the link to it from the Featured Page, and then aftwards I had to engage Brent in an edit war on the controversies page to make it more compliant with wiki standards (not that I am 100% bias free, but I was acting out of a respect for wiki ethics). It would be nice to have more GO users monitoring the wiki, since like it or not, everyone in the community deserves representation. The concern at this point is the average wiki user, who might not have the experience and knowledge to realize that despite what has already been written, it might not necessarily be the case that LEAD is 100% innocent and GO is 100% not innocent. The Davis Wiki should shy away from such absolute statements when dealing with very subjective objects such as ASUCD politics, but there are some users who wish for otherwise, and therefore we need other users to exist as a balance. I know that this might seem like an ugly solution to petty politics, but unless we make it so that a trained moderator has to approve of all edits, we need as many people as possible to participate, so that the wiki can continue to "fix itself". - Paul Amnuaypayoat

2007-11-18 15:29:53   I don't understand your first sentence. Are you saying Tracey and some supporters, who you identify as African American for some reason, were actively campaigning within 100 feet? —JamesSchwab


2007-11-18 16:06:13   Too bad for you Tracey actually asked Jeremy Ross to verify that her distance was appropriate...and he said yes. I wonder what he would have said if GO volunteers and supporters asked him about campaigning in front of kegs with laptops, or campaigning door to door in the dorms, or shouting homophobic slurs, or giving away free coffee, or giving away energy drinks to vote? Don't even try to put yourselves on the same level as LEAD this election. LEAD, by choice, did not break the rules. Is it petty to hold GO candidates to the rules they agreed not to break? NO. Why do we even have to explain why exchanging free beer or free energy drinks or free coffee for votes is bad? —PaulHarms


2007-11-18 17:28:07   Sorry I did post that hastily, Jeremy Ross "let it slide" and allowed me to the right to verify (in the form of a measruing tape), which I did not elect to take. In this particular scenario I informed both her and the Lead supporters brandishing shirts (who were to close according to Jeremy Ross's established interpretation in this case), of their distance, Tracey like I said before not held accountable and I do not wish to hold her accountable, I only involved myself in that particular situation to make sure she was in the clear, you can ask her that personally. Furthermore I will establish once again that no beer was given for votes, and would challenege you to prove otherwise. And to the proximity to polling lead supporters were as close as any Go supporters considering in both cases polling was manned by supporters.

So to clear things up Jeremy Ross established that no shirts, fliers, or candidates could be within 100 feet of polling, and neither side in both situations was at fault. If you wish to argue that campaigning outside of those realms occured, it did but both sides were found doing this, and I would love to hear what lead thinks about attacking your parties own actions Paul. —HSeigenfeld

  • Could you elaborate on how Paul H. attack his own party? - Paul Amnuaypayoat
    • Yes, please. I'm curious as well. -Paul H

2007-11-18 18:15:44   He is finding fault in campaigning tactics used by both slates, while only meaning to attack the GO slate, he is as a byproduct attacking his own slate and their methods. —HSeigenfeld

You find me LEAD campaigning in the dorms or setting up voting stations near kegs while actively campaigning and I'll find fault with them. As it stands, I'm not really pro-LEAD, but rather anti-GO because of all of this shadiness. -wl


2007-11-18 19:34:08   First off, I didn’t post this based off of political bias, I posted this information because it didn't seem right to me. To my defense HSeignfeld, I wasn't intoxicated because I acted as the DD for the day, plus I’m not a fan of parties on Thursdays. At the party, they weren't trading drinks for votes, but the setup was defiantly suggesting it. I first thought that the laptops were out so that people could select music to play, but that quickly changed when three more where brought out. Everything fell together when I saw the keg handlers all sporting GO shirts that where turned inside out, and would give people a quick spew on Jesse before they handed out the alcohol

AndrewVatobob


2007-11-18 19:57:18   To sum it up he said they did not do anything wrong. —HSeigenfeld

  • Top sum it up he described active campaigning. - JimSchwab
    • To sum it up it sounds like people were shadily campaigning for Rosales, but that he did not do anything wrong himself. —BrentLaabs

2007-11-18 21:06:23   No, campaigning to intoxicated people with a mobile polling station two feet from them is wrong. —AndrewVatobob

Sure it's wrong, but Rosales wasn't there. I haven't seen anything say that he helped plan this — it could have been independent supporters acting independently. —BrentLaabs


2007-11-18 21:31:04   Brent-

I don't think the definition of active campaigning requires proof of direction from a candidate or slate. ...or other individual(s) in an attempt to persuade voters to support their chosen cause such as the Election itself, specific candidate(s), Ballot Measures, or any other issue/idea related to any entity participating in an ASUCD Election.JamesSchwab


2007-11-18 21:36:49   I don't know about Jesse Rosales that much. But I do know his girlfriend. Jesse's got himself a girl, and I want to make her mine. And she's watching him with those eyes, and she's lovin' him with that body, I just know it. Yeah 'n' he's holding her in his arms late, late at night. You know, I wish that I had Jesse's girl. I wish that I had Jessie's girl! Where can I find a woman like that? I wish that I had Jesse's girl. —BrentLaabs


2008-05-23 10:47:22   Did this rival party get him drunk and force him to come to the budget hearing and force him to disrupt it and misbehave? That's quite an evil conspiracy! —JamesSchwab


2008-05-23 11:34:51   Attendance of some senators was poor for fear of being Jesse Rosales. I loved budget hearings. —GregWebb


2008-05-26 03:37:06   Wait, if the writer of the article, James Noonan, was indeed correct in asserting that Rosales was intoxicated at the meeting, why is this incident being reported in the opinion section of the Aggie rather than some other section that implies fact and not opinion; perhaps the front page or something? We should remember that the Aggie is not infallible, and therefore strive to gain our own access to first hand evidence for our own sake. To be more accurate, I would suggest someone who was actually there write some text describing the incident and making the appropriate attribution. I mean, the people who made the accusations need to be just as responsible for their actions as Rosales is for being drunk in the first place, in case there truly was any malice on the part of Rosales' accusers. Note that this standard is not the same when dealing with sexual assault and rape allegations. —PaulAmnuaypayoat


2008-05-26 10:59:46   Peake, I noted that the president who asked him to leave was of a rival party due to my concern over what Ivan was doing. By attempting to make one of the few elected representatives that was not in the president's party leave, that acted to decrease what little voice Rosales' constituents had there. I may be looking at the subtext of the situation, yes, but I'm sure you can appreciate the importance of someone doing so. I did not notice Jesse appearing intoxicated - although, I admit that I was too busy focusing on the budget, as opposed to the mannerisms of the Senators, and might have missed some aspects of his behavior. If Webb could elaborate further, that would be appreciated. —JoseBleckman

  • Ivan's intentions were probably good, you're thinking too much in the partisan context of things. Even if Jesse was completely sober the entire time, the budget would have come out the same way. I would say my latter point was part of the motivation for Rosales not caring more, why care when the president already has the 2/3 majority to get his budget?

    -GregWebb