Monday, July 24th 2006
Students Protest City Council’s Involvement in ASUC
Late this afternoon around 10 Berkeley students attended a city meeting to let the city council know they wanted them to stay out of ASUC matters. The item which will be considered during tomorrow’s meeting declares the city’s support of the disqualified Student Action executive candidates. The measure not only contains a few errors, but also infringes upon the internal matters of the ASUC.
Speaking for the sign holders, incoming CalSERVE Senator Lisa Ang addressed those assembled. She stressed the importance of ASUC autonomy. Then students placed pawns (actually bishops) in front of the city council members. The pieces symbolized the students desire to keep the council from trying to control the ASUC.
If you wish to join the bipartisan effort to keep ASUC matters inside the organization or to help Student Action get a resolution in their favor you can attend the council meeting tomorrow at Old City Hall from 7-7:30 to voice your opinion.
Daily Cal Letters
Today there were Daily Cal letters in support of and against the Student Action supporting city council resolution. I give credit to Mickey for being one of the few people willing to sign his name to pro-SA commentary.
Those are some really nice signs.
Comment by Andy R. — 7/24/2006 @ 10:33 pm
Notice the hands on the really nice signs…’cause they’re mine.
It’d be cool if the summer schedules of most students didn’t preclude them from actually physically being there when the BCC attempts to intervene in their own student government…just sayin’.
Comment by Punch My Ballot — 7/24/2006 @ 11:02 pm
one of the ‘few’ people willing to sign their name to the pro-SA commentary? Chris,
Comment by giancarlo — 7/25/2006 @ 2:02 pm
sorry hit enter by accident. Chris, I think part of the reason is that not everyone likes writing to the daily cal or posting to blogs that are biased against SA.
Comment by giancarlo — 7/25/2006 @ 2:04 pm
On Calstuff you are correct, it is very biased against SA. But I don’t think many people feel the same about Daily Cal. Since they aren’t the greatest at journalism, their sloppiness has actually led to favorable reporting for SA (or at least, reporting that has downplayed the seriousness of everything thats happened)
Comment by Eddy Crochetiere — 7/25/2006 @ 2:40 pm
Isn’t it odd how every information outlet is anti-SA? Especially in a society where anyone can start their own information outlet?
Comment by Beetle — 7/25/2006 @ 3:13 pm
wait… this BCC meeting is separate from the one that considers the measure?
Comment by bobby gregg — 7/25/2006 @ 6:12 pm
Beetle- that’s because not everyone has enough free time to set up a blog and all the so called anti sa blogs are from the 7 people that were against sa in the 1st place
Comment by hey dude — 7/25/2006 @ 8:37 pm
Which was the 1st place? Being “against SA” in this election was a joke, since they were running practically unopposed. Normally, these blogs would be “pro SA” by virtue of their valuing SA over CalSERVE, but that wasn’t apparent this year.
By the way, since only seven people were against SA in the first place, they sure became unpopular fast, judging from the vote counts.
Comment by Beetle — 7/25/2006 @ 8:42 pm
Also, setting up a blog doesn’t take a lot of free time.
Comment by Beetle — 7/25/2006 @ 8:43 pm
just cuz someone votes for someone other than SA doesnt mean they are anti-sa
Comment by hey dude — 7/25/2006 @ 9:15 pm
Neither does disliking those who issue executive orders declaring themselves victors.
Comment by Beetle — 7/25/2006 @ 9:23 pm
If anyone out there would like to fight against the established blogs and their bias starting your own blog would be great. Beetle has a link that explains the basic setup. It takes about then ten minutes and is free.
Drop a link here if you ever do make one.
Comment by Chris Page — 7/25/2006 @ 9:46 pm
beetle’s advice has done wonder’s for me, it’ll do wonders for you to.
and just so that it’s out there. i’m not anti-sa. they’re just the easiest to whine about because they’re being the stupidest right now. when the tides change, so will my rants.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/26/2006 @ 1:07 am
that anon above was me
Comment by Calaholic — 7/26/2006 @ 1:08 am
Why would it matter if all the bloggers were against Student Action? It would just be the political expression of a constituency. Ultimately, it is up to the whole voting population to filter the information and render a decision.
I don’t care what blogger supports what party, as long as they all are playing the same game, all trying to win authority from the elecorate.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/26/2006 @ 1:19 am
…trying to win authority from the elecorate….the rules be damned!
You don’t like the disqualifications? Well maybe this year the Senate majority from SA should change elction rules where there are none.
The electorate had its pick! from candidates still in the race.
Comment by HB — 7/26/2006 @ 6:24 am
If the electorate had it’s pick from the candidates still in the race we would hold another election for a new decision, in this scenario, the deciding votes were nullified and the minority decision adopted.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/26/2006 @ 11:15 am
In a ranked choice voting system, this is done without the need for a new election.
Comment by Beetle — 7/26/2006 @ 12:20 pm
gotta agree with beetle. that’s the whole point of ranking and instant runoff.
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/26/2006 @ 1:36 pm
Tuesday July 25 at 6:30p.m. at old City Hall - Moon Conjoins Mars - it will be heated day. haha.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/26/2006 @ 4:51 pm
So what happened?
Comment by Anonymous — 7/26/2006 @ 4:53 pm
Do BCR protest? Why the hell do we need CityHell to mediate our student problems? If Suken Vakil lied when testifying about party campaign violations – lets punish him ourselves.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/26/2006 @ 5:07 pm
Instant runoff voting is designed to make a second choice contingent on the decision of the other voters . The first spot is a voter’s primary choice of who to place in office, and the ranks further down are choices contingent upon the electorate’s rejection of the selections higher up. This makes it possible to shuffle votes for nonviable candidates to major ones in the final tally to create a majority.
When judges overturn the primary result and institute a secondary, they implement the second choice contrary to the will of the electorate, not on the contingent on their decision; this is the exact same result as if they had given the office to the runner up in a non ranked voting system.
There’s no way you can spin it, the council is reversing the democratic decision of an election.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/27/2006 @ 9:50 am
Your original thought was that there should be a new decision to decide among the remaining candidates, yet alternative voting avoids this. (We don’t use IRV) Regardless if this occurs via a lack of popular support or via the rules put in place by democratically elected officials, this remains true.
Comment by Beetle — 7/27/2006 @ 10:32 am
True, nullifying the majority votes in any system leads to the same result. With alternate voting, the minority wins by shifting the tally. With single voting, the minority wins by curtailing the tally.
In all results, the minority decides the election.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/27/2006 @ 11:02 am
Holding a new election could only make sense if all votes were nullyfied, something well out of the jurisprudence of the case.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/27/2006 @ 11:04 am
Not necessarily. It seems your beef is with the system of election the ASUC uses, not the particular details of this one. The ASUC is not founded on abstract principles, it’s founded on rules. Even when the rules do not reflect particular abstract principles, the rules need not yield. (though the rules allow a procedure for changing the rules to incorporate abstract principles)
Comment by Beetle — 7/27/2006 @ 11:42 am
Who are the independence council members that should be investigating this travesty? Does the AS[S]UC have such a recognition for such a procedure?
Comment by Anonymous — 7/27/2006 @ 1:10 pm
Possibly, but I don’t understand what you’re talking about…
Comment by Beetle — 7/27/2006 @ 1:21 pm
If you bring it to the letter-of-the-law level SA has the stronger point on assinine procedure.
Vakil was convicted on the evidence of another witnesses testimony to his words and a Daily Cal article related his statement. If I’m not mistaken this is “hearsay”.
Unfair you say? The J-Council never records its meetings so how can any of its rulings be enforced?
Well, thats your problem. Your trying to overturn a decisive election based on the strictest reading of procedure. We all know that Vakil lied, but strictly legally and procedurally speaking, no acceptable evidence was brought forward to say that.
In fact, I believe that the anti-SA crowd uses the argument in court that that particular procedure does not really matter, I mean common, SA didn’t really win the election did they?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/27/2006 @ 6:05 pm
You’re free to believe whatever interpretation you want of the bylaws. These are, in the end, interpretations, though, and the only interpretation that matters in the end is the one that is recognized.
There is no interpretational ambiguity, though, about disqualifications. They are allowed. If you want to argue that this means that the ASUC isn’t a democracy, that’s cool. I don’t think the ASUC officially recognizes itself as one.
Comment by Beetle — 7/27/2006 @ 6:37 pm
At the Ratto v. Vakil appeal, Vakil’s side never claimed he did not lie; only there was no official public record to prove it. No one sat there and officially transcribed word for word what was said. However, a Daily Cal article, posts by Beetle and on Calstuff right after the hearing all agree Vakil lied about the length of time chalk lasts. Most importantly, the Justices who sat and heard the case took many notes on their computers and it would be reasonable to guess at least one of them wrote notes on his testimony which would create the official record.
Comment by Chris Page — 7/27/2006 @ 8:25 pm
Its still hearsay. A person cannot be held liable for testimony made through another person.
Comment by Anonymous — 7/27/2006 @ 8:35 pm
He is not being held liable for testimony made through another person. His liability stems from the testimony he made himself. Proving his guilt involved descriptions by others of that testimony.
Comment by Beetle — 7/27/2006 @ 8:43 pm
A person can be held responsible if the Justices’ own notes indicate perjury. We don’t know what they say, but it is a possibility.
Comment by Chris Page — 7/27/2006 @ 8:44 pm
“There’s no way you can spin it, the council is reversing the democratic decision of an election.”
Uh, there are numerous other ways Oren, for example, could have gotten himself disqualified. Does he or any other candidate get free reign to break all the rules just as long as the votes are counted?
Let put it this way. By his actions Suken voluntarily removed SA from the races, so it’s not the councils fault for accepting that decision and making it official. Maybe he should have selved a little less bullshit and everything would be ok.
Comment by HB — 7/27/2006 @ 9:29 pm
You people claiming the Daily Cal article and Azadivar’s testimony to be hearsay need to seriously get your facts straight. From JRP 4.12.4:
1. Hearsay evidence is defined as evidence of a statement made other than by a witness testifying at the hearing that is offered to prove or to disprove the truth of the matter stated. The statement may be oral or written, and includes non-verbal conduct intended as a substitute for words.
2. Hearsay evidence is not admissible unless the presenting party has a sincere and conscious attempt to get more direct evidence and has failed, and the hearsay evidence is demonstrated to be sufficiently trustworthy and relevant to the proceedings.
Comment by bobby gregg — 7/28/2006 @ 10:22 am
…and Suken was testifying at the hearing…
Comment by bobby gregg — 7/28/2006 @ 10:24 am
The judges notes do not constitute records of testimony (only transcripts fly legally), the evidence entered was another witnesses testimony and a Daily Cal article. That is hearsay, and by a strict reading of procedure it is invalid.
Vakil did not voluntarily choose to disqualify his entire slate from the election, there is nothing in the case to suggest that his actions were made in agency to Student Action (to be acting within his delegated authority, there would have to have been a conspiracy).
What the judges did was convict Vakil and punish him for purjury, and then without evidence, convict and punish SA for conspiracy to commit that perjury with him.
And isn’t the real point of disqualifying an election to prevent an abuse of tally? If the tally is not disputed and the decision known, shouldn’t crimes by the elected official be treated as a personal criminal matter, a question of conduct unbecoming?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 10:25 am
The presenting party did have a more reasonable method of getting the information. By court transcripts, which they are obligated to provide at judicial procedings.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 10:26 am
Even if this makes it past the J-Council, try telling a real judge that you nailed someone on purjury without a transcript.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 10:29 am
Doesn’t anyone else think there’s a strong sore loser factor involved?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 10:42 am
I mean, in the end, even if you guys win this legal technicality there’s the overarching theme of SA kicked your ass at the polls and you went to the judges to save your bacon.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 10:44 am
Mickey, my love,
I’ll leave the finer points of the legal debate up to Beetle/Bobby/etc., suffice to say that’s neither what the decision nor the by-laws say.
But seriously, you’re gonna throw the “sore loser” accusation? You know me (and you know my graduation date)–I ran so that I could have a vaguely legit excuse to make bright pink t-shirts about hooking up in exec offices, and I think you know that. Do you honestly think that I’m involved in all of this for any reason other than a committment to principle?
Comment by Punch My Ballot — 7/28/2006 @ 11:27 am
If you ran on principle then you should concede the election to the winner.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 11:37 am
one, I couldn’t concede the election to the person that you perceive to be the winner if I tried.
two, I ran for fun. I believe that SA should be DQed on principle. I think that the person who wins the election is the person who gets the most votes within the system established for procuring those votes and that cheating/acting outside of the established procedure obscures the expression of those votes to the point where the count is no longer an accurate expression of the will of the voters. That’s just me, you disagree, we’re cool, but attacking my personal motives (particularly when I believe you to have knowledge to the contrary) isn’t cool with me.
Comment by Punch My Ballot — 7/28/2006 @ 12:30 pm
So your really telling me that the voters saw the chalk avertisements and in a windfall of brainwashing swept SA to power at the polls?
After all, this DQ has nothing to do with the chalk violation itself, it hinges on extra penalties from a purjury of a witness to the chalking violation.
You may win, but I will never concede you honor in this. It will always be a stolen election.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 12:43 pm
how does it “obscure the expression of those votes” if the perjury came AFTER the votes were tallied?
I’m going to have to agree with Mickey here. This whole thing stinks of “sore loser” syndrome. Only after the election results were counted did everyone hear all this whining about perjury.
I think it’s time for the j-council to stop playing power games and find a more balanced punishment. Or, of course, they can just wait for SA to beat them in court. I can’t wait for next year’s slogan:
Kicking your Ass in Court: DONE!
Comment by giancarlo — 7/28/2006 @ 12:52 pm
reminder: there were no penalties for the perjury per se. Suken was found in contempt, not convicted of perjury. At that point, the penalties are for the chalk–the JCouncil is essentially saying that Suken’s lying hindered their ability to make a fair decision about the original campaign violations and, had he not lied or had they found him in contempt on the spot, they would have rendered the default judgement for 18 censures per candidate.
And yeah, I do think that systematically breaking the rules (particularly when it is done repeatedly over several years) entrenches certain parties into power and gives them an unfair advantage to influence voters. I also think that there are by-laws for a reason and that failing to enforce them invites more and more egregious violations. Personally, I think that these particular violations were to a certain degree an expression of how invincible SA believed that it had become–I think that they were testing the line given the lack of competition this year, the ridiculous defense offered, and the opportunity to simply take responsibility and clean it up/apologize, at which point they probably wouldn’t be in this situation, but I won’t pretend to know their mindset. What I do know is that enforcing the rules is a necessity to having them and having rules makes it so that voters have an equal opportunity to express themselves.
And Mickey, you can dislike the decision and the process all you want, that’s cool. I may debate with you, but I’ll never disrespect your opinion. Again, what I don’t appreciate are things that amount to personal attacks, particularly when I believe that you know (specifically in my case) that they’re false.
Comment by Punch My Ballot — 7/28/2006 @ 1:09 pm
A long way of getting around the core question: did the manipulate the vote to cause the result?
And as for your motives, I do know that you ran half for fun and half to file lawsuits.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 1:12 pm
*the chalking
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 1:12 pm
Hypothetical: I am at a voting station, looking at all the candidate options on the computer screen. I look down to think if I remember any of these damn names, and low and behold, there is “Oren, Vishal, Joyce, and Jason” staring back up at me from the ground. Oh yeah, they sound familiar! *Click*
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/28/2006 @ 1:26 pm
Michey, are you a law student? What makes you so confident that attorneys don’t prove out-of-court statements under hearsay exceptions, exactly as Ratto did here? Forget about the fact that Vakil’s statement was an IN-COURT statement… for the sake of argument, let’s pretend this was an out-of-court statement.
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/28/2006 @ 1:30 pm
I am not a law student, so I admit I do not understand the deeper levels of the hearsay rule that govern recording court statements. The superior court judge, on the other hand, should have a good idea of whether judges notes or newspaper articles can substitute for a court transcript.
Then again, think of the purjury charge itself, as giancarlo noted it happened after the election, if you cannot demonstrate that the original chalking swung the election, how can you have any sense of justice in reversing the decision of the electorate?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 1:43 pm
Hypothetical? You don’t mean that SA ran an obviously better campaign with a larger base?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 1:57 pm
“given the lack of competition this year” as Andy put it.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 1:57 pm
Mickey–my answer to your “core question” as you say is yes, I believe that it has the potential to (you can’t find out whether it definitely did or did not without asking everyone who voted at those locations, and even then the survey method would be unreliable). The explanation in my last post is why I think so, pure and simple.
I didn’t run to file lawsuits. Andy may have, I don’t pretend to understand the inner-workings of the mind of Andy Ratto. If that had been any part of my intention, I failed miserably though, since I haven’t filed a single one.
And by the way, Andy didn’t say “given the lack of competition.” I did.
Comment by Punch My Ballot — 7/28/2006 @ 2:08 pm
I wonder what kind of sore losership motivates Andy and me.
Comment by Beetle — 7/28/2006 @ 2:12 pm
Beetle, I spend many sleepless nights contemplating what motivates that black as coal soul of yours
Comment by Punch My Ballot — 7/28/2006 @ 2:14 pm
So who are you, Punch My Ballot?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 2:36 pm
So you said “lack of competition” throughout the year, yet you would overturn the election because the decisive marjority must have been clinched with the final chalking?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 2:45 pm
You obviously didn’t understand the point of my hypothetical. But, the very fact that you recognize this chalking helped SA’s campaign proves my point. Thanks.
If you are still struggling to figure it out… the reason why their chalking was illegal is because that hypothetical situation should NOT happen. Voter tampering is a big no no.
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/28/2006 @ 2:50 pm
Anyway, you are arguing against the ASUC’s campaign laws in general, not this particular situation. All candidates sign documents confirming they are aware of the consequences of violating the Campaign Rules of Title IV Article 13… disqualification has been a possibility since they turned in their registration papers. If you don’t like this, take it up with a Senator next year.
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/28/2006 @ 2:53 pm
There must be a separation, however, between tampering that affects the result and tampering that does not. If this case makes a precedent that any and all illegal campaign advertisents will overturn the election then officers here on out will be appointed by the Judicial Council.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 2:54 pm
And it’s not a slippery slope, this case is a legal cliff. If the disqualification stands, then the penalty will be applicable to offenses that do not necesarily affect the tally, and lawsuits, not votes, will become the center of our elections.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 2:58 pm
Mickey, the Judicial Council had to rule on whether this particular illegal campaign action (which did occur before the end of voting) merits disqualification. Because Suken lied, they were unable to make a fair determination, and had to give a default judgment, because that’s how the JRPs handle such situations.
Comment by Beetle — 7/28/2006 @ 2:58 pm
You idiot. That’s why there are By-Laws that establish minimum/maximum censures based on the severity of the violation. You give the Council too much credit on their discretion in these matters.
Before you start, the default judgment’s 18 censures was from SIX counts of illegal chalking, each carrying a maximum punishment of THREE censures. 6×3=18…
On a personal level, if I vote for someone and later find out they made campaign violations that the Senate describes as severe through the bylaws, then I don’t care what my previous allegiance was — I want that candidate gone. Nobody who breaks the law represents me.
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/28/2006 @ 3:01 pm
If someone forgets to turn in five receipts for campaign materials, that’s five counts of one-censure offenses. That’s disqualification.
Sure, this might not affect the vote, but the Senate says its relevant. Once again, the Council doesn’t have much discretion here… complain to the Senate if you want anarchistic elections.
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/28/2006 @ 3:03 pm
Ultimately they rendered a judgement equivilent to the violation swinging the election and that’s how it should be flat out read.
The problem is that SA was winning the whole time, almost all of their opponents I’ve talked to concede this, and the result on election day was not a political suprise.
Where then, is the evidence anywhere that SA was actually going to lose the election? Does anyone honestly think, after seeing the Senate go their way to, that the chalking was the proximate cause of their victory?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 3:05 pm
omg, I feel like I am talking to a wall. Even if the election was uncontested, there are STILL LAWS, and the Council has limited flexibility in issuing sanctions for violation of those laws, as established in Title IV. If you want the Council to have the power to arbitrarily declare an election violation to be irrelevant, that power could also be used to arbitrarily declare an election violation to be severe. I thought you DIDN’T want the Council to be able to decide an election.
The Council follows the By-Laws to decide on violations and punishments. For the third time, if you don’t like the repercussions of this, complain to the Senate.
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/28/2006 @ 3:12 pm
anarchistic? how about free?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 3:14 pm
Yes, the council should be able to disqualify candidates, but it should know its place as the judicial branch of a democratic society. They did not have to implement the remedy of disqualification, but they did.
They could have punished Vakil personally for his perjury for instance, they did not have to make the inane ruling that all the executives were his agent in the offense.
It all comes down to a choice, an active choice by the judicial council to squash the will of the electorate.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 3:17 pm
At every level of the overthrow of this election is the element of discretion, yet the people driving the decision will not take responsibility for the result.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 3:19 pm
Responsibility for the result? I think by signing their names on the decision the Justices took responsibility for it.
This discretion you speak of is exactly the same thing as I mentioned above: arbitrarily deciding what’s irrelevant and what’s severe. It can be used both ways.
Just so you know, Michey, repeating yourself doesn’t win debates.
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/28/2006 @ 3:26 pm
Some of the big names behind this suit will be president after all is said and done, and it is their goal to overturn the vote that denied them office. It baffles me how they all act as innocent bystanders to the law’s outcome.
I honestly don’t have any more good ideas for the moment, but all I can say is that I hope more people reading these debates will see something wrong at work.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 3:37 pm
“They could have punished Vakil personally for his perjury for instance…”
How?
The Judicial Council isn’t tasked with determining which violations affected the outcome of the elections. They lack the necessary equipment (crystal balls?) to do so. This is a good thing.
Comment by Beetle — 7/28/2006 @ 3:46 pm
By giving him additional censures personally and disqualifying him as a matter of conduct unbecoming.
I believe the justices have the correct equipment (a human mind) to use judgment in legal situations, this happens every time a judge considers a variable punishment for a crime.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 3:59 pm
Suken wasn’t running for any office. He was graduating. He couldn’t be censured or disqualified. He was only present because he was the spokesperson for the Student Action slate (which is why his contempt was considered to be in favor of Student Action)
Comment by Beetle — 7/28/2006 @ 4:29 pm
Mickey, if you want to read the Ratto v Vakil decision (which might address many of your concerns about legal conclusions), it’s available at http://election.asuc.org/index.php?s=judicial
Comment by recent cal grad — 7/28/2006 @ 4:48 pm
As much as it may have swayed the judges opinion the first time around, the purjury did not add anything to the effectiveness of the original crime.
Saying the contempt went in SA’s favor would warrant a revisitation of the remedy of the original offense, including an examination of the effect on the tally. It cannot warrant the necesary addition of disqualification because even if it is proved, there is no evidence that the tally was influenced by the crime.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 4:51 pm
I will recent-cal-grad, I’m probably missing most of the points of brilliance in this coup.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/28/2006 @ 4:54 pm
Well, Mickey, you really seem passionate about your cause. You really care about doing things right. Or is there an internship on the line?
Comment by HB — 7/28/2006 @ 5:31 pm
The JRPs don’t share your opinion, Mickey.
Comment by Beetle — 7/28/2006 @ 5:36 pm
Ouch. HB’s getting personal - he must be losing the argument.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 7/28/2006 @ 8:12 pm
Mickey: At the original chalking hearing, the Student Action Executive Slate was charged with violations that totalled 18 censures. [You can object to an offense as trivial as illegal chalking leading to 18 censures if you like, but as was stated, that is a decision that was made by the Senate when they wrote Title IV to govern our ASUC elections.]
If those candidates had defended themselves and lied repeatedly, such as by saying they didn’t do the chalking, they didn’t know it was there, and they didn’t know who did it, do you think that constitutes a new crime they should be charged for? [For the sake of argument, just really obvious blatant lies… we’re pretending in my example that the Student Action Exeuctive Slate did the chalking themselves.] And, if because of those lies, the Judicial Council found them innocent, how should we proceed after the trial?
Should they be charged with perjury? Should a new trial be held for the same charges, if evidence could be presented that would contradict their previous testimony? Can the Judicial Council change their mind about a decision if they realize they were lied to and it affected their decision? More importantly, if we can hypotehtically figure out that someone lied to the court to attempt to sway their decision, but the lie didn’t actually convince the judicial council, should that still be a crime? Or is only succesful misleading testimony something that should be considered against the rules, while ineffectual lying can be ignored?
One final question: Does it make a difference if instead of lying themselves, the Student Action executives have their party chair serve as their spokesperson and lie for them? [Note that some of them were in the courtroom listening to this lying while it was happening.]
Comment by Andy R. — 7/29/2006 @ 12:24 am
A new hearing over the original chalking incident would be very sensible, in fact, it might even allow us to actually debate the crime that has bearing on the election tally.
As for lying, it doesn’t matter how many times any witness lies, the original crime remains the same. In this case, they did some illegal chalk advertisements.
Ultimately, as we all know, due to “lack of competition” the chalking probably had little effect on the result. SA was better organized and sharper at winning elections so they ended up sweeping them. No matter how many times they lied at trial, this remains the reality of the situation.
And as for the ultimate responsibility in the case, I would say that legally it doesn’t matter that the rest of the SA people were in the courtroom during the purjury because no one has proved conspiracy, and yes, you have to prove things in courts for them to work against criminals even if they seem really obvious.
On a final note, HB: I have no ambition for ASUC office of any kind.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/29/2006 @ 10:10 am
No one has suggested conspiracy. No one has even hinted at conspiracy. When you appoint someone as your agent, you take responsibility for her actions as an agent, under election bylaws. If you tell a dude “Go campaign for me” and that dude goes and breaks every rule in the book in the process, you’re held responsible.
Comment by Beetle — 7/29/2006 @ 12:39 pm
The by-laws cite “delegated authority” as the standard for holding employers responsible for their agents. Judging Vakil’s higher-ups as responsible for the purjury impugns that purjury was part of his delegated authority; hence the requirement that to tie a side to a purjured witness that you show conspiracy, that the purjury was within agency.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/29/2006 @ 1:27 pm
Mickey, your logic in the last post is so flawed it makes me cry. Under that logic, nobody could ever delegate responsibility to agents for breaking any rules… so as long as agents do all the dirty work the candidates are safe. Do you have any idea what this would do to our elections? Thank god you aren’t writing these By-Laws.
Comment by bobby gregg — 7/29/2006 @ 1:58 pm
I’m not writing the by-laws, I’m citing them. The by-laws do not place unlimited liability for employers on their agents. They instead put in the very standard legal term “delegated authority”. This means that an employer is responsible for the crimes of his agents following his orders.
And people can get busted under this system. Say, for instance, a campaign worker is caught chalking illegally, if it is found that he was told to do so by the campaign then the campaign is held legally responsible (this is not the case with non-agents, who are responsible for their own crimes no matter how much encouragement they get).
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/29/2006 @ 2:24 pm
In the purjury case, the same applies. Vakil’s purpose as an agent was to testify for SA, which claims that they told him to tell the truth. Granted Vakil clearly lied, and the transcript issue may slide on that one, but there is no evidence that Vakil was acting in corroberation with SA for the purjury. By the presumption of the law, he must have broken his authority.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/29/2006 @ 2:28 pm
“It is the intent of this section to hold a candidate or party responsible for violations committed by his/her/their agents if those agents are involved in that general area of the campaign.”
That doesn’t seem to suggest the narrow reading of “delegated authority.”
Comment by Beetle — 7/29/2006 @ 2:38 pm
Trials are not part of the campaign.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/29/2006 @ 3:04 pm
Though it makes sense for the by-laws to have that added emphasis, people putting up signs are almost always doing it with instructions (which is why I have little objection to the chalking violation being held against SA as a party).
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/29/2006 @ 3:06 pm
If the campaign is what you do to get elected, then yes, trials are part of the campaign. In any case, the fact that the senate left yet another hole doesn’t dismiss what the intent is.
Comment by Beetle — 7/29/2006 @ 3:27 pm
The intent clause is clear, it is extra liability for those involved in the campaign.
The campaign is the steps taken by a candidate to get elected, and that consists of trying to convince the voters to select them for office. The trial could not be a part of the election campaign because the election had already happened, and the issue at hand in the trial was a violation committed during the campaign.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/29/2006 @ 3:38 pm
If you included the trial as part of the campaign (all steps in the literal sense), wouldn’t that make certification officials campaigners for the people they put in office?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/29/2006 @ 3:41 pm
No, because they aren’t agents of the candidates, they’re agents of the ASUC. Similarly, the elections council isn’t an agent of the candidates, despite publishing their statements in the Voter’s Guide. Their authority comes from the ASUC.
Comment by Beetle — 7/29/2006 @ 3:47 pm
Bad hypothetical on me. A better way to put it is that the trial cannot be part of the campaign because it has no influence on the tally of the votes. There was nothing either side was doing to convince voters to elect them, only a criminal proceeding.
When the trial considered the chalking violation it was judging an event that happened during the campaign and therefore took on the unlimited liability for agents proscribed for the campaign season. The contempt for purjury crime was committed after the vote was tallied, unlike the chalking violation, it cannot be a campaign violation, but rather under the normal rule.
In short, the unlimited liability that would have SA punished for the crime of its workers in campaign cannot be extended to crimes committed after the campaign. The legislative intent of protecting a safe tally is not in jepeordy once the voters have made their decision.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/29/2006 @ 8:22 pm
so what about our judicial system? if you don’t enforce respect of the judiciary — for such things as decorum, truthfulness, and good faith — its ability to enforce laws and punish offenders is compromised. then, what’s the point of campaign rules?
your view of democracy and law (which are actually intimately related) has major problems buddy.
Comment by bobby gregg — 7/30/2006 @ 12:54 am
Mickey: I realize it’s a moot point now, but still, you said:
Comment by Andy R. — 7/30/2006 @ 1:14 am
well, it ate the quote, but this is what I was responding to: “A new hearing over the original chalking incident would be very sensible, in fact, it might even allow us to actually debate the crime that has bearing on the election tally.”
Comment by Andy R. — 7/30/2006 @ 1:15 am
Our judicial system should function as it has for hundreds of years, on laws and core principles of jurisprudence. This case is no different. The ASUC rules regarding agency allow the council to assign unlimited liability against employers during campaigning time. This is separate from the general clause stating the liability is limited by the agent acting within delegated authority.
If the council had staid within these guidlines, and not overturned the election based on crimes committed after the tally (based on campaign liability) then we would not have this unholy mess.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/30/2006 @ 1:20 am
The double jepeordy issue is intense, but it could be sidestepped by the fact that convictions can be modified but aquittals cant.
Regardless, even if you wanted to use the purjury charge to ammend the first punishment, then you still must demonstrate that the tally was effected to the extent that the decision of the election must be reversed.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/30/2006 @ 1:23 am
**your right about double jepeordy, even convictions cant be revisited unless by mistake on appeal.
Even though this reasonably option is illegal, its not to much of a mental stretch to take it back to the chalking violation and the obvious fact that it did not swing the tally.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/30/2006 @ 1:27 am
Mickey, if you don’t mind the personal question: I noticed you’re a member of AEPi. Don’t you live with Ben and Igor??? [disclaimer: I am pro-SA, in this case at least]
Comment by giancarlo — 7/30/2006 @ 3:03 am
Yes, they are my fraternity brothers. I believe that they are doing a wrong thing but I don’t hold it personally against them, I know they are good people on an errant idea.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/30/2006 @ 10:35 am
Hmmm, justice, what an errant idea.
Comment by bobby gregg — 7/30/2006 @ 1:11 pm
I just have to say, this is a great example of the fascinating conflict between right and wrong, and how they line of separation can be so blurred and so relative. Especially when people become personally vested — this often results in the “line” moving one way or the other. And some of us are better at knowing the boundaries than others.
As an example, Igor immediately confessed to his campaign misconduct as he learned of it and volunteered himself to the consequences. Even though it could have warranted his disqualification, his sense of right and wrong never budged. I can’t say the same for the Student Action party given their tactics through this ordeal. And I can’t say the same about you Mickey, given your arguments on this thread (although this has made for a very interesting debate). I apologize if this comes off as a personal attack, but I think your arguments have some serious problems as I have already mentioned.
Comment by bobby gregg — 7/30/2006 @ 1:20 pm
My moral sense of this issue has never budged, although my legal arguments may have shifted after having to rehash ideas.
The moral analysis is much simpler.
In a democratic society, courts are charged to monitor the campaigns and the tallying of votes to ensure that the voters are not tampered with and the votes fairly counted. It is natural in such a system for a court to be able to ammend the tally for violations that occured during the campaign and put the people who truly won in power.
The moral problem in this case is that the tally is being ammended to remedy a crime committed after the tally. There is no dispute that the purjury tampered with the voter’s will.
Furthermore, attempts to rationalize the purjury injustice by saying the chalking needed the remedy because it swung the election are absurd, it was clearly evident that Student Action was the better organized party and had a wider base of popular support.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/30/2006 @ 1:38 pm
The moral analysis is even simpler, actually: Someone has to draw all these conclusions you’re drawing. In a democratic society, there are rules that assign that job.
Comment by Beetle — 7/30/2006 @ 2:08 pm
lol, true. As for the rules though, they did not have to tie unlimited agency to Vakil because the crime was not committed during the campaign.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 7/30/2006 @ 2:13 pm
“In order to answer this question, it is important to note that the regulatory documents of the ASUC - the Constitution, By-Laws, and JRP’s - are democratically constructed and democratically passed into law, whether through student referendum or the student-elected legislative Senate. If laws were passed that could prevent a winning candidate from taking office, this was done with the intention of protecting students who would not know of the candidate’s misconduct when casting votes in his/her favor.”
The J-council put it better than I ever did.
Comment by mickeyk — 7/31/2006 @ 9:20 am