The ASUC debacle

A timeline of the ASUC’s messy electoral process

By Christopher Page
From the September 2006 Print Edition

If you thought electing student leaders to the Associated Students of the University of California would be easy given the new technologically advanced voting system, I am afraid to say you were gravely mistaken.

The voting took place from April 25-27 and surprisingly th e new online voting system experienced no serious technical glitches. But it was after the votes were cast that controversy emerged, manifesting itself in the form of lawsuits, executive orders, and local-government involvement.

Among the lawsuits filed with the Judicial Council was one against candidates who broke campaign rules, the one which bore fruit and resulted in a disqualification that launched the ASUC into yet another seemingly endless, expensive, and hopelessly absurd internal struggle.

One of the cases, Attorney General v. Student Action Executive Slate, was filed against executive candidates of the Student Action Party. The campaign rule violation was sidewalk chalking within 100 feet of an on-campus polling location. Defending the candidates at the May 12 hearing, Student Action party chair Suken Vakil said chalk only lasts one day in his experience.

Hearing this bold lie, senior Andy Ratto filed charges against Vakil for perjury on June 1. At the perjury hearing, evidence was presented that clearly established that Vakil had lied and misled the Judicial Council regarding his knowledge of chalk. There were also signs of a cover-up. When asked difficult questions, members of Student Action whispered to each other and the answers they gave were almost exactly the same, as if they were coached.

Upon review of this evidence, the Judicial Council ruled that Vakil had indeed committed perjury. According to the Judicial Rules of Procedure, a default judgment was issued against the litigants he sought to benefit, namely the Student Action executive candidates. On June 14, the Student Action executive candidates were officially disqualified from holding office. To complicate matters, the results had already been tabulated but not certified before the perjury hearing, and they showed that the disqualified candidates had received the most votes.

The candidates and their party did not take their deserved punishment nicely. From this point on, Student Action leadership refused to participate in and respect the internal resolution process of the ASUC. On June 27 outgoing Student Action president Manuel Buenrostro, whose term had expired, issued an executive order stating the disqualified members of his own party deserve their offices and must immediately start using their power. Buenrostro also ordered the Judicial Council to stop its actions, as he claimed they were operating outside of their constitutional power.

Following on the heels of this, disqualified presidential candidate Oren Gabriel started acting like the president. Even though he had no power, Gabriel issued executive orders of his own installing a loyal Student Action member as attorney general. The disqualified officers also began to arrogantly act like they were already in office. In many cases they refused to work with the non-disqualified candidates.

The legitimacy of all these executive orders was then challenged in the Judicial Council. Berkeley blogger and grad student Justin Azadivar filed charges against the outgoing president for overstepping his power. As the July 8 hearing approached, Buenrostro declared he would not have any part in it. In e-mail statements he declared: “I cannot participate in any challenge to my Executive Order #8 because the Judicial Council is acting outside its legal authority and to the great injury of the Association.” However it is Buenrostro and his party who were acting outside of their authority and refusing to explain their actions before a panel of student justices.

The Student Action executive candidates also withdrew their earlier appeal of the Ratto v. Vakil perjury case. Following the logic of the illegal executive order, Vishal Gupta, the disqualified executive vice president said, “Student Action executive candidates will not participate in any such hearing, as it would be a violation of the order. If the Judicial Council takes any further action regarding Ratto v. Vakil, the Student Action executive candidates reserve their right to pursue all available legal remedies against the ASUC, the Judicial Council, and its individual members.” Just over a week later, the threat of legal action became reality.

Gabriel took four justices of the Judicial Council to Alameda County Superior Court as individuals and requested an injunction to block any further Judicial Council actions. By July 10, the judge had denied his request, citing that remedies inside the ASUC were still possible. Only after this failed attempt to stop the Judicial Council did the Student Action leadership suddenly become interested in participating in the appeal of the earlier perjury case.

At the appeal of Ratto v. Vakil on July 15, no one tried to argue that Vakil did not lie. They said there was no official record so perjury could not be proved. Almost every point they brought up in the appeal had been directly addressed in the original judgment. Student Action contended that the entire process violated their due process, which is odd considering they never had any plans of following the process within the ASUC to begin with. The briefs and paperwork submitted by Student Action had been prepared with the help of real attorneys at law.

What could Student Action do to make things better? The party had already tried to get its president to order the election outcome be changed. They had taken the justices to County Court. The next group they could go and whine to would be the Berkeley City Council. On July 25, Councilman Gordon Wozniak proposed a resolution that would immediately recognize the Student Action candidates as the legitimate winners. This is odd in the sense that the City Council hates it when the university tries to involve itself in internal city matters.

On July 29, the Judicial Council issued its ruling in the Ratto v. Vakil appeal hearing which reinstated the Student Action executive candidates. The City Council also recognized the deceit of Vakil, but ruled it was separate from the original chalking issue.

“We condemn Vakil’s actions and, as the evidence shows to be the case, the Student Action executive candidates’ knowing acceptance of Vakil’s dishonesty. We maintain that had the evidence brought forth in Ratto v. Vakil about party chalking tactics been presented in ASUC v. SAES, it is likely that the Judicial Council would have arrived at a more severe judgment,” stated the ruling.

They also classified the Ratto v. Vakil hearing as putting the Student Action executive candidates in double jeopardy by punishing them for illegal chalking twice.

This final ruling brought the election mess to an end. Student Action could have admitted their campaign violation in the beginning and accepted a punishment that would have been less then disqualification. Instead they chose to lie, disregard the ASUC constitution, and take their peers to court. While this lack of responsibility hopefully is behind them, only time will tell.

Election Timeline

April 25-27 Election

May 2 Cases filed against SAES, Igor

May 9 Cases heard

May 12 ASUC v. SAES released

May 14 Ratto considers filing appeal

May 24 Election tabulated and released

June 1 Ratto files against Vakil’s perjury

June 7 Ratto v. Vakil heard

June 14 Ratto v. Vakil decision issued: disqualification of SAES

June 27 EO 7, EO 1&2 issued

Later that day Gupta in e-mail:

"Given the Order and the clear provisions of the Constitution, the Student Action Executive candidates understand that the Judicial Council cannot proceed with a hearing on the appeal on July 15, 2006, and the Student Action Executive candidates will not participate in any such hearing, as it would be a violation of the Order. If the Judicial Council takes any further action regarding Ratto v. Vakil, the Student Action Executive candidates reserve their right to pursue all available legal remedies against the ASUC, the Judicial Council, and its individual members."

Day or two later EO 8

July 6 Trip to court announced

July 8 Hearing on EOs

July 10 Court case considered and denied. SA puts itself back into Ratto v. Vakil appeal

July 15 Ratto v. Vakil appeal heard until 3 a.m. next morning

July 25 City Council votes Gordon Wozniak’s resolution down 1-5-3

July 29 Ratto v. Vakil appeal decision released

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot