ASUC executive position candidates were met with shouting, snaps and cheers at The Daily Californian’s ASUC Candidates Forum Friday as they spoke about their goals if elected to office.
At the annual forum, executive candidates from Student Action, CalSERVE, Defend Affirmative Action Party, Students for a Democratic University and SQUELCH! all spoke about increasing the visibility of the student government and student input, but differed on the best way to accomplish this goal.
The forum began with representatives speaking about the two fee referendums that will appear on the ballot.
The Class Pass referendum would extend the campus contract with AC Transit and would increase over seven years to an $86 semesterly fee. Graduate Assembly representative Philippe Marchand — speaking on behalf of the pass — said that because the changes would not go into effect until 2013, students can vote now without the fear of losing the pass altogether.
But Seth Zawila — who spoke against the referendum — said there was no reliable data to confirm how many students use the pass and that the ASUC senate needs to renegotiate a better deal with AC Transit.
The Daily Californian’s V.O.I.C.E. referendum would charge students $2 semester to help sustain its print operations, which are threatened by structural shifts in the journalism industry that have led print ad sales to drop dramatically, according to campaign manager Lynn Yu. Yu said it is “extremely realistic” that the Daily Cal will have to cut more days of print if the referendum does not pass.
In opposition, CalTV Co-executive Director Kevin Cohen said students “should not be held accountable for a business model that is failing.” Cohen added that the fee could lead to a Daily Cal monopoly on the spread of information.
Next, candidates vying for the student advocate position answered questions about the role of the office beyond student conduct proceedings and the Campus Code of Student Conduct.
David Douglass — a proxy for Defend Affirmative Action Party candidate Victor Martinez — spoke about the need for an advocate who will “mobilize action” and cited examples of campus activism he and members of his party have participated in. Stacy Suh, an independent candidate endorsed by both CalSERVE and Student Action, said the role needed to focus on educating students on their rights.
Academic affairs vice president candidates reiterated platform goals to increase participation in the campus division of the faculty Academic Senate. Student Action candidate Natalie Gavello said she wanted to “streamline” the AAVP office and standardize bylaws to quickly establish students in the Academic Senate, while CalSERVE candidate Naomi Wilson said she has already laid the groundwork to increase student representation by speaking to members of the campus administration.
Students for a Democratic University candidate Frank Luna said he felt representatives sent to the Academic Senate should be “elected by the entire student body” as opposed to the current appointment system.
External affairs vice president candidates then discussed state legislation and the possibility of a student supermajority district in the city of Berkeley. All of the candidates said city redistricting was an important goal, except Students for a Democratic University candidate Isabel Sausjord, who said the plan could separate students from the rest of the city.
Candidates for the executive vice president position spoke about student groups’ transition out of Eshleman Hall in anticipation of its impending demolition. Students for a Democratic University candidate James Chang said he did not know much about the transition, but could still advocate for student groups. Defend Affirmative Action Party candidate Jeremy Palmer said it was not part of his platform, but part of the job to assist with the transition of student groups. Palmer said he helped oversee his community college student center being torn down and the transition for student groups.
CalSERVE candidate Anthony Galace said he was “the only candidate on this stage that knows … this process,” but Student Action candidate Justin Sayarath said he has worked extensively with student groups and knows “what exactly our student organizations need.”
Candidates for president then took the stage. Independent presidential candidate Brad Mosell was not at the forum and said in an email that he will no longer be running for president but will campaign for a senate seat.
Elliot Goldstein, who is running for “president/chancellor,” advocated for a system of shared governance in response to multiple questions at the forum and encouraged students to “start thinking of yourself as not just a student but a responsible stakeholder.” Students for a Democratic University candidate Honest Chung said the student government should be completely independent of the administration.
Student Action presidential candidate Connor Landgraf said he would work to improve the campus climate to allow students to feel safe on campus.
ASUC Presidential Candidates (left to right) Andrew Albright, Elliot Goldstein, Noah Ickowitz, Connor Landgraf, Honest Chung, and Matt Williams debate on Friday night.
The presidential candidates also discussed UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s tenure. Multiple candidates said the chancellor had shown poor judgement in responding to the Nov. 9 Occupy Cal protest but had supported students in other ways.
“He has been an advocate for higher education,” said CalSERVE candidate Andrew Albright. Landgraf said he would want to ask Birgeneau what he was doing on Nov. 9 and why he responded “so poorly” to the protest.
SQUELCH! presidential candidate Noah Ickowitz said Birgeneau could have responded better to the protests, but tackled state issues well. But both Defend Affirmative Action Party candidate Matt Williams and Students for a Democratic University candidate Honest Chung viewed Birgeneau’s stepping down from office as a positive event.
“Good fucking riddance,” Chung said, adding that the campus community should decide on the next chancellor or if the campus should have a chancellor.
Williams said his party was about both action and leadership, while the current two-party system was about leadership, not action.
“I’ve been to jail twice around this fight for public education and next time I go I want it to be as ASUC president,” Williams said.
Meanwhile, satirical candidates from SQUELCH! brought humor to the forum in the form of songs, time-travel references and other antics.
Voting for the election will be held Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
Chloe Hunt is the lead student government reporter.
Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Defend Affirmative Action Party candidate Victor Martinez spoke at the forum. In fact, David Douglass — a proxy for Martinez — spoke on his behalf.
A previous version of this article also incorrectly quote Defend Affirmative Action Party presidential candidate Matt Williams as saying “I’ve been to jail twice, and next time I go, I want it to be as ASUC president.” In fact, he said “I’ve been to jail twice around this fight for public education, and next time I go, I want it to be as ASUC president.”
A previous version of this article also incorrectly stated that Defend Affirmative Action Party candidate Jeremy Palmer did not know about the student group transition out of Eshleman. In fact, he has experience from his community college.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
“‘I’ve been to jail twice around this fight for public education and next time I go I want it to be as ASUC president,’ Williams said.” Great…
GO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PARTY!!
funny how all candidates talked about how bad nov 9 was, but Honest was the only one of them who actually got beat that day. they are all frauds. vote SDU!
Elliot Goldstein, who is running for “president/chancellor,”
LOL
I fucking love this annual clown show. Fucking comedy.
I’m voting for the bus pass. I have more use for it than any other student fee (ASUC, gym, or whatever else).
You’re not losing your bus pass either way… they’re asking you to not vote for the class pass as it currently stands so they can negotiate a better deal. Even ac transit said they were open to further negotiation. Voting for it now is stupid, in my humble opinion.
“But Seth Zawila — who spoke against the referendum — said there was no
reliable data to confirm how many students use the pass and that the
ASUC senate needs to renegotiate a better deal with AC Transit.” Every student knows how much he/she uses the pass. They’ll vote according to their own interest. It’s really that simple.
i don’t know if anyone else watched the Caliber videos on the candidates but Natalie clearly does not have an idea of what the AAVP office does. Outlets like the one in airports? Are you trying to waste our money? This year, the current AAVP did not do anything substantive for our campus. I’ve heard students complain about the fact that processing AAVP grants have been taking a month rather than a couple of days. Did Julia even do anything this year? They just got lucky noone ran against them last year. I’m not for CalSERVE either but do we really want to put an incompetent individual back into the AAVP position by voting for Student Action? Let be real.
Funny, my response to the question on the Lower Sproul transition, during the candidate forum, made it clear that I knew what such a process entailed as I am the only candidate to ever have undertaken such a task, from start to finish. I specifically talked about how at my community college, which has a larger student body than Cal, I oversaw the process of transitioning the student government, clubs and organization, the office of student life, and our cafeteria, into other spaces on campus during a multi-million dollar reconstruction of our Campus Life building. I made this clear in the forum, yet I’m quoted as saying I didnt know much about the process but would still advocate for student groups? Where is the unbiased reporting? Where is the integrity DailyCal? Furthermore, under my direction, not only was that process executed succesfully, but the number of clubs has grown each semester since and are excited to move into the new, state-of-the-art Campus Life building this Fall. So, in fact, if elected, it would be the second time that such a duty fell upon me, making me, the only non-rookie in stepping to the plate in tackling such a process, and the most qualified for such a duty. I do not mean to extend my campaign into the comment section of a misleading article, but I also will not idly sit by and let my very real qualifications, and indeed the words that actually came out of my mouth, to be represented in a misleading way.
Furthermore, with such critical analysis of the current two-party system which dominates student politics at Cal, you would think that the DailyCal would do its best in accurately relaying what was really said by a third party candidate when it comes to what they ACTUALLY SAID.
[Where is the unbiased reporting? Where is the integrity DailyCal?]
The Daily Cal has always been a biased newspaper. It’s unfortunate they misrepresented your views, it’s unsurprising. Their lack of integrity has never been in question. Particularly, the poor writing and reporting by Chloe Hunt who keeps making numerous harmful mistakes.
Vote NO on VOICE.
It is nice to know that the Daily Cal conveniently left out one of the biggest points made against the Daily Cal: that from the Daily Cal’s Board meeting minutes, it says that they money would not only be used to fill its budget gap, but that it would be used to also reinvest in the expansion of their business.
Way to be objective and adhere to journalistic integrity Daily Cal!
Chloe Hunt is a dishonest reporter who should be fired.
To expand on the previous, Seth actually shows some measure of understanding of the fact that this issue is not one-sided. There is a blatant need to actually open negotiations with AC transit, rather than simply accept their offer out of hand, IF one wishes for the price to be pushed down. Surely that is something wish all cash-strapped students would consider beneficial? It’s the responsibility of our elected officials at Berkeley to do their utmost to save students’ money!
If a majority of students think the Class Pass is not a good deal, they’ll vote no. Problem solved.
Except your average student cannot be expected to know one alternative from the other. It’s like asking a mechanic to comment on a surgery.
In addition, it doesn’t even really come down to outright acceptance or rejection. Yes, with negotiations for a better price would have been the best path, arguably, but that option hasn’t been opened.
Seth Zawila for the win!