Charges were filed against The Daily Californian’s fee referendum campaign Sunday, two days before students will begin voting in the 2012 ASUC general election.
CalTV Director of Business, Advertising and Marketing Elizabeth Kopaskie filed a formal charge sheet against the Daily Cal’s V.O.I.C.E. Initiative. The charges cite multiple alleged campaign violations, which could result in the disqualification of the referendum if a ruling by the ASUC Judicial Council finds the charges are warranted.
Judicial Council Chair Erica Furer said in an email on Monday that the council accepted the charge sheet and a hearing is scheduled for this Friday at 6 p.m. in the ASUC Senate Chambers.
Kopaskie filed her claims as an individual. Under ASUC bylaws, ASUC-sponsored student groups cannot campaign for or against election candidates or initiatives.
The initiative asks students to approve a $2 semesterly student fee to reduce the risk of the Daily Cal losing its print editions while allowing it to expand its online presence. The referendum would generate about $93,800 annually for five years.
The first charge contends that the Daily Cal violated a bylaw that disallows “using ASUC authority, facilities … including Eshleman Hall, for campaign purposes.” The charge states that the Daily Cal set up a table in the basement of the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union and stored materials in the Daily Cal office in Eshleman Hall.
Lynn Yu, campaign manager for the initiative, said the Daily Cal had permission from the student union store manager to set up the table during an event and that the Daily Cal pays monthly rent for its office.
Another charge alleges that posting V.O.I.C.E. fliers within Daily Cal newspapers on racks violates of a bylaw that campaign materials cannot be placed on campus structures. A third charge states that “sandwich board” signs are not allowed.
The bylaws state, “attaching or leaning sandwich boards … against campus vertical features” is prohibited unless “they are attended by a person within six feet of the display.”
Students in opposition say the fee could lead to a Daily Cal monopoly over information and advertisements. They add that revenues generated from the initiative will unfairly expand the Daily Cal and that students will fund a failing business.
“I believe the ASUC Election by-laws need to be obeyed in order to assure a just and accurate measure of student sentiment,” Kopaskie said in the email.
Yu said that money from the initiative will be used to fill less than half of the Daily Cal’s current budget deficit.
Yu said she found out she could not file charges against the “No on V.O.I.C.E.” campaign for alleged campaign violations.
“Because there is no official organization behind them … There is no one you can censure or charge,” Yu said, adding that she has seen chalking and other campaign violations committed.
Punishments for election bylaws violations could include disqualification or censure. Five censures require disqualification, ASUC bylaws state.
View the charge sheet below.
Chloe Hunt is the lead student government reporter.
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.
It’s funny how all of CalTV is against V.O.I.C.E. Could it be that they want to overtake the daily cal? I’m not saying that their arguments are bad, but it’s weird how the whole organization is against the initiative.
CalTV as an organization isn’t against V.O.I.C.E. Certain individuals within that organization are. It just so happens they hold leadership positions in CalTV.
This is one problem with the initiative. As ASUC sponsored organization, those organizations are not allowed to endorse or oppose candidates or bills. Individuals may and that’s why there are all those asterisk with the phrase “title for identification purposes only.” The Daily Cal, on the other hand, is independent and are not subjected to these regulations and oversight.
It just doesn’t make sense that they would be able to bring about something like this and campaign so much/hard for it. And attempting to file charges against the opposition in this case seems like a huge “dick” move. And the “she has seen chalking and other campaign violations committed?” Cool story. Just because other people are doing it doesn’t mean you can.
Fuck Chloe Hunt for her rank dishonesty.
Did this article even go through an editor? The inability to embed a
link properly, unchecked grammar errors and factual errors in a published article are
the qualities of professionalism that they are trying to convince students to
fund, after all their condescension to other publications? Also, why
are they allowed to plug their own campaign in their paper and on their
website? Talk about a monopoly!
This statement is also highly misleading: “adding that she has seen
chalking and other campaign violations committed.” ‘Has
seen…committed,’ did she see any person actually chalking or actually committing a violation, or did Lynn
Yu merely see the finished products and jump to conclusions about who did it based on her demonstrated antipathy towards the dissenting opinions of other publications? Also what are these
mysterious “other campaign violations?” That sounds deliberately vague
and inflammatory. Not having any proof might have been a pretty big stumbling block to filing charges…
Chloe Hunt’s article is
shit. With shitty reporters like her employed by the Daily Cal, it’s an easy decision to vote NO on V.O.I.C.E.
says you, i’ll bet you’re on caltv
**** kopaskie
This article is really defensive of the initiative, which is obviously biased and also totally unnecessary for this article. The article was about bylaw violations.
I don’t see anything that is overly defensive. Chloe gives arguments for both sides. And of course there’s going to be a small bias in favor of the referendum, but that’s almost impossible to avoid. You should consider that next time.
Hm, perhaps you need to read it again. It’s quite obviously defensive in tone and content.
CalTV staffer* files charges against Daily Cal fee referendum
Isn’t the title of this article misleading since it says ”
Kopaskie filed her claims as an individual and not on behalf of CalTV*” in the article? It makes it look like she is filing it on behalf of CalTV* and not as an individual. Just a thought….
Has the monetary value of all the VOICE ads in the DailyCal and on their website been counted towards their campaign expense limit?
If you think said chalking has anything to do with the opposition party, I might direct you towards their obvious attempt at peaceful demonstration and rhetoric. It’s unfortunate the Daily Cal staff hasn’t been as courteous.