The legality of the V.O.I.C.E. Initiative will not be brought to trial Monday after both opposing parties began the process of negotiating a settlement.
The settlement would allow V.O.I.C.E. to move forward toward implementation, according to an email sent by campaign manager of the referendum Lynn Yu. A hearing in front of the ASUC Judicial Council was planned after ASUC Attorney General Deepti Rajendran and ASUC President Vishalli Loomba filed a charge against the legality of the initiative.
The charge brought by Rajendran and Loomba alleges that the $2 student fee to support the Daily Cal violates the policies of the ASUC. Loomba’s executive order to invalidate the initiative — which was upheld by the ASUC Senate — was overturned in an unanimous vote by the judicial council after an April 18 hearing.
Elections Council Chair Pamudh Kariyawasam then announced that the initiative passed in the ASUC general election April 24.
The judicial council may decide to approve or reject the settlement as proposed.
Yu declined to comment on the specifics of the settlement until it is finalized and turned in to the judicial council.
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.
The relevant administrators (President, Chancellor, Dean of Students, Office of Student Affairs, etc) must go on record and answer these two questions, immediately.
1) Is the administration involved in crafting or negotiating the settlement?
2) Will the administration accept the settlement and its implications, or will they invoke UC policy, state or federal law to block implementation of the settlement?
Recall Poullard’s attempted sandbagging while UCOP expressed approval:
Navab also brought up in the email that Loomba could possibly invalidate
the initiative, and Poullard said in response that “if (Loomba) can
invalidate the vote that would be great.”
[snip]
“UCOP would approve the language as you have drafted,” said Laurent
Heller, a campus liaison to UC Office of the President, in a March 14
email sent to Yu.
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/04/19/judicial-council-questions-asuc-president-proponents-of-v-o-i-c-e-initiative/
So the DC rants and raves when parties get together and negotiate out campaign violations instead of taking them to the JC, but it’s okay for the DC to do what it condemns. Interesting.
Your reasoning amounts to this: if one has ever opposed a negotiated settlement, one must always oppose negotiated settlements.
Sadly, this is a fallacious contention.
The appropriateness of an agreed to settlement as compared to judgement rendered after adversarial presentation will depend on the specific circumstances of any given case.
Moreover, are you implying that DC could or should take an impartial view of the matters at hand? How would that be a reasonable expectation?
DC be impartial? Not gonna happen. THe fact that they post editorials about this issue lost them any credibility of impartiality that the DC had.
Also this is an official settlement requiring JC approval, not like the backroom deals between CS and SA.
judicial activism at work
How can this be “settled”? The vote was called off in the middle of the election. There’s no way the election can be valid, since the matter wasn’t put to a full three-day vote.
This is why the President should have allowed the election to go forward and only taken action against the initiative after the vote was over.
Yup, I agree.
Your position is one which relies on common sense and common decency, too bad that the administration has neither.