The Daily Californian 2008 ASUC Endorsements

Beyond the usual storm of signage, this year's ASUC contests bear little resemblance to the 2007 election. Then, in the wake of a controversial senate bill to reimburse former president Oren Gabriel's legal fees, students' decisions were colored by a backlash against incumbent Student Action; in effect, the vote became a referendum on SB51.

In the year since then, Student Action has managed to stay out of hot water and the headlines. So too, unfortunately, has CalSERVE-any optimism that the revamped and reorganized party would seize the opportunity to accomplish substantial change has, for the most part, proven unfounded.

Our split-ticket endorsements reflect a desire to focus on each individual candidate's skills and experience. As such, our analysis is based heavily on candidates' performances at the election forum, held last Friday. We have also weighed officials' existing records where they exist.

Your best bet to influence the big-budget student government is to vote this week. Our executive endorsements are below.

President: Curtis Lee

Even in a field of seven, we find little cause for excitement. The two major-party candidates' platforms are similarly stale, and none of the five alternatives are viable. Given the absence of a clear standout, our endorsement is for the experience and proven commitment of Student Action's Curtis Lee.

Lee, it must be said, is a product of the Student Action political machine. Along with the bulk of his party, he backed the infamous 2006 attempt to use ASUC funds to cover former president Oren Gabriel's legal fees-incurred, for those who don't remember, while suing the ASUC itself.

Since then, however, Lee has been a competent-though not impressive-head of academic affairs. He has proven his commitment to the ASUC and is clearly familiar with its relationship with the administration.

There's no question that CalSERVE's Roxanne Winston can match Lee's drive and dedication, but her senate record suggests a tendency to direct her energy toward pet causes. While Lee was instrumental in implementing Spring Welcome Week, Winston's most notable piece of recent legislation was a resolution in support of "total amnesty" for the Wheeler Hall tree sitter.

That bill was withdrawn after the protest ended, but it suggests two worrying points: first, that Winston may not take the time to gauge or consider campus opinion before she acts, and secondly that she is quick to make unrealistic demands of the university. Neither characteristic is desirable in a position whose responsibility is to represent the student body as a whole to the administration.

In DAAP's Ronald Cruz we see an extraordinarily talented student leader, but he is hopelessly and admirably committed to an agenda far beyond the scope of the ASUC presidency. A campaign to back striking unions and end fighting in Iraq would be wholly out of place in an ASUC office-regardless, he will better serve his goals as an activist than a bureaucrat.

The remaining candidates offer comic relief but no serious proposals-we can only hope it never comes to casinos on Lower Sproul. Preventing such doomsday financial scenarios and helping guide the discussion of what it means to attend a public university are critically important responsibilities at this moment in campus history. While none of the candidates are ideally equipped, Lee is most likely to rise to the challenge in service of the entire student body. Vote Lee for ASUC president.

External Affairs Vice President: Dionne Jirachaikitti

CalSERVE candidate Dionne Jirachaikitti stood head and shoulders above her competition at the elections forum, earning our endorsement for vice president for external affairs.

Responding to a question on fee hikes, Jirachaikitti- the current EAVP's chief of staff-confidently cited facts and figures, providing a well-developed substantive base for her calls to action. She struck an appealing balance between total denial of the likelihood of fee increases and total resignation to them-Jirachaikitti clearly has a realistic view of the budget situation and the energy and background to confront that challenge in office.

Her performance contrasted with that of Student Action candidate Lina Ochman, who lacked both a firm grasp of the issues and the composure critical to a position whose responsibilities include lobbying powerful political players on all levels of government. Her proposals were specific but implausible-the suggestion that students up their hours on the job to literally work through fee hikes is one we'd expect from an out-of-touch governor, not our own EAVP.

SQUELCH! candidate Joe Rothberg's scathing, ukulele-accompanied criticism of both major parties contained probably the most astute observations of the evening and a tuneful caution against cronyism. The EAVP office is easily hijacked for partisan or personal agendas, so Jirachaikitti's acknowledgement that "it's not (the EAVP's) job to lobby on things that only I care about" was reassuring.

For her dynamism and command of the issues facing UC students, Jirachaikitti is the obvious choice. Vote Jirachaikitti for external affairs vice president.

Academic Affairs Vice President: Carlo de la Cruz

CalSERVE candidate Carlo de la Cruz is the best fit for the academic affairs office.

With the possible exception of current AAVP Curtis Lee's curiously campaign-flier-esque e-mail update, the academic affairs office usually isn't a big attention-getter. As a consequence, most students have little understanding and few expectations of the office, something the incoming official must work to change if he wants to justify his title (and stipend).

In his forum-night responses, De la Cruz demonstrated a working knowledge of the office's role in grant programs, arguing that part of the reason students fail to take advantage of available funds is a lack of understanding of the process behind their allocation. His proposal to incorporate student groups' databases into the existing Pick a Prof Web site is a sensible and realistic approach to expanding the resource.

Osmena, for his part, offers a well-organized platform typical of Student Action candidates. There's little there to which anyone can object-though he may be overestimating undergraduates' ability to shape the university's research agenda.

That said, the office's perennially underwhelming profile suggests it needs a leader who, beyond being armed with plans for programs and publicity, can reach out to a student body that needs the office's resources but for the most part doesn't know it. De la Cruz could be the one to make that change-vote De la Cruz for academic affairs vice president.

Executive Vice President: Chad Kunert

Chad Kunert-for all he may have spent much of the endorsement forum half-naked-is our pick for executive vice president.

Kunert's record serving as a Berkeley College Republicans senator shows an official who has largely stayed out of time-wasting partisanship. He introduced the bill in opposition to the city's letter to the Marines-an appropriate response that just about compensates for another piece of Kunert legislation calling for senate sessions to start with the pledge of allegiance.

Kunert's party shift is unlikely to change his conduct-we believe that like past SQUELCH! senators David Wasserman and Ben Narodick, Kunert would defy the party's comedy-troupe reputation and manage the senate with due seriousness. His pledge to update the senate's Web site more frequently is one we've heard before, but we appreciate his recognition that it's impossible for students to hold their officials accountable without timely and accessible information.

Kunert's adamant denial that the current senate has never entered into closed session is troubling-it did, on Feb. 13. The possibility that he may have been misinformed, however, is more palatable than Student Action candidate Grace Shen's baffling response on the same issue: After declaring that closed sessions allow senators to say what they really think (we would hope that was always the case), she added that for transparency's sake they should later repeat their comments for their record-all while arguing that closed sessions' value is in their "efficiency."

Krystle Pasco offered the strongest condemnation of closed sessions, but the remainder of her comments were too vague to be compelling. Directing the senate also demands a degree of charisma, and here again Kunert clearly had the edge.

The executive position has proven vulnerable to abuse of power in the past few years, and we'd sooner risk entrusting it to a comedian than a partisan. Vote Kunert for executive vice president.

Student Advocate: Matt DeMartini

With the backing of both major parties and a wealth of experience, Matt DeMartini is the obvious choice for student advocate.

At the forum, BEARS-United candidate Johnathan Kim pointed out that the absence of a CalSERVE or Student Action nominee indicated that student advocate was "probably the only important position being debated." We wouldn't go that far, but it's true that the office has a direct impact on students, mediating day-to-day conflicts with the administration.

Given the position's significance, it's a pleasure to find a candidate so qualified. A former case worker and the current advocate's chief of staff, DeMartini is already involved in negotiations to develop a policy on the use of Facebook photos in disciplinary action.

FUCK delivered the forum's best dramatic performance with a classic impersonation of the quintessential Berkeley protester ("I don't have a tree to climb on so I'm going to yell! And by yelling, be persuasive!").

DeMartini's approach to the subject of protests, while less entertaining, was impressively thoughtful. Recognizing both the office's mandate to defend students and the realities of the code of conduct, he is well-equipped to negotiate the terrain between the two.

For his unrivaled experienced and commitment to working for his fellow students, DeMartini deserves the win. Vote DeMartini for student advocate.

Superb Referendum: NO

It's disappointing to have to repeat ourselves, but SUPERB's selective hearing apparently demands it: Just like last year's version, this year's SUPERB referendum deserves to fail.

It is inherently contradictory for SUPERB to maintain that it is "not more important to campus than any other student group" while simultaneously requesting a new fee for its exclusive use. A "no" vote on the referendum is thus not a denial of SUPERB's value to the student body or of the unique hardships it faces in providing entertainment on the UC Berkeley campus. Instead, we maintain that SUPERB is free to present those arguments to the senate while lobbying for funds, just like everyone else.

Referendum proponents' frantic insistence that the organization will go under without new funding is hysterical at best, outright manipulative at worst. SUPERB survived the failure of last year's proposal, despite similar claims that it could not. Like any other organization facing a budget crunch, it will have to make smarter, tougher spending choices that may well include downsizing or raising admissions fees to its events. Assuming responsible management, though, it is by no means doomed.

Also disingenuous is proponents' presentation of the referendum as "freeing up" funds for other groups: Not so-far from conjuring money out of thin air, the referendum is merely a fee hike for the exclusive benefit of one powerful organization. If SUPERB were truly interested in helping fellow student groups, it would propose a general fee increase and let the senate determine who deserved the boost.

That the dollar amount referendum proponents request is smaller than last year's is irrelevant-this is no time for students to be arbitrarily raising their own fees. Vote no on the SUPERB referendum.

Tags: