ASUC Elections Endorsements 2002

SEAN BYRNE

PRESIDENT

If last year's presidency taught us anything, it taught us not to be deceived by promises of grandiose plans. Or promises of nonpartisanship. Or promises of accomplishing anything at all.

Sean Byrne

This year's president needs to be grounded in reality, not in political rhetoric. The winning platform needs to be based on achievable goals, not smiles and lies. That's why, of this year's slate of candidates, Sean Byrne stands out from the rest.

Where most candidates failed to escape nebulous ideas, Byrne's realism was exceeded only by Bret Heilig, who, although impressive, may or may not complete his term as president. While his platform is certainly doable, his past history of calling it quits leaves more than a little to be desired.

Byrne is prepared and motivated, promoting concrete and reachable goals.

When asked how many interns they would have in their offices if elected, most candidates answered with foolish answers ranging from Bret Heilig's zero to Kris Primm's "as many as want to work for me." Most the answers were unrealistic or, as in the case of Primm, seemed made up on the fly for popularity's sake. Only Byrne thoughtfully considered the question and responded with a reasonable number--eight--that he figured he would need around the office.

Byrne has a diverse background and a history of dealing closely with student groups. In this respect, he might have a little too much experience to the extent that he caters to student groups while the majority of students do not belong to any organized group.

But Byrne also has the advantage of being for the most part an ASUC outsider. He is not yet dirtied by partisan mud, his idealism not yet sullied by the machinations of ASUC politicking. He is the untainted candidate who has a hope of cleaning up ASUC, but is realistic to attack strategically.

ASUC Senator Jesse Gabriel is the most qualified Student Action presidential candidate in years. His grasp of the issues is sound, but his loyalty to his party exceeds his loyalty to the student body. It seems he is more of a party puppet than a stand-alone candidate. The president must be able to lead all students, not just Student Action devotees.

Kris Primm sure seems popular. He sure seems like a nice guy. His Hawaiian campaign sure seems expensive. But aside from that, what does he stand for? We certainly don't know. Primm is driven by the desire to please and has little concrete to say. He says he wants to listen more to student groups. That's another way of saying he'll be more open to catering to special interest lobbies. Primm's proclamation that he will hold office hours on Sproul is downright lunatic.

Annabel Chang seems to be running solely because she is a woman and deems the office her divine right. Apparently, Chang believes the last woman ASUC president served nine years ago when, in fact, Sharon Yuan was elected to the office in 1998. The presidency would be a waste with such incompetence.

Other candidates seemed completely out of touch. Jen Lee, for instance, said something that led us to believe a central part of her platform is trying to get students to smile. Is the campus smiling ratio not up to snuff?

ASUC Senator Noah Kagan is known to be belligerent on the senate floor, once showing up to work drunk. The students deserve more from their president.

ASUC Senator Hoku Jeffrey is confused about what heÕll do in office aside from his crusade to eliminate using the SAT in admissions. He can't see anything except black and white--literally.

Thus we are left with Sean Byrne, the students' lone hope for an effective, nonpartisan leader.

SUNNY LU

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Following a year of partisan squabble, disregard of ASUC bylaws, gobs of money spent on food for interns, and the attorney general resigning in protest, the senate needs a strong nonpartisan leader who'll stick to constitutional duties and internal reform.

Sunny Lu

Current ASUC Senator Sunny Lu has the experience and intentions to control the office and the senate. She is respected for nonpartisanship, even going so far as to run as an independent this year instead of with her party, APPLE. She says she feels the office needs such disregard for party politics, and we agree.

Separating oneself from bias is a foreign concept to Lu's chief competition, Sajid Khan. While otherwise a strong candidate for the job, the strength of his personal convictions is better designed for his current position of senator. He co-sponsored a bill that, before toned down, demanded a raise in the Daily Cal's rent in Eshleman Hall in response to material printed in the newspaper. A candidate who would support such knee-jerk legislation is not someone who should be elected to executive office.

Joe Henchman's slick operating has gotten him into trouble before. The executive needs to command respect, and Henchman would be hard-pressed to command respect from gradeschoolers, let alone a heady bunch of ASUC senators.

One would hope the simple criterion of attending ASUC senate meetings would be a given in the race for the office charged with running the meetings.

But ASUC Senator Han Hong has a history of pulling a disappearing act during the middle of senate meetings. She'll be there when roll is called, leave for a while, and perhaps return to vote on bills she hasn't heard argued. Not the sort of commitment needed for an executive vice president.

Independent candidate Kevin Fang admitted he has never been to a senate meeting.

Lu currently is head of the Advocacy Agenda committee on ASUC Reform and sat on a key Store Operations Board committee.

KEVIN DEENIHAN

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS VICE PRESIDENT

The academic affairs position is a crucial one because it has a voice in actual university committees that form real academic policy. Though the field is thin, Kevin Deenihan is the students' best choice.

Kevin Deenihan

Of the three serious candidates, Deenihan seemed the most realistic. As director of CalFACTS, he managed to save the program $15,000, demonstrating efficiency and control. He appears well-versed not so much in the advocacy role of the academic vice president, but in the services aspect. As he said, the current holder of the position, Catherine Ahn, did enough in advocacy to last for the next five years. Deenihan wisely hopes to focus on services, including increasing student voting powers in university policy and aiding school recruitment and retention programs to help increase underrepresented minority enrollment.

ASUC Senator Tony Falcone, the Student Action candidate, seems to have mistakenly run for the wrong office. Falcone is a representative on a key housing committee and intimately involved in city and state lobbying, such as Cal Lobby Day. He should have run for external affairs vice president because he shows little promise as an academic candidate. He mentioned something about reducing class impaction and enrollment, but his vision for the office seems more than a little out of focus.

Peter Gee sounds more like a protester than a vice president. Gee is misled on several counts, including, for some reason, the role of the academic vice president. Despite a month of service under Ahn, he seems to have no grasp of what the office actually does. Gee is also a freshman, and his youth is quite obvious in his strangely activist approach to academic policy.

EVAN HOLLAND

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS VICE PRESIDENT

The decision for external affairs vice president is the one crystal clear decision in this election. ASUC Senator Evan Holland not only blows away the competition, but she will make a superb external affairs officer.

Evan Holland

Holland presents a solid platform with doable ideas. She demonstrates a thorough knowledge of city and state affairs, and is bright and personable. Her ideals are grand in scope and concrete in approach. For example, her ideal of increasing student influence in the city is backed up by a realistic approach: She sets a goal of getting students appointed to the 57 presently vacant seats on city commissions.

Holland's vision to house students in Oakland is backed up with interest from that city and was conceived in totality--she also has an answer for transporting students to and from campus. Holland is able to consider all angles and produce a tangible, fruitful product.

Holland's competition offers little contest. Co-op candidate Michael Olin, while fluent in city policy, forebodes several hitches. First, he probably won't serve if elected, and second, his bicycle activism would likely mar efforts to help with car parking.

James Bryant has no grasp of any issue except maybe campus safety, scarcely the role of the external affairs vice president. His exceptional motivation for promoting campus safety would be better spent in service on some safety committee. Bryant's other major platform component is electing a student to the City Council, an effort that completely failed this year. He obviously has no grasp of the difference between Berkeley, as in the university, and Berkeley, as in the city.

Lastly and leastly, perennial activist and curmudgeon Ronald Cruz is running for external affairs vice president in order to increase underrepresented minority enrollment and do away with the SAT. Enough said.

Holland is the obvious choice here, and despite her quite liberal leanings, she will be able to hold the office in high enough regard to represent all students at the city and state level.

NO ENDORSEMENT

STUDENT ADVOCATE

Perfectly poised. Well-spoken. Knowledgeable. Prejudiced.

This sums up the heir apparent candidate for Student Advocate, Salam Rafeedie. She seemed the perfect candidate for the job until she said something that revealed her fatal flaw.

"The student advocate's office is responsible for protecting all students' rights," Rafeedie said. "This includes rapists, this includes cheaters, this includes plagiarizers, thieves, Zionists--people who you necessarily would not want to go have dinner with. So I feel like (in) my administration, my political views would not impact my professional life."

It is certainly worrisome that she was not able to last even a mere 20 minutes in front of The Daily Californian's Senior Editorial Board without condemning the existence of Israel.

In her speech, she claimed her political views would not affect her ability to defend all students, but we feel this is false.

The student advocate must be willing to devote herself fully to all students in need--not just the ones who oppose the state of Israel.

If she hadn't said that, she may have had the board's full support. But given her most obvious and bias on possibly the most intense issue facing the campus community today, she is certainly not suited to represent any and all students in their legal affairs.

The only other serious candidate is Reuthanak Tap, who unfortunately seems more concerned with getting frat boys out of trouble than representing students. Though his platform of increasing publicity of the office and working with the UC Police Review Board are necessary goals, his lack of experience bodes of an ineffective administration.

Although Romie Litrell did not seem qualified for the position of student advocate, we would like to give him kudos for his extensive knowledge of RNA processing.

Similarly ineffective, his plans to move the student advocate's office "underground" would do little to promote student awareness of services the office can provide.

Given this sorry lot, The Daily Californian wishes voters luck in choosing.

Proposition A Is Superfluous: No

Proposition A would excuse ASUC senators from meetings if they demonstrate a religious reason for their absence. Senators are already permitted to miss 30 percent of senate meetings without being booted out. Student leaders know what they're signing up for when they take office.

If the strictness of their religious observance consistently conflicts with ASUC senate meetings, they shouldn't have run for office because an integral part of serving the student body is attending the meetings. If situations arise, perhaps the attorney general should be given the power to excuse absences.

Vote no.

Powerlessness Marks Proposition B: Yes

Proposition B lends support to providing Fall Extension students priority over continuing students in university-provided housing. Students coming to the university as extension students should not be discriminated against in housing and deserve a chance to live in the dorms.

While the initiative is filled with good intentions, the ASUC has no power to make the change. This is a university policy, and though the student body has this chance to voice its opinion, it nothing more than a powerless opinion. But show the university your support for such a plan.

Vote yes.

Proposition C: An Obvious Yes

Proposition C would guarantee attorney-client privilege to students working with the student advocate. Certain ASUC officials have access to cases under review by the student advocate, so transactions with the student advocate and the represented student are insecure. Constitutional change is greatly needed and should've been postulated from the beginning.

There is no reason for such access, and failing to protect this privilege is unacceptable.

Proposition C is an obvious yes.

Proposition D Is a Necessity: Yes

Proposition D would add a clause to the ASUC constitution designating it a duty of the student advocate's office to inform students of their rights and in other ways publicize the office.

The student advocate clearly needs increased publicity. Students need to know their rights and know they have legal help in the student advocate. The office of the student advocate is largely unknown to the student body. The wide array of services the office can offer are consistently underused and the best way to repair that is by increasing the public face of the office. The candidates for the office this year all placed increased visibility of the office in their campaign platform, so one might argue that a constitutional amendment is unnecessary. But if publicity is essential to the job, it belongs in the constitution.

Vote yes.

Proposition E: Abstain

Proposition E calls for the university to increase the percentage of women and minorities on the faculty. Though worded rather benignly, this proposition has no place in the ASUC election. This is essentially a call for affirmative action. Who would vote against hiring women and minorities to the faculty? But affirmative action is another matter. An abstention would prevent the proposition from carrying, as it requires 20 percent of students to vote yes to pass.

Vote Honestly on Proposition F

Proposition F asks whether or not the voter reads the ASUC Monthly. What is this doing in the form of a proposition? Essentially a survey for ASUC purposes, this is ridiculous to find on a ballot. But, in an effort to aid ASUC in surveying the student body without spending extra money. We ask the voters to respond honestly.

Unclear Propositions G and I: No

Proposition G calls for an annual 5 percent reduction of the number of animals used in research on campus. For some unclear reason, the proposition puts the number of animals used at UC Berkeley at 40,000. But is this fruit flies? The arbitrary number, placed in a proposition sure to be ignored by university officials, is totally unexplained.

Proposition I, calling for a stance on animal dissection, has no place on an ASUC election ballot. These are ridiculous propositions and a waste of voters' time. Propositions are supposed to be important issues that require student body votes to be enacted. Pointless polls of opinion don't belong in our student government election. Vote no.

Overspecific Proposition H: No

Proposition H amends the ASUC constitution to implement regulations regarding use of recycled materials. The percentage of recycled paper to be used is set at 30 percent for unspecified reasons. Overspecific policy need not to be set in stone, but rather should be implemented by ASUC officials in their own governing policies. Costs should also be examined before forcing such regulations, and those in control of budgets should exercise discretion.

Vote no--for now.

Tags: