Alex Mousouris/Staff

A BART strike has once again been averted — this time until Oct. 10 — following a court-ordered cooling-off period requested by Gov. Jerry Brown and granted Sunday.

The order, given by a San Francisco Superior Court judge, will last 60 days and is intended to alleviate some of the pressure that has characterized negotiations between BART workers and administrators in recent weeks.

The order states that BART unions are now forbidden from striking because a strike, or even the threat of a strike, poses public health and safety risks.

BART unions and administrators are expected to continue negotiations during the cooling-off period in hopes that a contract can be settled before the period expires. If the Oct. 10 deadline passes, BART unions will be authorized to strike, as the governor can only call for one cooling-off period.

“BART is grateful San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow has granted Governor Brown’s request for a 60 day cooling off period, ensuring BART trains will continue to run while the District seeks fair and financially sustainable contract agreements with its unions,” said BART spokesperson Rick Rice in a statement.

The injunction follows a seven-day cooling-off period ordered by Brown last Sunday while an appointed board investigated the facts and positions of parties in the dispute.

The board’s report, published Saturday, found that a strike by BART workers — like the four-day strike in July — would cause “significant harm to the public’s health, safety, and welfare.”

“Were the unions to strike at the end of the 7-day cooling off period, the resulting increased congestion would result in an increase in traffic accidents,” the report states. “It would also result in slower response times by emergency personnel responding to those accidents, as well as other public emergencies.”

The report also notes that the parties involved in the dispute are still far from an agreement.

“The parties do not agree on the magnitude of the gap in their respective economic proposals,” the report states. “Other specific unresolved issues are the unions’ proposals for increased workplace safety measures and BART’s proposals for increased rights regarding workforce management.”

Jacob Brown is a news editor. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post BART strike halted for 60-day cooling-off period, court says appeared first on The Daily Californian.

At about 11:30 p.m., the victim and a friend were walking on Frank Schlessinger Way near Haas Pavilion when a nearby skateboarder threw a skateboard at her for unknown reasons, according to a UCPD crime alert released Monday.

The victim received an arm injury, and the skateboarder fled on the skateboard, heading westbound on Frank Schlessinger Way.

The victim was then transported to Alta Bates Summit Medical Center for treatment.

According to the crime alert, the perpetrator is described as a white male, 20 to 30 years old and wearing a T-shirt and light-colored cargo pants.

Jacob Brown is a news editor. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post Female is victim of assault with a skateboard on Saturday appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Evan Walbridge/File

A union representing about 1,800 AC Transit workers plans to strike as early as Wednesday at 12:01 a.m.

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192, which represents mechanics, dispatchers and clerical workers at AC Transit, plans to give notice of a strike to the AC Transit board of directors on Wednesday if no further progress is made on reaching a contract agreement.

A previous AC Transit worker contract expired on June 31. A strike could disrupt as many as 200,000 daily AC Transit passengers.

“Management has failed to meet its legal responsibility to bargain in good faith,” said ATU Local 192 President Yvonne Williams in a press release. ”Substantial health and safety issues, including meal and rest periods, and fundamental human rights are at stake.”

ATU Local 192 has cited problems with worker safety during negotiations, saying the rate of injury among AC Transit workers has increased in recent years. Last Wednesday, an AC Transit bus caught fire on I-880 south.

AC Transit unions previously threatened to strike at the end of June, when BART workers were preparing to strike. However, AC Transit administration and unions “agreed to disagree” while continuing negotiations and averted a strike.

Jacob Brown is a news editor. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post AC Transit strike may be called for Wednesday, union says appeared first on The Daily Californian.

At the request of BART administration, Brown appointed the three-person board, saying in a statement that a strike would “significantly disrupt public transportation services and will endanger the public’s health, safety, and welfare.” State law forbids any strike or lockout while the board finishes its investigation.

The board’s investigation will include the facts of the dispute and the respective positions of the parties but will not contain recommendations. The report will be made available to the public.

”The board is directed to provide me with a written report within the next seven days,” Brown said in the statement. “For the sake of the people of the Bay Area, I urge — in the strongest terms possible — the parties to meet quickly and as long as necessary to get this dispute resolved.”

The planned strike would have been the second this summer, following the expiration of a 30-day temporary agreement after July’s five-day strike. On Thursday, BART unions gave 72-hour notice of a strike that would begin Monday morning if a contract agreement was not reached between BART and BART unions Service Employees International Union Local 1021 and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1555.

In July, negotiations focused on wage increases for BART workers and the ability to pay into their own pensions. The unions have also requested better security to protect themselves from violence on the job and general improvements such as better lighting on the tracks.

BART leaders said they opposed a strike, saying it unnecessarily harmed passengers.

“As we saw in early July, the effect of a public transit strike is a complete disruption of the Bay Area economy,” said BART President Tom Radulovich in a letter to Brown asking for a cooling-off period. “We believe the public should not be deprived of this essential public service unless all alternatives to prevent a work stoppage have been utilized.”

But union leaders, such as Pete Castelli, executive director of SEIU 1021, said that although BART employees and administration share the common goal of avoiding a strike, he is dissatisfied with BART’s management of the negotiations — especially the administration’s choice to hire Thomas Hock, a $400,000 outside consultant.

Hock left negotiations earlier this month to go on vacation and has only recently returned.

Union negotiators were informed of Hock’s availability ahead of negotiations, said BART spokesperson Rick Rice.

“Mr. Hock is an experienced negotiator, and the district has faith that he’ll get us through to a good contract this time,” he said.

Contact Jacob Brown and Madeleine Pauker at newsdesk@dailycal.org.

The post BART strike averted for seven days as Brown steps in appeared first on The Daily Californian.

A 24-year-old man was shot and killed Thursday night on the 1800 block of San Pablo Avenue, according to Berkeley Police Department.

At approximately 9:18 p.m., police responded to reports of multiple shots fired and found the victim suffering from gunshot wounds.

Berkeley Fire Department then transported the victim to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

BPD is not releasing the victim’s name at this time and is investigating the case.

Thursday’s homicide is the third in Berkeley this year. On July 17, Jermaine Davis was shot and killed near the intersection of Derby Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

Anyone with information on the homicide is encouraged to call Berkeley police at 510-981-5741 or 510-981-5900. Callers wishing to remain anonymous can contact the Bay Area Crimes Stoppers at 800-222-8477.

View Bing’s Liquor in a larger map

Jacob Brown is a news editor. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post 24-year-old man killed on San Pablo Avenue Thursday night appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Jeffrey Joh/File

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will be appointed as the next president of the University of California system on Friday, pending approval by the UC Board of Regents next week.

Taking over in the wake of President Mark Yudof’s planned August resignation, she will be the first woman to occupy the position of UC president in the system’s 145-year history. She has served as governor of Arizona and was among more than 300 candidates considered for the position. Napolitano also resigned from her position as secretary of Homeland Security on Friday.

Though she lacks previous experience in university administration, Napolitano has served in various public leadership roles. She was the first woman to occupy the position of attorney general of Arizona from 1998 to 2003 and served two terms as governor of Arizona from 2003 to 2009. She was also the first woman to chair the National Governors Association.

“I am both honored and excited by the prospect of serving as president of the University of California,” Napolitano said in a statement Friday. “I recognize that I am a non-traditional candidate … In my experience, whether preparing to govern a state or to lead an agency as critical and complex as Homeland Security, I have found the best way to start is simply to listen.”

According to Tim Bee, associate vice president for state relations at the University of Arizona, “education was a top priority” for Napolitano during her tenure as Arizona governor. He noted Napolitano’s help establishing the University of Arizona’s College of Medicine in Phoenix, securing pay increases for Arizona university employees and allocating about $1 billion of lottery revenues for university infrastructure, among other things.

“At the time she left office, the university system in Arizona was receiving the largest total general fund appropriations in the history of the state,” Bee said. “Education was a very important focus of her efforts to build a strong workforce and a diversified economy with a focus on science, bioscience and technology.”

But Napolitano still represents an unconventional choice for the university, which only five years ago selected its first president from outside the UC system, Mark Yudof. Yudof had more than two decades of experience in university administration — which included heading the University of Texas and University of Minnesota.

The Board of Regents have set a more political course by selecting Napolitano, at a time when the state government is increasingly involved in its affairs. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown attended a regents meeting for the first time in his term where he criticized the pace at which the university was pursuing online education. Brown’s 2013-14 proposed budget initially tied higher education funding to performance standards set by the state.

Raquel Morales, president of the University of California Student Association, chaired the student advisory committee that aided in Napolitano’s selection. She said the committee was looking for “someone outside of the system” who was “more of a political figure,” able to address issues with the federal government and the state governor.

“It will be exciting to work with her,” Brown said in a brief statement released Friday morning. “Secretary Napolitano has the strength of character and an outsider’s mind that will well serve the students and faculty.”

Student regent Cinthia Flores also said Napolitano’s political experience will help her in the role but that it might be difficult for her to interface with UC students without educational experience.

“I think her name recognition may assist the UC’s advocacy efforts at the state and federal level,” she said. “(But) Napolitano will have a difficult transition into the role of head university administrator. In particular, I think she may need strong guidance in helping build and nurture working relationships with students.”

As Homeland Security secretary, Napolitano has been involved in debates over immigration reform. She has supported provisions of the DREAM Act, allowing students who meet its criteria to remain in the country despite the act failing to pass in Congress.

However, some have expressed concern over her leadership role in the Obama administration’s deportation of more than 1.4 million undocumented immigrants since 2008.

“The Obama administration has deported a staggering number of people,” said ASUC Executive Vice President Nolan Pack. Napolitano’s support of the DREAM Act is also inconsistent with the policies of Homeland Security, he said.

Pack said he doubts whether Napolitano would gain any support from undocumented students in light of this inconsistency.

“It is important students have someone who can understand and empathize in high positions of administration,” Pack said.

Morales said she hopes Napolitano is willing to fight for student rights, which would include efforts to broaden the types of resources available for undocumented students.

“We hope she will be able to address these issues regardless of her background,” Morales said.

Napolitano was recommended to the UC Regents in a unanimous vote by a selection committee that included former student regent Jonathan Stein, former board chair Sherry Lansing, current chair Bruce Varner and regents Richard Blum and Russell Gould, as well as Brown.

Contact Micah Fry at mfry@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article misspelled Janet Napolitano’s last name.

A previous version of this article may have implied that Janet Napolitano was appointed as UC President on Friday. In fact, she will be appointed pending approval by the UC Board of Regents Thursday.

The post Janet Napolitano, U.S. homeland security secretary, chosen as next UC president appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Abigail Fisher, a white student, brought a lawsuit against the University of Texas at Austin claiming she was rejected for admission in 2008 due to discrimination prohibited by the 14th Amendment. The university argued it had an interest in pursuing limited diversity for its educational benefits.

The Supreme Court said the Fifth Circuit court did not hold the University of Texas at Austin to the burden of strict scrutiny as laid out in previous affirmative action cases and that the decision affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the university was incorrect.

“The Court of Appeals must assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence that would prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity,” the opinion states.

Read our previous coverage of the case here.

Jacob Brown is a news editor. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post Supreme Court orders lower courts to reconsider affirmative action case appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Robbery — University Avenue and Chestnut Street

On May 26 at approximately 2:15 p.m., a robbery occurred near the intersection of University Avenue and Chestnut Street.  The victim was walking in the area.  The suspect approached her and grabbed her jewelry.  The suspects than fled the area on foot.

Attempted residential burglary — 1600 block of Oregon Street

On May 27 at approximately 5:54 p.m., a man called reporting two suspects on the back porch of his neighbor’s home. He did not recognize the suspects and yelled out to them.  The suspects were startled, fled through the backyard and jumped the fence.  The suspects attempted to gain entry but were scared off prior to entering the home.

Stolen auto — Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Berryman Street

On May 27 at 7:22 a.m., the victim reported his vehicle stolen from near the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Berryman Street.  The victim parked his vehicle on the street the night prior.  When he went out in the morning, his vehicle — a red, two-door 1993  Honda Civic — had been taken by an unknown suspect.

Commercial burglary — 80 block of Bolivar Drive

On May 29 at approximately 5:45 a.m., a commercial burglary occurred on the 80 block of Bolivar Drive.  The unknown suspect attempted to burglarize the business by prying the rear door.  The attempt at entry was unsuccessful, and nothing was taken.

Residential burglary — 1100 block of Grizzly Peak Boulevard

On May 30 between 4 and 5 p.m., a residential burglary occurred on the 1100 block of Grizzly Peak Boulevard.  An unknown suspect entered the home, possibly through an unlocked door.  The suspect removed the victim’s computer and jewelry.

Robbery — 2200 block of Dwight Way

On May 31 at approximately 12:45 a.m., a robbery occurred on the 2200 block of Dwight Way. The victim was in the area when one suspect walked past her. The suspect turned around and grabbed her from behind. Another suspect approached her armed with a gun. Both suspects than robbed the victim of her property, which included a wallet and cellphone.

Auto Burglary — 2700 block of College Avenue

On June 1 between 2 and 3 p.m., an auto burglary occurred on the 2700 block of College Avenue. The victim parked and locked her vehicle in an underground parking lot. She returned to her vehicle and discovered one of the windows broken.  The victim’s laptop was stolen.

From Berkeley Police Department: Please note that these are Calls For Police Services (CFS) only and are subject to review and reclassification. These CFS numbers only reflect part of crimes reported to BPD.  The numbers reflected in the report are only a snapshot of what occurs in the city of Berkeley.  The numbers are considered for informational purposes only and should not be used for data analysis or comparison to other agencies. Cases may be reclassified after further review of the incident by supervisors, investigating detectives or the district attorney as appropriate.

Jacob Brown is a news editor. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post Crime in Berkeley: May 26 – June 1 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The city of Berkeley currently faces a projected general fund deficit of $3 million for 2014 and $2.1 million for 2015, according to a draft version of the budget published last month. Because the city is required to enact a balanced budget, the shortfalls must be filled with a combination of cuts or increases in revenue.

The budget notes that while the city’s revenue has increased in recent years — in part due to the economic recovery — revenue growth has not kept up with increases in expenditures, resulting in the deficit. Next year’s shortfall, however, represents a marked improvement from the $13.3 million deficit projected for 2013.

Measures to balance the budget for 2014 include reductions of around 2 percent in funding across city departments, which is expected to save around $3 million. $200,000 in additional funds will be raised by increasing fees for the Resident Preferential Parking Program, among other actions. The budget proposes these changes be made entirely in 2014 and maintained in 2015 to account for the 2015 projected deficit.

The budget also recommends cutting 10 full-time jobs to fill deficits in other nongeneral funds. Between fiscal years 2009 and 2015, the city will have eliminated roughly 200 positions, a decrease in staffing by nearly 12 percent, according to the budget.

The budget projects general fund expenditures of $150.4 million in 2014 and $152.9 million in 2015.

One budget amendment by Councilmembers Jesse Arreguin and Gordon Wozniak is listed on the agenda for the meeting. The proposal suggests amending the budget to reduce funding for certain expenses at City Council and mayoral offices to help lower the deficit.

The proposal notes that while many city departments have faced cuts in recent years, mayoral and council-member funding is set by the city charter and is entitled to regular increases. This proposal, however, aims to reduce funding for parts of mayoral and council-member funding unrestricted by the charter, such as funding for office supplies, to aid in reducing the city’s deficit.

The council will also vote on whether to offer consent on a licensing agreement with City CarShare, a nonprofit car sharing service, for expanding its use of electric vehicles in Berkeley.

City CarShare has requested that the city allow it to install charging equipment in city parking garages and lots so that it can provide electric car service in Berkeley. The proposal coincides with the city’s Climate Action Plan, which calls for expanding car sharing programs and the use of low-emission vehicles.

Jacob Brown is a news editor. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post City Council to discuss budget deficit at Tuesday meeting appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Benny Grush/Staff

The ASUC Judicial Council has unanimously ruled parts of controversial divestment bill SB 160 unconstitutional, removing clauses that require the ASUC to divest from companies affiliated with the Israeli military.

In an opinion released Sunday, the council ruled that the ASUC Senate lacked the authority to divest ASUC funds, saying that investment decisions must be made by the ASUC Investment Committee.

The council included an updated version of the bill in their opinion, which removes about 30 words that would divest ASUC funds but preserves other parts of the bill detailing Israel’s alleged human rights violations and encouraging the UC system to divest.

“The ASUC Senate has no constitutional power to craft specific investment policies,” the opinion states. “According to the By-Laws, the only body in the ASUC with the authority and expertise to write investment policy is the Investment Committee. Thus, when the ASUC specified companies by name and issued strict directives such as ‘will divest’ in SB 160, it overstepped its legislative bounds.”

Noah Ickowitz, former SQUELCH! party chair and a former columnist for The Daily Californian, was among those who filed charges against SB 160 on April 26. He said that while other components of the bill are still problematic, he is satisfied with the decision.

“(The decision) takes out any of the concrete action items in the bill that would have an effect (to divest funds),” Ickowitz said. “Taking away the clauses asking the ASUC to divest its funds takes away the core of the bill.”

Feelings among the bill’s proponents are also optimistic. Despite some of the bill’s language being removed, they say the symbolic message of the bill remains in place.

“The final (bill) that the Judicial Council produced is nearly identical to the one we passed,” said Student Action Senator George Kadifa, who authored SB 160. “It contains all relevant clauses asking the UC to divest. The ones that were stricken were added as afterthoughts; the ASUC has no investments in companies that actually profit (from alleged violations). We’re glad it’s over.”

However, supporters also disagree with the Judicial Council’s ruling, which effectively placed the authority of senate subcommittees above the senate itself.

“To say the senate does not have the power to do something is a little funny, because the senate is what creates these subcommittees,” said Independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, who also sits on the investment committee. “Subcommittees construct policy based on what the senate says.”

But Ickowitz said that the council’s decision represents an important check on senate overreach.

“I think the fact that it was a unanimous decision speaks to the power and voracity of the charges filed, and I think it sends a strong message that the ASUC Senate cannot overstep structures regardless of the issue or topic at hand,” Ickowitz said.

Jacob Brown is a news editor. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post Judicial Council rules divestment bill violated ASUC bylaws appeared first on The Daily Californian.