The decision on Jackson v. Landgraf to overturn the health and wellness referendum was founded in the argument that ASUC President Connor Landgraf overstepped his presidential authority by using an executive order to get the referendum on the spring 2013 election ballot after the established filing date.

Associate Justice Scott Lara expressed concern that students only had 18 days to become properly informed about a referendum that would initially cost each student $40 per semester, a cost that would rise until reaching a maximum $287 per semester from 2042-46. The ASUC bylaws state that the president may only issue executive orders that are “necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC until the Senate can meet again.”

The justices believed that the circumstances surrounding the referendum did not require an immediate solution.

“Problems that only deal with the comfort of the student body, such as a larger area to work out or newer machines, cannot be an urgent problem that the Executive Order can be used to solve,” reads the decision.

Only five of the nine Judicial Council justices participated in the decision. Chief Justice Suneeta Israni was not involved. No member of the Judicial Council could be reached for comment on this story.

The constitutionality of another executive order that Landgraf issued to ensure students’ continued unlimited access to AC Transit bus passes — the Class Pass —  was not challenged.

Attorney General Hinh Tran, who represented the ASUC in the case and defended the referendum’s constitutionality, took issue with the procedures of the case. He said that the decision was made in summary judgment — a tactic usually reserved for the necessity of expediency — which allows the justices to make a private decision without hearing oral argument. Additionally, Tran said that the decision was made public only one minute before the deadline for an appeal.

“(The Judicial Council’s opinion) does not address the arguments I made in the trial briefs,” Tran said.

Student Action Senator Mihir Deo, who played a major role in including language in the referendum that would serve the needs of disabled students, concurred that the executive order was unconstitutional but said that the council did not consider external factors that caused Landgraf to miss the filing deadline.

“I feel that this is one of those situations where you withhold something unconstitutional, but you’re also withholding democracy a little bit as well,” Deo said.

The health and wellness referendum has already been placed on the 2014 ballot, giving students close to a year to weigh the benefits of new facilities against the fee increases that would pay for them.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Judicial Council nullifies health and wellness referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The chancellor’s farewell party, held at the Lisa and Douglas Goldman Plaza outside Memorial Stadium, featured a barbecue lunch with the chancellor and various campus speakers who spoke of the dedication to service the chancellor and his wife have shown over their tenure.

“He’s done a fantastic job,” said Haas School of Business professor David Vogel. “He’s steered the university through some tough times, and I’m sad to see him leave.”

Speakers included Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost George Breslauer, ASUC President Connor Landgraf and Graduate Assembly President Bahar Navab. In addition, both Birgeneau and his wife gave speeches recounting their experiences on campus, also thanking the students and staff members.

“In academia, there’s no other organization more important than UC Berkeley,” Birgeneau said in his speech. “It has been my privilege to serve.”

Several speakers and attendees commended Birgeneau’s efforts to build an inclusive campus community.

“I will always see him as a champion of diversity,” said A. Ruben Rodriguez, the campus’s associate development director in the Division of Equity and Inclusion. “He led the fight with undocumented students, and I’ve witnessed him speaking with a passion.”

However, some campus staff members who attended the event criticized Birgeneau’s leadership, claiming that the chancellor, in focusing on improving the school’s public image, has not prioritized workers’ needs.

“Honestly, the chancellor hasn’t done much for staff,” said Theresa Hirashima, an employee at International House. “I have had four salary increases in my 13 years here … yet we’re being asked to do more and more. They say we’re all in this together, but we’re really not.”

About five members of the bp Off Campus Coalition, a subgroup of Occupy Cal, also voiced complaints about Birgeneau, protesting outside the entrance to Memorial Stadium. According to the coalition, the chancellor has played a large role in the privatization of UC Berkeley and allowed the police to use violent means to subdue nonviolent protests.

The protesters also rushed into the event toward the end, reenacting a scene of alleged police brutality from the Nov. 9 Occupy Cal Day of Action.

“It is extremely important to have a chancellor who genuinely supports free speech, sustainability, accessibility and integrity,” said UC Berkeley graduate student Ian Saxton, one of the protesters. “We’re here to remind people that Birgeneau has failed in all these aspects.”

Birgeneau has served as UC Berkeley’s chancellor since September 2004 and has also been involved in the campus department of physics. He has received several awards since the beginning of his tenure for his leadership and his work in physics.

Though Birgeneau will be replaced by Chancellor-designate Nicholas Dirks on June 1, he will be staying on campus as a physics faculty member.

“He was resolute in his belief of the right thing to do,” said Tim Ravey, a UC Berkeley alumnus and a current admissions officer for the school. “Despite shortfalls … he was able to put the campus in a more stable position for the future.”

Contact Alison Fu at afu@dailycal.org.

The post Campus honors Birgeneau with farewell celebration appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The Judicial Council also announced it will not hold a hearing because of the timing and nature of this case but will instead issue a summary judgment.

“I’m not surprised that the Judicial Council accepted the petition, since they also accepted the original petition filed a couple of weeks ago,” said ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran. “It’s unfortunate that the council will not allow both sides to vigorously debate, but I respect its decision.”

ASUC President Connor Landgraf is optimistic that the council will uphold his executive order despite the absence of a hearing.

“In the past, it seems like those who have accused me of violating the constitution have been poorly organized during these debates,” Landgraf said. “So it’s not a big deal that the council decided not to hold any hearings.”

Devonte Jackson, campus organizing director for the Office of the External Affairs Vice President, filed the petition against Landgraf on Wednesday, claiming that Landgraf missed a constitutionally mandated deadline for issuing the executive order that placed the referendum on the ballot.

People who have challenged Landgraf’s use of the executive order welcomed the decision.

“I thought that this was the best possible outcome, because I believe the council is interested in questioning the constitutional legitimacy of Landgraf’s executive order,” said Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco, who filed a similar petition against Landgraf in the past. “Regardless of who wins the case, I’m happy that the council is respecting and embracing the judicial process.”

The possibility of a settlement remains open if both parties reach an agreement by Tuesday at 5 p.m.

Contact Shirin Ghaffary and Jason Liu at newsdesk@dailycal.org.

The post Judicial Council accepts petition filed against health and wellness referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

About 80 students and faculty members attended the forum at Anna Head Alumnae Hall. Students asked questions that spanned student athletics, Dirks’ time as dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Columbia University and his relationship with the UC Board of Regents.

At the event, Dirks said he supported UC Berkeley’s public mission and that he hopes to have a positive influence on the university.

“I believe that UC Berkeley is not just the greatest public university, but it is the best university because it is public,” Dirks said. “I want this university to be a place that educates both undergraduate and graduate students and makes them future leaders.”

Dirks also said he hopes to work closely with student groups and the ASUC, noting that at Columbia — where he previously worked — there was no student group like the ASUC that directly represents the interests of students.

“Berkeley has a long tradition of making students’ voices heard, and I am willing to listen to those issues and address them,” Dirks said.  “I want to set up regular evening sessions in the University House with multiple student groups and have open discussions to bring attention to not only problems in the student community but to solutions as well. Together, we can resolve any issue.”

ASUC President Connor Landgraf said it was valuable that students met Dirks at the forum so they could see he was willing to take on the challenges facing UC Berkeley.

“I think it’s really important for him to meet with students,” Landgraf said. “This shows that he wants engage with students and know them personally.”

On Wednesday, Dirks met with the ASUC Senate at its weekly meeting. Dirks aimed to address senators’ concerns and answer their questions, Landgraf said.

“The meeting last night went very well,” Landgraf said. “He is very respectful to students and their concerns, and he spent a lot of time answering questions. I think he will be a fantastic chancellor because he understands the students’ needs and concerns. I’m excited to see what he does.”

After the forum, campus freshman Riley Murray said he believes that Dirks’ background makes him well-suited to address the problems facing the university. Murray was impressed by Dirks at the meeting and thinks the chancellor-designate will have a calming influence on the university.

“He’s not what I expected,” Murray said. “He made it very clear that he hasn’t yet gone into the intricacies of all of (UC) Berkeley’s issues, but he displayed a curiosity and a willingness to solve these problems rather than just being obliged to solve them.”

Contact Seif Abdelghaffar at sabdelghaffar@dailycal.org.

The post Dirks speaks with students, faculty at Anna Head appeared first on The Daily Californian.

This is only the latest petition filed against Landgraf alleging constitutional bylaw violations arising from his use of the executive order. Two other charges were filed previously, the most recent of which was rejected by the ASUC Judicial Council before it could go to trial.

Devonte Jackson, campus organizing director for the Office of the ASUC External Affairs Vice President, filed the petition Wednesday, claiming that Landgraf missed a constitutionally mandated deadline for issuing the executive order that placed the referendum on the election ballot.

Landgraf issued the executive order that placed the health and wellness referendum on the ASUC election ballot in late March. He utilized the executive order after the referendum, which institutes a student fee to build new recreational facilities, was submitted too late for the ASUC Senate to vote to place it on the ballot by the filing deadline.

Landgraf said that he doesn’t expect Jackson’s charges to stand because individuals need to file lawsuits within seven days of an election.

“It’s frustrating because it’s been 42 days since I issued the executive order, so I don’t understand why it’s being filed,” Landgraf said.

Similar charges were filed last week by Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco alleging that Landgraf “overstepped his authority” and “damaged the integrity and process of the Spring 2013 ASUC elections” by filing the executive order.

The Judicial Council ultimately voted to reject Pacheco’s petition, claiming that “the petitioners had delayed and/or interfered with the judicial process.”

Jackson’s petition argues that the Judicial Council should uphold the ASUC’s democratic process by overturning Landgraf’s executive order.

There are some, however, who claim that Jackson’s lawsuit bears a striking resemblance to Pacheco’s.

“I don’t think there’s any merit to (Jackson’s) lawsuit since it basically rehashes many of the same arguments that Pacheco used,” said ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran.

Conner Nannini, the campaign manager for the health and wellness referendum, said he suspects that Pacheco may have been involved in the creation of Jackson’s lawsuit.

“It seems like the text from Jackson’s legal brief is 90 percent the same as the text used in Pacheco’s arguments,” Nannini said. “It won’t surprise me if Pacheco is using Jackson as a proxy for making the same arguments.”

Pacheco firmly rejected this assertion, claiming that it is natural that Jackson’s lawsuit would resemble his.

“My legal brief was widely distributed, so it’s not surprising that this new lawsuit is really similar to mine,” Pacheco said.

For Pacheco, however, it is not about winning or losing.

“I hope (Jackson’s) lawsuit is successful, but even if it isn’t, at least we raised awareness about the judicial process and the systematic abuse of the constitution,” Pacheco said. “The fact that so many charges have been filed means this is not an isolated incident but a recurring problem.”

According to Tran, the Judicial Council will decide in one to two days if Jackson’s lawsuit merits a trial.

Contact Jason Liu at jliu@dailycal.org

The post Health and wellness referendum may face further charges appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Elected representatives of the UC Berkeley student body like Pacheco and Landgraf have an obligation to be honest and transparent about their actions. This is especially paramount when it comes to controversial topics like the debate around SB 160, a bill the senate passed nearly two weeks ago that calls for divestment from companies associated with the Israeli military. Pacheco offered to drop completely unrelated charges against Landgraf’s executive order putting the health and wellness referendum on the ballot if Landgraf did not veto the bill. Though he indicated in his handwritten note to Landgraf that his offer should not be the deciding factor, its very existence calls his motives into question.

Pacheco somehow needs to be held accountable for his actions. Landgraf made the right call by being forthcoming to the ASUC attorney general about what happened; Pacheco should face charges if at all possible. If no grounds exist to charge Pacheco for his ethical breach, then the ASUC Senate must at the very least take steps to prohibit such actions from recurring in the future.

On a broader level, Pacheco’s note is one of several indicators of the extent to which divestment has negatively impacted the campus. Considering that senators have received threatening messages and the physical assault that occurred on campus before the vote, the ASUC and the campus administration should intervene. Students must feel safe on campus, even after expressing controversial political beliefs, and they must be able to have faith that the ASUC is operating with integrity and accountability.

ASUC President-elect DeeJay Pepito would do well to focus on improving campus climate as she begins her term. Though many students disagree about the necessity of divestment, all should be able to acknowledge that some of the reactions have reflected poorly on the UC Berkeley community. And as the assault and the general reaction to divestment show, the problem transcends the boundaries of the ASUC. All student groups need to be engaged in a meaningful way moving forward so that none feel UC Berkeley is not a safe or welcoming place for them.

The post Divestment quid pro no appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Former external affairs vice president Joey Freeman and former SQUELCH! senator Noah Ickowitz, a former columnist for The Daily Californian, have jointly filed charges alleging that the ASUC Senate violated the ASUC Constitution in its passage of SB 160.

Ickowitz and Freeman filed the petition early Friday afternoon, and it is currently pending review. The charges, if accepted, would lead to a trial addressing the alleged violations of SB 160.

“I strongly believe the ASUC should follow the correct procedures in passing these bills,” Ickowitz said. “Because SB 160 has such an intense conversation around it, to not follow the procedures does a disservice to the campus.”

The root of the charges lies with the language of the bill, which Ickowitz said “presupposes that the bill has the authority to restrict spending and funding without having gone through appropriate channels.”

The charges begin with the fact that the bill was not passed with a two-thirds senate majority, which the ASUC Constitution states is required for deliberations regarding ASUC financial appropriations or revenue reductions.

They also argue that the bill “restricted” the ASUC’s investment practices, a responsibility that lies with the Investment Committee and requires consent from the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee. The bill, with its “commanding” language, oversteps these bodies and “overextends the powers of the ASUC Senate without due process,” Ickowitz said.

In the charges, Ickowitz and Freeman suggest that SB 160 be sent back to the senate for a two-thirds vote to either follow or suspend the bylaws requiring review by these committees.

Before filing, Ickowitz and Freeman notified Student Action Senator George Kadifa and independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, author and sponsor of SB 160, respectively, of their intent to petition the bill.

“I’m disappointed that the students who brought the charges didn’t bring these up earlier,” Kadifa said. “I’m a little curious, now that the bill has passed, why they’re bringing this up now. If the petition is accepted, we would rewrite the bill to ensure there are no violations.”

The petition has joined other suits that the ASUC Judicial Council must review in the coming weeks, including charges against Safeena Mecklai, a Student Action senator and external affairs vice president-elect.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran said Ickowitz and Freeman raised some “interesting points,” noting that both of them have a “strong understanding of ASUC policies.” Tran said that should the petition be accepted and litigation begin, a trial would hopefully be scheduled before the end of the semester — if not, it might be held during the summer session.

Ickowitz said he felt that there was a “high likelihood the charges will be accepted,” emphasizing that the arguments were made on legal rather than ideological grounds. However, he did note that ideology was part of the impetus for filing.

Ickowitz pointed to the charges filed by Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco and Student Action Senator Mihir Deo against ASUC President Connor Landgraf’s executive order to place the health and wellness referendum on the ballot as an example of people filing “that which is relevant to them.”

Notably, the senators did not charge the Class Pass referendum, even though it allegedly violated the same bylaws as the health and wellness referendum.

“When people sue over legislation, it’s not at all out of the ordinary that legislation is relevant to them,” Ickowitz said. “It’s also coupled with relevance to me and my community.”

View the petition evidence below:

Contact Sophie Ho at sho@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the petition as a charge sheet.

The post Charges allege senate violated constitution in passing divestment bill appeared first on The Daily Californian.

After an initial settlement, charges against ASUC President Connor Landgraf’s executive order that put the health and wellness referendum on the spring 2013 ballot have been refiled.

Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco opted to reopen the case against Landgraf around noon Thursday and said he filed the new charges around 6:30 p.m. The new charges request that the ASUC Judicial Council overturn Landgraf’s executive order, an action that would effectively annul the referendum.

The health and wellness referendum seeks to use student funds to build new fitness and wellness centers on campus.

The student body passed the health and wellness referendum by a slim margin in a vote of 6836-6139.

In his legal briefs, Pacheco argues that Landgraf “overstepped his authority” and “damaged the integrity and process of the Spring 2013 ASUC Elections,” and he asks the Judicial Council to “restore the balance of power of the ASUC infringed by (Landgraf’s executive order).”

The new charges come shortly after Landgraf received a letter from Pacheco offering to settle the case if Landgraf agreed not to veto the controversial divestment bill SB 160, which passed in the senate 11-9.

The original charges against Landgraf, which were filed by Student Action Senator Mihir Deo jointly with Pacheco, were dropped when the Judicial Council threw out a proposed settlement between the two parties. This original settlement included concessions that the new center have two trained physical therapists and two disabled students on its advisory board. The agreement borne from those settlement negotiations will still be part of the referendum.

Deo said that he and Pacheco had very different reasons for filing the original charges against Landgraf’s executive order. While Deo sought to secure additional concessions for the new fitness centers favored by the disabled community, Pacheco was concerned about the constitutionality of the way the referendum was put on the ballot. The memorandum of understanding does not address issues of constitutionality but did meet Deo’s demands.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran says that he is confident Landgraf would prevail in court should the case go to trial.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Senator refiles charges regarding health and wellness referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In a study conducted by Jennifer Stellar, a UC Berkeley psychology doctoral student, and Robb Willer, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, the researchers explored the relationship between morality and economics. In a paper published this week in an online issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, they concluded that people believe morally tainted money has less value and less purchasing power.

“We tend to think of money as being really objective, but people actually attach a lot of subjective meaning to it,” Stellar said. “We wanted to show the connection between economics and rational decision-making and the fact that morality plays a huge role in our economic decisions.”

Willer and Stellar conducted an experiment involving 59 college-aged participants who were told to enter a mock raffle for a $50 cash prize sponsored by one of two corporations. They were subsequently divided into a “neutral money” group and an “immoral money” group.

The “neutral money” group was told that the raffle prize would be provided by Target, while the “immoral money” group was told their prize would be provided by Wal-Mart. The latter was explicitly told that Wal-Mart had been found guilty of numerous labor-law violations.

The researchers found that those in the
“immoral money” group filled out fewer tickets than those in the “neutral money” group, implying that the participants in the immoral group were not as determined to win the raffle prize because of its association with Wal-Mart.

“People possess powerful motivations to view themselves as fundamentally good and moral,” Willer said during an interview with the UC Berkeley Newscenter. “We find this motivation is so great that it can even lead people to disassociate themselves from money that has acquired negative moral associations.”

Participants were then told to estimate how many of eight food or beverage items — such as a gallon of milk — they could purchase with the $50, and the researchers found that subjects consistently believed money associated with Wal-Mart would buy fewer items.

“This reveals that those in the immoral group believed their money had less value because it is morally tainted,” Stellar said.

The results of the study resonate with ASUC President Connor Landgraf, who said he recognized the link between morality and decisions involving money.

“I absolutely agree with this — I think morality is one of the most important factors in making economic decisions, especially because money represents who we are,” he said.

Contact Jason Liu at jliu@dailycal.org.

The post Research shows people believe morally tainted money holds less value appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Landgraf said he received the letter, written by Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco, around 4 p.m. Tuesday. In the letter, Pacheco stated that he would settle the suit against Landgraf’s executive order to put the health and wellness referendum on the spring 2013 ballot if Landgraf opted not to veto SB 160. A settlement was ultimately reached on the suit against Landgraf’s executive order around 5:30 p.m. that day.

Landgraf said that he had already made the decision not to veto SB 160 at the time Pacheco slipped the handwritten letter into his office. Landgraf communicated in a text message to Pacheco that he was “disappointed and shocked” by the letter and immediately sent it to ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran to make it clear that Landgraf’s decision regarding SB 160 was not influenced by Pacheco’s offer.

“By not vetoing, I will settle,” the letter reads. “You should make this decision on your own conscience, but this is something I will do if you stand behind your senators and demonstrate everything that would appease any and all of my concerns.”

Pacheco and Student Action Senator Mihir Deo are the original filers of the suit against Landgraf. Deo, however, said he was not aware of the letter and was taken aback when he heard about it.

“When I saw (the letter), I thought I was personally taken for a fool,” Deo said. “The fact that he used something important to all students to leverage a political opinion of his was very disappointing and unacceptable.”

The settlement followed previous indication that Pacheco was ready to take the suit to trial.

Tran said in an email that “while President Landgraf and I did attempt to negotiate a settlement that would address Senator Pacheco’s concerns, he indicated to us that he would only be satisfied by an annulment of the referendum.”

Pacheco said he did not seek to exert political capital to influence Landgraf’s decision.

According to Pacheco, the letter to Landgraf was simply an effort to explain his thoughts on SB 160, and he was not trying to influence the president’s decision on whether to veto the bill.

“I’m not trying to say that settling wouldn’t happen if he vetoed,” Pacheco said. “I just wanted to engage a conversation of executive authority, and that’s basically it. Connor wouldn’t let that affect his decision.”

Tran said that his office is still looking into the legality of such a letter and that it may violate a bylaw. He was not aware of a precedent for this sort of situation.

Read the full text of the letter below:

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC senator sends letter offering Landgraf deal for no veto appeared first on The Daily Californian.