Vik Thairani/Courtesy

Two UC Berkeley-affiliated startup companies were chosen on Tuesday to receive $100,000 each in grants from Founder.org following a nationwide search for promising startups.

Among the 500 student companies that applied from leading universities, Pristine and Eko were two of only 10 finalists chosen to win the prize, which also includes 12 months of mentorship. Pristine tracks the environment wine has been in, and Eko helps doctors better analyze heart conditions. Both companies are teams of Skydeck, a UC Berkeley-sponsored business accelerator program.

Pristine’s products aim to simplify the process of choosing wines. According to Pristine’s CEO and recent Haas School of Business graduate Vik Thairani, his company’s “smart wine labels” allow consumers to track the environment their wine has been in from the moment it was bottled using their smartphones. Pristine’s team is made up of both UC Berkeley students and industry specialists.

“We’re a company that focuses on adding intelligence to a product,” Thairani said.

Eko is another UC Berkeley startup founded by former ASUC president Connor Landgraf. Eko combines the smartphone application Shazam with hardware to better analyze and more easily record a patient’s heart sounds.

Both Pristine and Eko are teams that work with Skydeck, a business accelerator program formed as a joint venture between the UC Berkeley College of Engineering, Haas School of Business and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. Skydeck aims to provide startups with the guidance and tools necessary to grow their businesses. In addition to finalists Pristine and Eko, three more Skydeck companies were chosen as semifinalists in the grant competition.

“We are extremely proud of both Pristine and Eko, but we are also proud of the other teams that were semifinalists,” said Zen Trenholm, Skydeck community manager. “This just shows that what we’re doing here is providing teams with what it takes to get to the next level.”

With the grant funds, Eko plans to finish up its design, carry out clinical trials to evaluate the quality of its work and gain FDA approval. Eko intends to increase spending on marketing its product and partner with larger organizations.

“In the future, we hope to work with companies like the Red Cross to sell their product to doctors in both the U.S. and developing countries,” Landgraf said.
This is the first year that Founder.org carried out its $100K program. Current Founder.org CEO Michael Baum conducted the search. Along with the grant, finalists will receive 12 months of mentorship under Baum.

“What’s most important about Founder.org is the advice and support of Michael Baum, because working with him in the last few weeks has already helped us so much,” Thairani said. “We are all very excited and we know we’ll be able to do extremely great things.”

Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Eko uses the software of the smartphone application Shazam. In fact, Eko’s software is developed by Eko Devices.

Contact Jane Nho at jnho@dailycal.org.

The post Two UC Berkeley-affiliated startups win $100,000 dollars each to expand appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Simone Anne Lang/File

On May 16, UC Berkeley announced the details of its new campus-run health insurance plan, which expands coverage but increases premium rates.

The move to a new plan follows concerns over a projected $46.5 million deficit faced by the university’s previous health care provider, UC SHIP. UC Berkeley, along with four other UC campuses, withdrew from UC SHIP, citing concerns with the plan’s management by the UC Office of the President and limitations on coverage.

UC Berkeley’s plan is slated to be implemented on Aug. 15 in time for the 2013-14 academic year. Despite efforts by the university to bid out coverage to multiple student health providers, premiums will still increase this year under the new Berkeley SHIP plan.

Premiums for Berkeley SHIP will increase more than $200 annually to $2,014 for undergraduates, up from $1,782 last year under UC SHIP.

This increase accounts for some of the new benefits offered under the plan, such as the elimination of coverage caps and reductions in the cost of specialty office-visit co-pays from $20 to $15.

“We knew that no matter what plan we used, premium rates would need to increase to get the school back at the rates it needed to be at,” said Kim LaPean, communications manager at the Tang Center. “We’re happy to have the rates at the minimal increase they are at now.”

But some students say the premium increases will prove difficult for students despite the added benefits.

“To increase premiums when students are already taking on so much debt seems unfair,” said Nick Bygon, a UC Berkeley senior who is currently enrolled in UC SHIP.

But campus administrators and student leaders say the premium increases are common and reflect a national trend of increasing medical costs. The increases are also an effort to readjust rates following the miscalculated rates set under UC SHIP.

UCLA, which chose to stay with UC SHIP, has similarly seen an increase in rates, in part due to an effort to readjust to UC SHIP’s miscalculated rates. Last year, undergraduates at UCLA paid $1,602 annually for medical, dental and vision coverage. This year, rates have increased by almost $200 to $1,800.

The additional benefits of higher premiums under the Berkeley SHIP outweigh the costs, according to outgoing ASUC President Connor Landgraf. By having their own plan, UC Berkeley students will also have greater say over the benefits they receive, Landgraf said.

“Berkeley was heavily subsidizing the UC SHIP plan by several million dollars,” Landgraf said. “There were going to be premium costs regardless, and we thought it would be more fit for our school to have our own health care plan … it will be nice to have a local plan.”

Contact Jane at newsdesk@dailycal.org

The post UC Berkeley announces details of new student health plan appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In this case, former ASUC president Connor Landgraf made an executive order to put the health and wellness referendum, which aimed to fund the establishment of new gyms and mental health services around campus by raising student fees, on the ballot. Landgraf’s March 24 executive order missed the constitutionally mandated deadline for using that method to submit a referendum by one week, putting the legislation on the ballot just 18 days before the election began. A petition was then filed against Landgraf’s order after the referendum had been voted on and the election had ended.

The deadlines restricting when legislation can be placed on the ballot exist so students are given enough time to review what they are voting on prior to the election. It is with this in mind that we support the ASUC Judicial Council’s decision to nullify the referendum.
We agree with Judicial Council’s reasoning that the use of an executive order needs to be the only way to solve a problem facing the student government. According to the council’s findings, Landgraf had a week to pass his language through the senate after receiving approval for it from UCOP but failed to complete this process in a timely manner.

No student on campus should be allowed to bypass the general procedure in order to place a referendum on the ballot simply because he or she missed a deadline.  In this case, Landgraf’s use of the order was an overreach of authority.

According to ASUC bylaws, the president is only allowed to use the executive order if the action is “urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the A.S.U.C. until the Senate can again meet.”  When Landgraf first issued this executive order, we were not convinced of its urgent necessity. We are still not convinced that the referendum’s goal — to reduce overcrowding of the RSF and increase health facilities — is vital to the immediate functioning of the student government.

Additionally, by missing the deadline, Landgraf gave students just two weeks before the election to review what the referendum entailed. If passed, the measure would have broad implications, increasing student fees by regular intervals until almost 2046, affecting generations of students for years to come.
If Landgraf had submitted the paperwork on time, more students might have had the chance to read the referendum’s language before voting on it.

The health and wellness referendum is a worthwhile cause  and its future impact should not be discounted. The referendum should be reviewed again by the student body, and we appreciate that it has already been placed on the 2014 ballot to allow for that consideration ahead of time.
If Landgraf had followed the rules to get the referendum placed on the ballot on time and students still voted to support it, there would be no question about the legitimacy of that vote. The Judicial Council made the right choice.

The post Executive overreach, part two appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Cal Atheletics/Courtesy

The ASUC Judicial Council nullified the student-approved health and wellness referendum Tuesday when justices decided that the referendum was put on the ballot in an unconstitutional manner.

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.

Dean Ignacio/Staff

Hundreds of UC Berkeley students and staff members gathered Tuesday to celebrate Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s nine years of service to the university as well as that of his wife, Mary Catherine Birgeneau.

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.

Joe Wright/Staff

Chancellor-designate Nicholas Dirks met with students and faculty at a forum Thursday night to answer questions about his vision for UC Berkeley.

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.