J. Hannah Lee/Staff

The UC Berkeley Recreational Sports Facility will implement a one-time fee increase of $3 per month for all nonstudent members starting Sept. 1.

RSF officials say fee hikes are necessary, as the cost of running programs and facilities has risen considerably in several years, but membership fees have not increased.

UC Berkeley faculty and staff fees will increase annually from $420 per year to $456 per year. Community members, defined as people who are not associated with the university, will see their annual fees increase from $744 to $780, and fees for alumni will rise from $648 to $684 per year.

For community members, the fee increase will not affect short-term memberships, day passes or the Cal Star Program, a membership plan for individuals with disabilities. The $10 semester membership fee UC Berkeley students pay to use the facility will also not increase.

“This increase is needed to offset rising costs of current operations,” said director of recreational sports Mike Weinberger, who cited a mandated 2 percent raise for all nonunionized university employees, implemented by former chancellor Robert Birgeneau in March. He said that benefits and salaries are the facility’s largest expenses.

“Cal Rec Sports does not have the power to shift the costs to currently enrolled students,” Weinberger said. “The only (guaranteed) funding we get from the university comes from campus-based fees, so we have to come up with the money elsewhere.”

Enrolled students pay compulsory campus-based fees, which are used to fund the university’s programs and facilities and cannot be changed without a student government referendum. Referendums passed in 1981 and 2006 authorized some of the fees currently funding RSF operations.

Weinberger added that a membership fee increase was planned even if a referendum from earlier this year, the health and wellness referendum, had gone into effect. The referendum would have increased student fees by $40 per semester to help fund the RSF but was nullified in May.

Ted Friedman, a Berkeley resident who has been using RSF for 15 years, said the RSF’s new price, when compared to other gyms in the area, is still a bargain.

“This is one of the best gyms in the Bay Area, and if there’s a need to keep it running, I’m OK with paying a little extra,” Friedman said.

Contact Dennis Vidal at dvidal@dailycal.org.

The post RSF fees for nonstudent members to increase Sept. 1 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.

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.

The results of the referendum were initially held after ASUC Senators Mihir Deo and Jorge “Cheko” Pacheco filed a petition alleging that ASUC President Connor Landgraf unconstitutionally placed the measure on the ballot.

“Now that the Health and Wellness Referendum has been tabulated, and the results released, I hope the Senators will respect the will of the students of our university, and withdraw their petition to overturn this voter-approved referendum,” said ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran in an email.

While the results have been released, the Judicial Council will rule on the constitutionality of the referendum at a trial this Thursday.

Deo said he has been considering a variety of options, including the possibility of a settlement. Though the details of a settlement remain unclear, Deo said that ideally, an agreement would include more accommodations for disabled students in the proposed center.

“I’m making sure that no stone is unturned,” he said.

The measure initially sparked controversy after Landgraf issued an executive order to put the measure on the ballot instead of submitting the language to the senate. Landgraf said he employed the executive order because of delays on the part of the UC Office of the President.

If the health and wellness referendum is deemed constitutional, as it currently stands, the measure will finance the construction of the Wellness Center as well as a new Memorial Stadium Fitness Center. It would also eliminate the RecSports membership fee of $10 per semester.

A new fee would begin in fall 2013 at an initial level of $40 per semester and would increase at regular intervals over the next 10 years.

Curan Mehra is the executive news editor. Contact him at cmehra@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this story indicated that the Judicial Council will consider the constitutionality of the Health and Wellness referendum. In fact, the Judicial Council will consider the constitutionality of the executive order that placed the measure on the ballot.

The post Injunction against Health and Wellness referendum lifted appeared first on The Daily Californian.

ASUC President Connor Landgraf placed the referendum — which, if passed, would finance a new Wellness Center along with a new Memorial Stadium Fitness Center — on the ballot via executive order. The charge, filed by senators who allege that Landgraf’s executive order was not constitutional, aims to place a preliminary injunction on the referendum.

The injunction would suspend the release of the referendum results until the ASUC Judicial Council resolves the matter and would seek to nullify Landgraf’s executive order that placed the referendum on the ballot, Pacheco said. Because results of the election are contingent on the outcome of the hearing, the petition also calls for an expedited hearing.

Landgraf, however, contends that the executive order was necessary for the referendum to let students “have a voice in the democratic process.” Landgraf utilized the executive order after the referendums were submitted too late for the ASUC Senate to vote to place them on the ballot by the filing deadline.

The charge states that placing the referendum through executive order on the ballot was not “necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC until the Senate can again meet,” a requirement for executive orders set in the ASUC Constitution.

Deo said he did not file charges against the Class Pass referendum — which was similarly placed on the ballot by executive order — because he said he believes that referendum was “necessary for students, whereas creating a new gym is not something of urgent need.”

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran, who will be representing Landgraf in the hearing, said he disagreed with Deo in the interpretation of the executive order’s constitutionality.

“I think the constitution defines it broadly in order for the executive order to be used in a variety of unpredictable situations,” Tran said. “It is, to a degree, intentionally vague.”

Additionally, UC Berkeley senior and campaign manager for the referendum Conner Nannini expressed concerned about how the charges may affect student needs by not updating recreational facilities.

“(The RSF’s) facilities don’t serve disabled students, and there are only two machines that someone in a wheelchair can use,” Nannini said. “A consulting firm did an audit of the RSF and found that it only meets 33 to 50 percent of student demand. Facilities and group exercise classes are overcrowded and often oversubscribed.”

Nannini opposed the charge, contending that nullifying the referendum would be unfair because “it eliminates choice from Berkeley’s student population.”

Deo, on the other hand, added that regardless of the charge’s result, he hoped the senate would look into a revision of the constitution for the next senate term to ensure that such incidents do not occur again.

Contact Yvonne Ng at ygn@dailycal.org.

Clarification(s):
A previous version of this article may have implied that it was the ASUC Senate’s fault that the Class Pass and the Health and Wellness referendums were not voted on in time for the filing deadline. In fact, the referendums were submitted too late for the senate to meet the filing deadline.

The post ASUC senators file charges against Landgraf’s executive order appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Anthony Martinez/Staff

UC Berkeley students and other community members packed into The Daily Californian’s annual ASUC Candidates Forum Friday to hear this year’s candidates for ASUC executive positions discuss their visions for the campus and student body in the upcoming academic year.

The candidates addressed a number of contentious topics, including the shrinking affordability of higher education and the need to increase diversity of the student body and find new ways to finance student groups and the student government as a whole.

One area of dissention among the presidential candidates was the validity of current ASUC President Connor Landgraf’s recent executive orders to place the Class Pass and Health and Wellness referendums on the ballot.

Without the passage of the Class Pass referendum, students will lose unlimited access to AC Transit buses and campus shuttles.

Student Action presidential candidate Rafi Lurie said that Landgraf’s executive order to place the Class Pass referendum on the ballot was warranted because of an administrative error made by the UC Office of the President.

“(Executive orders) should not be issued unless there is no other way to fix a problem,” Lurie said. He said that Landgraf — who is also a member of Student Action — issued the executive order because access to AC Transit buses is critical to student life on campus.

DeeJay Pepito, the CalSERVE candidate for president, responded in a pointed rebuttal, saying that Landgraf admitted during a senate meeting that he had gotten approval from UCOP weeks before and that the Class Pass delay was not due to UCOP but rather to an error in his office.

SQUELCH! presidential candidate Jason Bellet echoed Pepito, saying that executive orders should only be used in very limited special circumstances.

“I won’t be issuing (an executive order) without reaching out to the students that this will be affecting,” Bellet said. “Vetoes are an extreme situation — not something I take lightly. I would make sure we have student voice and input.”

Defend Affirmative Action Party presidential candidate David Ramirez Douglass said that he would use executive orders to disband UCPD because of alleged discrimination against students of color.

According to the ASUC Constitution, executive orders can only be issued for such actions “urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC until the Senate can again meet.”

The presidential candidates and many audience members visibly reacted when contenders were asked whether UC Berkeley has a campus climate problem. All candidates responded affirmatively that there is a problem with inclusion and equitability, although each described different visions for what should be done to alleviate tensions.

Pepito spoke strongly about the need to improve UC Berkeley’s social, cultural and academic environment, highlighting student safety, mental health and a lack of campus resources as key areas in need of improvement.

Pepito directly attacked Landgraf’s work toward improving the mental health of UC Berkeley students while in office, saying that while an event hosted last night by his office to bring awareness to mental health issues was laudable, it wasn’t enough to make a real impact on the campus community.

“Drawing attention (to mental health) is not the same as doing something about it,” Pepito said.

In a moment that received widespread snaps of approval from audience members, Bellet said that though he was “privileged” as a “white cisgendered male,” his time in the senate has educated him on the diverse cultures that have been affected by problems with campus climate.

“As president, I would look out for the interest of all students regardless of what party I’m part of and what groups I’m part of,” Bellet said. “My door is open.”

Bellet is running partly on a platform of increasing the engagement of the campus by organizing events to bring communities together around common passions.

Candidates further addressed the need to improve equitability and inclusion on campus when asked about the recent passage of SB 130, which states that the ASUC Senate has “no confidence” in the campus’s handling of sexual assault cases.

Pepito, who was an author of the bill, and Bellet, who voted in favor of it, both spoke passionately about the problem of sexual assault on the UC Berkeley campus and the need to reform the current campus policies toward such crimes.

Lurie, however, acknowledged that while he had voted against the bill, the reason for his vote was not that he does not think sexual assault is a problem but rather that he heard from sexual assault victims who said the bill did not adequately represent them.

“It should be something we’re engaging in every year on this campus, and we’re constantly doing everything we can to make sure sexual assault is not prevalent on this campus,” Lurie said.

Other issues facing candidates include the new executive vice president’s management of the Cal Lodge, a Lake Tahoe property owned by the ASUC that has been plagued with financial problems. Last year, the the lodge faced a $27,000 deficit due to these difficulties.

CalSERVE EVP candidate Nolan Pack cited his experience on the SURGE committee, which is overseeing the redevelopment of Lower Sproul, as well as his background in fundraising for students as reasons he would be most competent to manage the ASUC asset.

Pack said that he would look at all viable options but would renovate and restore the Cal Lodge so that it would stop operating at a deficit. Pack said that he would like to make the lodge viable for use in the summer as well.

Chen-Chen Huo, the Student Action EVP candidate, said he also plans to restore the Cal Lodge but would do so by temporarily closing and renovating it. After reopening the lodge, he said, he hopes that the property would be used by both UC Berkeley students and residents of the city of Berkeley.

Candidates for academic affairs vice president had a range of ideas on how to manage funding for student grants. Student Action AAVP candidate Ryan Kang said he wants to implement an entrepreneurial grant for students interested in opening their own businesses, and DAAP AAVP candidate Christina Hamilton said that grants were tangential to the real issue of tuition and fee hikes.

“We need to increase funding overall,” she said. “(We need to say), ‘Hey, public, we’re your people, fund us.’”

The candidates for external affairs vice president spoke to the need of gaining greater student representation on Berkeley City Council as well as increasing the student voice at the state and national level.

“What we need to do is register every single student on this campus who is eligible to vote,” said Student Action EAVP candidate Safeena Mecklai. “There are 37,000 of us, and D.C. will have no choice but to listen to us.”

The candidates also spoke about the importance of placing a student representative on Berkeley City Council to provide a voice for student interests citywide.

Spencer Pritchard, the EAVP candidate for CalSERVE, said he would like to place students on other councils in addition to the City Council — such as the rent board.

“(I want to) create a comprehensive plan to appoint students to commissions and address the concerns of students in this campus and city, such as the revitalization of Telegraph and promoting safety on Southside,” Pritchard said.

Pedro Hernandez, the DAAP EAVP candidate, raised issue with Berkeley lobbying Sacramento alone.

“We should be lobbying with community colleges and other schools,” Hernandez said. “(We should be) sending students to Sacramento to show that our education is the future and the key to a self-sustaining economy. We need to be the ones who are mobilizing.”

Other issues discussed at the forum included a referendum to encourage the university to divest from fossil fuels, a referendum asking students if they support overturning the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision and a referendum that would amend the ASUC Constitution.

Contact Ally Rondoni and Sara Grossman at newsdesk@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
“A previous version of this article stated that the ASUC SURGE committee is overseeing the redevelopment of Lower Sproul. In fact, this committee only met for one month and was used to help the office of the Executive Vice President understand groups who moved to Hearst Gymnasium and Hearst Field Annex during the Lower Sproul redevelopment process.”

A previous version of this article also misspelled ASUC president Connor Landgraf’s name.

The post ASUC executive slate candidates talk vision, goals at Daily Cal forum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

On March 24, Landgraf issued two executive orders to place the Class Pass and Health and Wellness referendums on the 2013 spring ASUC ballot. The referendums, which would extend the contract for student bus passes and collect funds to build new recreational facilities, missed the deadline to be placed on the ballot because the senate did not receive confirmation on the referendums’ language from the UC Office of the President in time.

”Well, in terms of thinking of the students’ perspective, I think it (was) important to get the referendums on the ballot,” said Elections Council chair Jina Yoo. “It’s really important that the students are voting on (them). It’s something I know for sure that (Landgraf) did for the students.”

According to the ASUC Constitution, the ASUC president may issue an executive order on “actions which are urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC.” Landgraf said that the executive orders were the only way to place the referendums on the ballot, but there has been dispute as to why the deadline was missed in the first place.

“(Landgraf) was so focused on the Health and Wellness referendum … that he forgot to put the Class Pass referendum on the ballot in time,” said ASUC Senator Nolan Pack. “It wasn’t necessary. They were separate bills — there is no reason he should have put those bills together.”

ASUC Senator Klein Lieu said he was also critical of the use of executive order for the Health and Wellness referendum and said it potentially reflected an imbalance of power between the president and the senate.

“Given the fact that the Class Pass is something that everybody uses, I can see the dire need to use executive order,” Lieu said. “I personally don’t think executive order needs to be used so frivolously like that. I don’t think that the Health and Wellness (referendum) is something that’s needed to keep the ASUC functioning.”

The use of executive order has varied from president to president, and the constitutional bylaws do not specify the frequency allowed for its use. During the 2011-12 academic year, former ASUC President Vishalli Loomba issued four executive orders during her time in office.

Pack also believes that regardless of the outcome of the vote on the Health and Wellness referendum, it could potentially be nullified by the Judicial Council due to the its placement on the ballot by executive order.

According to ASUC Judicial Council chair Suneeta Israni, no official actions can be made at this moment by the Judicial Council on the executive orders since the council has not yet received a formal petition.

Contact Jennie Yoon at jyoon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC President Connor Landgraf sparks controversy among senators for use of executive order appeared first on The Daily Californian.

ASUC President Connor Landgraf issued two executive orders Sunday to place referendums on the 2013 ASUC ballot.

The decision comes after the referendums were submitted too late for the ASUC Senate to vote to place them on the ballot by the filing deadline last Tuesday.

“After much thought and deliberation over the last few days, and several very sleepless nights, I’ve decided the best course of action is for me to issue these executive orders to place both referenda on the Spring 2013 ASUC Ballot,” Landgraf said in an email to the ASUC Senate.

Pursuant to the ASUC Constitution, executive orders are intended to direct the “taking of actions which are urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC until the Senate can again meet.”

The Class Pass Referendum would extend the campus’s contract with AC Transit for the next seven years. Students stand to lose unlimited access to AC Transit campus shuttles, including the night safety shuttle, if the measure is not approved.

If passed, the Health and Wellness Referendum would impose a $40 fee on students to finance a Wellness Center as well as the construction of a Memorial Stadium Fitness Center.

Read the full text of the executive orders below.

//

ExecutiveOrder1 (PDF)

ExecutiveOrder1 (Text)

//

ExecutiveOrder2 (PDF)

ExecutiveOrder2 (Text)

Curan Mehra is the executive news editor. Contact him at cmehra@dailycal.org.

Clarification(s):
A previous version of this article may have implied that it was the ASUC Senate’s fault that the Class Pass and the Health and Wellness referendums were not voted in time for the filing deadline. In fact, the referendums were submitted too late for the senate to meet the filing deadline.

The post ASUC President Connor Landgraf issues executive order to place referendums on ballot appeared first on The Daily Californian.