Stefan Elgstrand/Courtesy

After two years of planning, some students are raising concerns about the ASUC-sponsored Berkeley redistricting map because the proposed student district excludes Northside residences, including nine Berkeley student housing cooperatives and three residence halls.

Stefan Elgstrand, a UC Berkeley senior and an intern for Councilmember Kriss Worthington since June, has introduced the United Student District Amendment, a proposal that includes Northside residences.

While both the ASUC map and the USDA aim to create a student-majority district to help elect a student representative to Berkeley City Council, proponents of each disagree on how to best represent interests of students and city residents.

Currently, Elgstrand is rallying support for his amendment prior to the City Council meeting on Sept. 10, when the council will continue discussing redistricting.

The ASUC-sponsored Berkeley Student District Campaign map started as a campaign platform for 2011-12 ASUC external affairs vice president Joey Freeman, a Student Action candidate.

The BSDC map creates a student district that encompasses Southside housing, the Greek community and the residence halls, with a 90 percent student population. The map is detailed in ASUC Senate Bill 65, which passed unanimously in the spring of 2013.

“The fact that this (amendment) was introduced so late is really difficult to deal with,” said ASUC External Affairs Vice President Safeena Mecklai of the proposed amendment, which she said the ASUC team has not agreed to. “I wouldn’t be comfortable with it going forward unless the senate endorses it.”

After the BSDC map was submitted in mid-March, Worthington questioned its inclusivity and motivated Elgstrand to draft an amendment.

“The BSDC people mostly live in the fraternities and sororities, so there’s a bit of a bias in that,” Elgstrand said. “From my perspective, since I’m not connected to any of those groups, I can make it more inclusive.”

Proponents say the BSDC map has received support from the Greek community, Cal Berkeley Democrats, Berkeley College Republicans, all 20 ASUC 2012-13 senators and some leaders of the Berkeley Student Cooperative, including ASUC Senator Jorge Pacheco, who is endorsed by the co-ops.

Now, other leaders in the BSC are reconsidering their stances, saying that the BSDC map underrepresents Northside housing. They are giving preference to the USDA proposal, which Elgstrand says includes 87.4 percent of the cooperative population, while the BSDC map only includes 38.1 percent.

“If the intention is to create a unified student district, then not including Northside dorms and co-ops seems to leave out an important population of students,” said Michelle Nacouzi, the 2013-14 president of the BSC.

Nacouzi and other members of the BSC said they were told that it was not feasible to include Northside co-ops in a student-majority district.

Noah Efron, the ASUC redistricting director and local affairs deputy, said the BSDC made several efforts to include the input of student groups by inviting leaders from the BSC, the Greek community and the residence halls to participate in public forums about the plan.

Despite their differences, both Elgstrand and Mecklai said they would prefer to maintain a unified student voice in demanding a student district. However, the ASUC will continue to support the BSDC map without changes to include Northside residences, while Elgstrand plans to push forward his amended plan.

Contact Saachi Makkar at smakkar@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article stated that the district proposed by the ASUC represents 90 percent of the student population, defined as residents between ages 18 to 29. In fact, it represents 86 percent of the student population.

The post ASUC-sponsored redistricting map raises questions over Northside representation appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Benny Grush/Staff

The ASUC Judicial Council heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case regarding the controversial divestment bill, SB 160.

The council heard the case, Ickowitz-Freeman v. ASUC Senate & SB 160, at Anna Head Alumnae Hall Wednesday morning. Petitioners Noah Ickowitz, SQUELCH! party chair and a former Daily Cal columnist, and Joey Freeman, former external affairs vice president, allege that the bill’s passage was unconstitutional because it legislated investments, did not pass through the ASUC’s investment committee and did not obtain the two-thirds majority required to approve investment legislation.

CalSERVE Senator Nolan Pack argued for the defense, saying that SB 160 makes no changes to the budget and therefore does not fall under the investment committee’s purview. He also said that SB 160 leaves the ASUC’s revenue sources  unaltered. If this is true, the bill’s passage would be constitutional.

On Friday, the Judicial Council approved a settlement agreement to the case that would remove language from the bill, making the passage constitutional. On Saturday, however, the Judicial Council backtracked on that decision, deciding instead that the settlement was invalid.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran agrees with the petitioners that the bill’s passage was unconstitutional and decided not to represent the ASUC Senate in this particular case despite the attorney general’s traditional role of doing so.

“The settlement would have produced a constitutional SB 160,” Tran said. “I determined personally that there are parts of SB 160, as is, that are unconstitutional because the ASUC intended that anything finance-related would require a two-thirds vote in order for the ASUC to divest.”

SB 160 was originally passed on April 18 by a vote of 11 in favor and nine against after 10 hours of debate that continued through the night and into the following day.

Pack — in place of Tran — argued for the constitutionality of the bill’s passage.

However, despite the procedural nature of the case, both sides felt their personal beliefs on divestment were being brought into the debate, raising questions about whether individual values will influence the justices.

“A significant part of the defense’s arguments were personal attacks on the plaintiffs rather than arguments against legal claims that the plaintiffs were making,” Ickowitz said. “Personally, I felt that they harped on one of the violations I was asserting but briefly addressed the others.”

Pack said, however, that this is not about Israel or Palestine but about upholding the integrity of decisions made by the ASUC.

“I hope that the Judicial Council upholds the legislative decision of the senate to support SB 160 rather than affirming arguments that aim to use judicial council to achieve a legislative goal,” he said.

The Judicial Council declined to comment on this story.

Click here for a video of Ickowitz’s statement.

Contact Matt Trejo at mtrejo@dailycal.org.

The post Judicial Council considers divestment bill’s constitutionality appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The settlement calls for the removal of clauses in SB 160 that dealt with ASUC investments and appropriations. It effectively thwarts the ASUC’s effort to divest its own funds from companies involved in Israel’s alleged “human rights abuses” against Palestinians, leaving a purely symbolic piece of legislation that requests similar divestment by the UC Regents.

The charges that brought about the settlement claimed that the bill was not approved by the proper committees and should have been passed by a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority.

“I think SB 160 has lost a lot of weight through this settlement,” said Noah Ickowitz, SQUELCH! party chair and a former columnist for The Daily Californian. “The bill that passed is now a completely different bill once these clauses are stricken. It loses almost all its authority. I hope the public understands that this is no longer ASUC divestment.”

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said in a public statement that the passage of SB 160 would in no way affect the investment policies of the university.

The settlement, which is pending approval by the Judicial Council, was reached between Attorney General Hinh Tran — representing the ASUC — and Ickowitz and former external affairs vice president Joey Freeman. Tran, who was tasked with defending the ASUC in the matter, conceded the legitimacy of the constitutionally grounded charges against SB 160 but added that in his opinion, the charges did not have enough merit to warrant nullifying the bill.

“It’s a sign on cooperation and compromise on a very difficult bill,” Tran said.

Student Action Senator George Kadifa, who authored the bill, disagreed that the settlement watered down the bill in any way, emphasizing that the purpose of the bill has been largely symbolic since its inception.

“The settlement changes very, very little about the bill,” Kadifa said. “A part of the reason (we were willing to compromise) was that the ASUC wasn’t invested in any of these companies. That wasn’t the main focus. All language calling for the UC Regents to divest is still in the bill.”

While the settlement represented a compromise between the parties involved, it was not necessarily a consensus of the affected communities.

Despite being on the opposite side of the divestment debate, Jewish Student Union President Daphna Torbati agreed that the settlement did not really change the essence of the original bill.

“Although this is definitely a change in the right direction, these changes are largely inconsequential, as the bill still contains the same sentiments that ignore much of the Israeli narrative,” she said.

Both Tran and Ickowitz said they believe that the settlement reflects an important ability to compromise on an issue that has been divisive. They echoed a sentiment similar to that of ASUC President Connor Landgraf when he announced that he would not veto the bill in an effort to expedite the campus’s healing process.

“Not going through a hearing definitely helps campus climate,” Ickowitz said. “We really don’t need a trial right now, and the settlement avoided a big public spectacle. I’m sure there are people in both communities left unsatisfied, but in this case, I’m sure it was the right decision.”

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Settlement of charges against divestment bill SB 160 to remove major clauses 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.

The bill in support of divestment, SB 160, authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, calls for targeted divestment of ASUC and UC assets from any companies that provide support to Israel’s military in the Palestinian territories or contribute to the building, maintenance or economic development of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

The committee meeting, which continued into the early morning, was attended by at least 100 community members, many of whom spoke both against and in favor of targeted divestment from Israel. Many senators who do not sit on the the six-person committee were also in attendance, as were External Affairs Vice President Shahryar Abbasi and Executive Vice President Justin Sayarath.

Abbasi said at the meeting that divestment enabled the ASUC to stay neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by ending financial ties to either side.

“We should not be complicit in violations against human rights,” he said. “By divesting our funds, we are saying that we will not support one side or the other.”

SB 160 targets more than $14 million from the UC Retirement Fund and the UC General Endowment to be divested from three companies: Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Cement Roadstone Holdings. According to ASUC Finance Officer Amir Chini, this represents a tiny fraction of the total capital available to these companies — too little to realistically expect the companies to make any strategic changes.

An opposing bill discussed at the meeting, SB 158, calls for the ASUC to instruct managers of its funds to “seek investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation” as a constructive alternative to divestment. The bill was authored by authored by Student Action Senator Rafi Lurie, former External Affairs Vice President Joey Freeman,  SQUELCH! Senator Jason Bellet, SQUELCH! Chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz and former Student Action Senator Aviv Gilboa.

Community supporters of SB 158 emphasized that divestment was not conducive to a negotiated peace or the two-state solution and would only cause division  and alienation of campus communities. Many Jewish and pro-Israel students said they felt alienated and unsafe on campus after a similar attempt to divest from Israel in 2010 brought national media attention to campus.

“What we want to do is use our political advocacy to promote a two-state solution,” Bellet said. “That’s more impactful than divesting from four companies.”

The bill was heavily amended by the committee before being passed for consideration by the senate.

Lurie took issue with the amendments to SB 158, which included the striking of clauses that compared SB 160 to the international movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

“Our community feels like our voices were silenced on this issue,” Lurie said. “These amendments are destroying the spirit of the bill.”

Freeman expressed that SB 160 harmfully blamed only one side of a complex historical conflict. “Tonight is not about valuing one side of this conflict over another,” he said. “There is very real and serious suffering on both sides of the conflict. But SB 160 is a one-sided narrative that places the burden entirely on Israel.”

Senior Shir Davidovic recalled the rise in anti-semitism that coincided with the last divestment effort, during which swastikas were drawn on the walls of Clark Kerr and her friends were spat on because they were Jewish.

‘The language of the BDS movement has anti-semitic undertones,” Davidovic said. “I considered transferring, and many of my friends did too. I know this is not the campus climate you want.”

Supporters of SB 158 also argued that it was an appropriate way to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would avoid the tensions and hostility that arose after the ASUC Senate considered the similar bill passed in 2010. That bill led to heated debates, which drew hundreds of students to senate meetings and brought international attention to campus. It was passed by the senate but later vetoed by then-president Will Smelko. The senate failed to garner the two-thirds majority vote necessary to override the veto.

Bellet said that SB 158 sought to encourage diplomacy and a more productive conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“While Israel’s steps should be criticized, there are other ways we can address this issue that will be more impactful on an international scale,” Bellet said.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Divestment bill to proceed to senate floor after approval by committee appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The passage of Measure R — which will amend the existing city charter to eliminate the 1986 boundary lines and adjust the district boundaries to reflect the city’s updated population — may result in substantial changes to district lines, including the possibility of forming a student supermajority district.

“By updating the outdated redistricting rules, Berkeley voters sent a clear message that districts should represent communities of interest, including students,” said former ASUC external affairs vice president Joey Freeman. “We certainly plan on submitting a new map that will establish a student supermajority district.”

Despite student efforts to create such a district in the past, the current — and controversial — boundaries divide the city in such a way that it has not been possible to create a supermajority district of UC Berkeley students since the redistricting rules were established in 1986.

Community members have until March 15 of next year to complete and submit their proposals to the city.  The proposals will then be presented to the council for discussion at two public hearings, currently set for May 7 and July 2.

According to Jacquelyn McCormick, a city resident and former mayoral candidate, there are no guarantees that the council will follow through with the proposed communities of interest boundary lines.

“The problem with the process is that while the public will produce maps for the council to either accept or modify, (the council is) going to have full discretion in drawing those lines,” she said. “The students want a district, (but) there’s no guarantee that that’s what they’re going to get.”

Once the council chooses a proposal, it will adopt the new boundaries after two readings of the ordinance on Sept. 10 and Sept. 17, 2013, respectively.

According to Councilmember Kriss Worthington, if the public is not in favor of the district lines, residents can initiate a referendum after the first and second reading of the selected map, which could prevent the council from adopting the district lines in time for the next election.

As of the current timeline, the redistricting process is set to be completed by Dec. 31, 2013, and will be in effect by the 2014 election.

Daphne Chen covers city government. Contact her at daphnechen@dailycal.org.

The post City Council sets timeline for Berkeley redistricting appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In September, the UCSA board of directors passed a resolution condemning HR 35, a California State Assembly resolution that aims to curb anti-Semitism at the state’s higher education institutions. The UCSA bill argues that the house resolution suppresses legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and, in so doing, unfairly stifles robust political debate.

In a letter dated Oct. 19 to the UCSA board, ASUC Senators Jason Bellet and Rafi Lurie and UCLA Student Body President David Bocarsly called out the student association for a “lack of transparency” and misrepresenting UC students in the process of passing the resolution.

“Many members of the Jewish community believe HR 35 infringes on our First Amendment rights, and still others believe HR 35 is an encouraging step towards the protection of Jewish students,” the letter states. “However, UCSA’s resolution capitalizes on an ongoing debate on speech to use rhetoric offensive to many of its constituents.”

The letter was signed by 60 elected student representatives from across the university, including ASUC Academic Affairs Vice President Natalie Gavello and former ASUC External Affairs Vice President Joey Freeman.

In a response letter, UCSA President Raquel Morales apologized for a lack of outreach by the external vice presidents on the board but stood by the passage of the resolution.

“We continue to believe that it was critical for UC students to express our opposition to HR 35 and its impact on free speech and free expression on our campuses,” she said in a letter to the student leaders.

She added that there was no collective discussion of who would be included in the conversation surrounding the student association’s resolution and said it was decided by individual representatives of the board who presented the resolution at the September meeting. Still, she said the discussion should have included more student input, adding that the board will try to consult more students before making decisions in the future.

Bellet, who received Morales’ response Oct. 27, said though he appreciates some of the “small steps” taken to further representation, he is ultimately disappointed by the response.

“There is a big difference between standing for students’ First Amendment rights and against the limitations HR 35 potentially places on those rights (and) taking a stance on a complex geopolitical issue like divestment on behalf of all UC Students,” Bellet said in an email. “The UCSA Board failed to separate the two issues and provide equal opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in the conversation.”

Contact Virgie Hoban at vhoban@dailycal.org.

The post UC student leaders send letter condemning passage of controversial UCSA resolution appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Takver- Creative Commons /Courtesy

This morning, a reader emailed me regarding the UC Student Association’s vote repudiating HR 35, a California Assembly resolution aimed at addressing anti-Semitism on state public university campuses.

Referring to recent Daily Cal op-eds on the issue, the reader asked for my opinion, “in particular on the attempt by some of those writing to cast this in the terms of a silencing of the Jewish community.”

I normally would not devote a blog post to respond to a reader’s question, but because my criticism of Israel in a previous column generated so many passionate responses, I’d like to weigh in on the current controversy.

I’ll start with HR 35, the state Assembly bill rejected by the UCSA. The bill cites a number of disturbing occurrences on UC campuses, including:

“(1)physical aggression, harassment, and intimidation by members of student or community groups in student-sponsored protests and rallies held on campus; (2) speakers, films, and exhibits sponsored by student, faculty, and community groups that engage in anti-Semitic discourse or use anti-Semitic imagery and language to falsely describe Israel, Zionists, and Jews, including … that the Jewish state should be destroyed, that violence against Jews is justified, that Jews exaggerate the Holocaust as a tool of Zionist propaganda … (3) swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti in residential halls, public areas on campus, and Hillel houses …”

This behavior is outrageous, and HR 35’s authors are right to call for public higher education institutions to “swiftly and unequivocally condemn acts of anti-Semitism on their campuses.”

But couched within this list of anti-Semitic behaviors is a clause that goes too far. The bill equates violence against Jews and Holocaust denial with “student- and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment, and sanction campaigns against Israel.”

I don’t agree with the boycott, divestment and sanction (BDS) campaign that calls for institutions to divest funds from companies associated with alleged human rights violations in Israel. I think that it is intellectually dishonest and unproductive to single out Israel for criticism while ignoring human rights violations by China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and dozens of other countries.

Nonetheless, it is unfair to conflate a legitimate (if misguided) political movement with anti-Semitism. While some BDS proponents are probably motivated by anti-Semitism, the vast majority are driven by political and moral views about human rights. The movement, after all, was endorsed by 16 ASUC senators in 2010. Was 80 percent of our student senate really anti-Semitic?

Some Jews understandably feel personally attacked by the BDS movement. As ASUC Senator George Kadifa wrote in an op-ed today:

“BDS detractors argue that there is limited historical evidence that boycotts work, thus BDS advocates are not motivated by a desire to advocate for Palestinian rights but rather as a way to attack Israel out of spite. [They argue that] boycotting the Jewish state is inherently anti-Semitic as it is analogous to boycotts against Jewish businesses that took place throughout Europe in the early 20th century leading up to Holocaust.”

But as I have written before, the fact that speech offends some people does not justify censorship. HR 35, by putting forward an overly expansive definition of anti-Semitism, does have the effect of suppressing BDS advocates. The UCSA was right to condemn it.

But the UCSA was wrong to add to its resolution an implicit endorsement of BDS. It is particularly troubling that, as Joey Freeman pointed out, the UCSA passed the resolution without consulting any Jewish or Zionist groups, though advocates of BDS not only were invited to attend the meeting but delivered a presentation to UCSA delegates. It is precisely this type of exclusion of Jewish groups from formal campus discourse that leads to charges of anti-Semitism and resolutions like HR 35.

Image source: Takver via Creative Commons

Contact Jason Willick at jwillick@dailycal.org.

The post Two bad resolutions appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Berkeley Student Redistricting Campaign/File

After 26 years, Berkeley residents will have an opportunity this November to vote for a ballot measure that some hope would allow a student supermajority district to be established.

If passed, Measure R will amend the existing city charter to eliminate the 1986 boundary lines and instead use major traffic arteries, natural geography and communities of interest as boundaries to redefine Berkeley’s district lines.

Despite student efforts to create such a district in the past, the current — and controversial — boundaries divide the city in such a way that it has not been possible to create a supermajority district of UC Berkeley students since the redistricting rules were established in 1986.

The last time a UC Berkeley student served on Berkeley City Council was in 1984, when current state Assemblymember Nancy Skinner was elected.

“Students make up 25 percent of the city, yet we don’t have a voice on the City Council, so it just seems like a matter of fairness and representation … that their voices should be heard for decisions that affect everyday Berkeley residents,” said former ASUC external affairs vice president Joey Freeman.

Currently, voters in Berkeley are divided into eight council districts — each with its own elected council member who resides within that district — that comply with the 1986 district lines.

“Students have been one of my strongest support bases, and if students were taken out of my district, that would be harmful to me … but I look at it as a cause for the students in the city of Berkeley,” said Councilmember Kriss Worthington, whose district contains the majority of the campus.

But city residents have expressed concern regarding the possible limitations of public input on Berkeley’s redistricting process if the measure is passed.

“It takes away the right from the voters to vote up or down where those boundaries are drawn and gives it to the whim of the council,” said Dave Blake, vice-chair of the Rent Stabilization Board. “People have a right to speak to it.”

Additionally, Blake said the 1986 lines were drawn up in a way to specifically prevent gerrymandering, but the passage of Measure R will undo the protections drawn into the original charter.

Mayoral candidate Jacquelyn McCormick agreed with Blake and said too much power would be given to the City Council in redrawing district lines. Although she expressed her support for student involvement in city politics, she said there was no guarantee that a student district may even be formed if the measure passes.

Councilmember Gordon Wozniak — whose district also contains a large number of students — said district lines would still have to ensure equal population distribution and that no two council members may be located in the same district, he said.

“It shouldn’t be controversial,” Wozniak said. “The process is no different in terms of the existing (charter) or now … There would be a public process to vet or allow the public to submit districting plans to the council and make the decision as they do now.”

If the measure is passed, new district lines would be drawn by the next election in 2014, according to Worthington.

“Hopefully, the measure passes — then we will resubmit our map,” Freeman said.

Daphne Chen covers city government. Contact her at daphnechen@dailycal.org.

The post Future creation of student supermajority district rest on November ballot measure appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Partial disclosure: I, Noah Ickowitz, am a former ASUC senator with the SQUELCH! party. Don’t you worry. I can still recognize the obnoxious, delusional and limiting parts of our student government. Luckily, I can also commend the fantastic parts of it. I will try to give you as much of a balance between the two as possible.

For you as readers, I will provide analysis and even more than that — new information that will blow your Cal socks right off — if you care about this stuff. The actions and absence of actions by the ASUC in and out of official meetings bring a fantastically dramatic dimension to the student government and will hopefully do the same for this column.  My stories will make you feel like Gossip Girl and The West Wing had a love child named the ASUC. The ridiculous amounts of money students spend on their election campaigns would make even Meg Whitman weep. Juiciness will be for another day, but I encourage you to read on.

Some students on campus are so enamored by Berkeley’s student government to the point where they can’t see its flaws. Opposite from these ASUC loyalists stand the rebellious individuals who believe not only that the student government does nothing, but also that it is evil incarnate. As most things go, the truth rests somewhere in between the extremes — I realize that is not rocket science.

First, to those of you who think the ASUC does nothing, I’m sorry, you’re wrong.

Senators wrote hundreds of bills last year, allocated thousands of dollars to student groups and held absurdly long weekly meetings. Former CalSERVE Senator Andy Albright worked to move more than $3 million in ASUC funds into a more “responsible” bank. Former External Affairs Vice President Joey Freeman led a campaign to redistrict the entire city of Berkeley in order to increase student representation on the Berkeley City Council. Whether these moves were prudent or in line with your ideologies, there is no doubt that these actions have tangible consequences.

Now, to those of you who think that the ASUC is completely autonomous and has done only good: I’m sorry, you’re wrong, too. I’d love to believe that students still completely control the bookstore or the businesses on Lower Sproul Plaza, but that’s simply not true. A Commercial and Student Services Board exists, which does have student representatives, but administration remains prominent on the board. Soon we will either have to work to regain more control or admit that we just don’t have as much power as we think we do. I will concede that the ASUC does control the Cal Lodge,  which allows for great skiing — just what we need in times of financial crisis. My problems with the Cal Lodge will be revealed at another time, but yes, I’m sure many of you did not know it exists — which is part of the problem. The powers of the ASUC lie more in its human capital than in its financial assets.

It’s true that it was not always this way. We did at one point in time own the bookstore. But senators serve one-year terms, and rarely do they run for re-election. As you can imagine, this turnover rate prompts fresh leadership year after year with little to no governing experience behind most senators. After all, we did once get bailed out by the university, which led to the creation of the current Commercial and Student Services board system.

Life away from the ASUC can sometimes feel like breathing without air, but stepping back from the senate has given me insight that I didn’t always have whilst arguing until two in the morning with my fellow senators. But don’t get me wrong. The two major political entities, Student Action and CalSERVE, do occasionally unite by party at the expense of students. Although this still angers and frustrates me to the core, I now realize the existence of these parties inadvertently highlights the awesomeness of the ASUC. Since many schools do not even have student-made political parties, the very existence of these parties showcases the intensity and seriousness of our student government. I am proud of that intensity.

At the core of this column rests information that will make you cringe, cry and laugh. Never hesitate to email me with tips, praises or words of contempt. For those of you freshmen who don’t yet understand why the student government has such a presence on our campus, I can hold your hand in the spring as we walk through Sproul Plaza and get berated by flyers. I mean that in the least creepy way possible.

Contact Noah Ickowitz at nickowitz@dailycal.org.
Follow him on Twitter @noahickowitz.

The post The agony that is the ASUC appeared first on The Daily Californian.