The recently resigned dean, Jonathan Poullard, was an administrator who, in the words of one campus official, elevated “the office of student life to where it is now.” His professionalism and work with student organizations were praised by many others, and his efforts to build dialogue and facilitate civil discourse will no doubt be a significant part of his legacy. Still, concerns remain about his time as dean.

Poullard stood behind former chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s controversial description of the 2011 Occupy Cal protests. When UCPD officers beat demonstrators standing by Sproul Hall, Birgeneau defended the police action. His grounds were that the students linking arms qualified as “not nonviolent civil disobedience.” Poullard, the dean of students and thereby accountable for ensuring student safety and well-being, agreed with Birgeneau’s wrong-headed characterization.

For whomever the search committee taps as the next dean of students, one of his or her primary obligations should be to publicly take on the issue of student protests. The dean should lean into the tension and work with students to address the basis of student civil disobedience and why calls for peaceful demonstration cannot be answered with acts of police violence.

The new dean will also need to bridge the gap between UC President Janet Napolitano and students concerned about her previous roles as the Secretary of Homeland Security and governor of Arizona.  While the dean of students’ job isn not to coordinate public relations for the UC president, it should be a priority to ensure that the UC Office of the President hears the concerns of the Berkeley student community and is able to work on addressing them.

The same also goes for making sure Berkeley’s new chancellor, Nicholas Dirks, is able to effectively communicate his vision for the campus to the student body. Dirks’ proposals of fireside chats with students and increasing administrative transparency are important, and the next dean of students must take on a key role in working with the ASUC to secure the necessary reforms.

The search committee, as Graduate Assembly President Max Gee put it, wants to give students “a voice along every step of the way.” The candidate the committee ultimately decide upon should as well.

The post Finding a dean for students appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The search committee is made up of 11 student, faculty and staff representatives, including ASUC President DeeJay Pepito, and is chaired by Anne De Luca, associate vice chancellor for admissions and enrollment.

The student forum drew about 20 students who voiced the importance of having a dean of students who is accessible and transparent, according to Austin Pritzkat, Pepito’s chief of staff.

Students said they wanted a dean who would actively participate with students and implement an open-door policy by holding informal meetings with students.

After a November 2011 Occupy Cal protest, Poullard agreed with former UC Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau that students linking arms to prevent police from entering an encampment was not “nonviolent civil disobedience.” In response, students at the meeting expressed concerns that the new dean must understand the rationale behind student protest.

Graduate Assembly President Max Gee, who also sits on the committee, said that he and Pepito will attend all search committee meetings to “make sure the priorities of the undergraduate students are met.”

“The search has just begun, and students will have a voice along every step of the way,” Gee said.

Other search committee members were also present at the student forum. David Robinson, associate campus counsel and a member of the committee, said the feedback about what the students at the forum said they wanted and what was discussed at the committee meetings were very similar.

“The dean of students needs to be someone who has communication skills and an ability to really listen to what the student priorities are,” Robinson said. “The dean needs to engage with students and student leadership as partners.”

According to De Luca, the committee discussed looking for someone who understands the unique dynamics of a public institution like UC Berkeley and who is committed to the type of diversity found in the campus community.

Currently, David Surratt is serving as the interim dean of students and will continue to do so until a replacement is found.

The committee, which has only had one meeting so far on Sept. 25, is in the early stages of finding that replacement. De Luca said there is no deadline and hopes to have finalists on campus to meet with different stakeholder groups by early February.

“Our next step is to review the draft of the position profile, and once it is approved, to begin to advertise the position,” De Luca said. “The committee will then focus on sharing the news of the position and encouraging applications from student affairs professionals nationwide.”

Jane Nho covers student government. Contact her at jnho@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly identified Anne DeLuca as associate vice chancellor for admissions and enrollment and acting director of undergraduate admissions. In fact, DeLuca is only the associate vice chancellor for admissions and enrollment.

The post UC Berkeley students express hopes for new dean of students appeared first on The Daily Californian.

After eight years as UC Berkeley’s dean of students, Jonathan Poullard will step down Sept. 13.

Poullard has expressed a desire to relocate to the East Coast to be closer to his family, said Felicia Lee, chief of staff for Harry Le Grande, vice chancellor for student affairs. Poullard will be ending his career at UC Berkeley as a voice for the student body.

“It was not a surprise regarding the reason but it is always a jolt when any staff member leaves our Cal community,” Lee said in an email.

Anne De Luca, associate vice chancellor for admissions and enrollment and acting director of undergraduate admissions, will lead a search committee tasked with finding a replacement for Poullard. Details about the committee’s members have yet to be released, but it will include representatives of faculty and staff members as well as student groups.

According to Austin Pritzkat, ASUC President DeeJay Pepito’s chief of staff, student representation on the search committee will include Pepito and Graduate Assembly President Max Gee. Pepito hopes to have students participate in the selection process, potentially through open forums, Pritzkat said.

As dean of students, Poullard oversaw many student-related groups and activities as well as emergency and crisis situations affecting students. The Occupy Cal movement was one of the more controversial events during Poullard’s tenure.

After the November 2011 protest in which police used batons against demonstrators trying to set up an encampment on Sproul Plaza, Poullard agreed with Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s statement that linking arms to prevent police from approaching the encampment was not “nonviolent civil disobedience,” according to Connor Landgraf, ASUC president during the 2012-13 academic year.

Landgraf acknowledged that student leaders and Poullard did not “always see eye to eye” on the campus response to protests.

“However, he was always very positive and was very vocal when it came to protecting students’ rights,” Landgraf said.

Other student leaders agreed that Poullard may be remembered for being a strong advocate for students.

“When a crisis erupted, whether it was the Berkeley College Republicans’ bake sale or the Israel divestment bill that rocked campus last spring, Dean Poullard never shied from the difficult issues,” said Joey Freeman, ASUC external affairs vice president for 2011-12. “He was a bridge-builder who facilitated meetings between students on both sides of any given issue.”

One of the programs that Poullard began on campus was the Student Liaison for Dean of Students, a mentoring program for undergraduate students wishing to explore the field of student affairs.

“It allows students to work with him directly for a year,” said Elizabeth Rodriguez, executive assistant to the dean of students. “Many of the students who participate in the program go on to do a master’s program.”

Billy Curtis, former assistant dean of students and current executive director of the campus’s Multicultural, Sexuality and Gender Centers, participated in the search committee that hired Poullard in 2006 and continued to work with him until 2009.

“It’s such a loss to the campus,” Curtis said of Poullard’s departure. “He brought a sense of professionalism to the student affairs department. He was instrumental in taking the office of student life to the level that it is now.”

Jose Hernandez covers campus life. Contact him at jhernandez@dailycal.org.

The post Jonathan Poullard to step down as dean of students appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Recently, the campus administration announced a set of proposed policy changes pursuant to the settlement of a lawsuit which alleged that UC Berkeley and the UC system failed to curb a climate hostile to Jewish students. The lawsuit took specific issue with Israeli Apartheid Week, an annual demonstration intended to draw attention to alleged human rights violations in Israel. The changes — which the settlement only requires the campus to consider — aim to clarify policies regarding the use of firearms and obstruction of pathways.

One specific policy alteration would allow students to use imitation firearms — which have been present at Apartheid Week before — in demonstrations only if “it would be obvious to a reasonable observer” that the weapons are fake and if they were approved beforehand by UCPD. If implemented, this rule would place a heavy amount of subjective authority on the campus police, who could unnecessarily censor legitimate protest.

Overall, the proposed changes are very reactionary — to address this important issue of campus climate, administrators and student leaders must do more than making bureaucratic changes. Additionally, Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard said the clarifications “merely put in writing existing practices,” and Tom Pessah, a member of Students for Justice in Palestine, indicated that the group already follows those rules. If those claims are true, then the policies would likely do little to affect the way demonstrations during Apartheid Week and at other times are conducted on campus.

In any case, these changes do not give the impression that the campus is addressing the larger issue of whether UC Berkeley has a significant campus climate problem. Pro-Israel and pro-Palestine student groups have a storied history of contention that is extremely divisive. This tension became apparent during previous Apartheid Week protests, when students on both sides clashed on Sproul Plaza. There is an apparent lack of constructive dialogue between these groups that must be mended.

But any effort to alleviate a problematic campus climate cannot come at the cost of squelching free speech. In response to a complaint from the same students who sued the university, the U.S. Department of Education’s civil rights office recently confirmed that it is investigating allegations of an anti-Semitic climate on campus. While such concerns should be taken seriously, the department must be very sensitive to students’ rights to free expression.

In the end, more dialogue is better than narrow policy changes when it comes to campus climate. While the Israel-Palestine dispute is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, we have a unique opportunity as members of the UC Berkeley community to engage in some of the most insightful conversations about this conflict. Peaceful, productive conversations should prevail over protests that divide the student body.

The post Dialogue over division appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The changes to the campus’s Regulations Concerning the Time, Place, and Manner of Public Expression aim to clarify policies that currently prohibit the use of firearms on campus and the obstruction of pathways and traffic during campus demonstrations.

The new policy states that “groups engaging in activities in or around campus buildings must leave open an unobstructed path sufficient for pedestrian traffic to flow into and out of the building.”

Additionally, the policy prohibits the display of imitation firearms unless “it would be obvious to a reasonable observer that the imitation firearm or other weapon is not a real firearm or other weapon.”

The policy further clarifies that prior to displaying any imitation firearms, members of the campus community must obtain permission from UCPD.

The last clarification specifies that demonstrations around Sather Gate must leave the gate unobstructed to allow pedestrians and emergency vehicles to pass through.

The policy changes follow the July settlement of Felber v. Yudof, which was filed in March 2011 and accused a member of Students for Justice in Palestine of ramming Jessica Felber — who was a member of Tikvah Students for Israel — with a shopping cart.

The suit alleged that the campus and the university failed to adopt policies that addressed that campus climate. It was dismissed by a district court in December and by the plaintiffs in July under the conditions that changes to the policy were considered.

Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard said that the policy clarifications “merely put in writing existing practices” of the campus and UCPD.

“Those practices are just one aspect of the substantial efforts that the campus undertakes on a constant basis to promote civil dialog and a elcoming campus environment,” Poullard said in an email.

Still, Abraham Levine, a campus sophomore and president of Tikvah, said the policies will be effective.

“These policies will protect every one who engages in the free exchange of ideas from harassment and intimidation,” he said.

Tom Pessah, a campus graduate student and SJP board member, said he believed the group’s demonstrations would not be affected.

“The lawsuit tried to say we were stopping traffic, which is untrue,” Pessah said. “We don’t completely block the traffic on Sproul, and we don’t use realistic weapons — we use weapons made of wood, which aren’t realistic at all.”

Campus administrators will accept comments from the campus community on the clarifications until Nov. 21. After reviewing the comments, the campus Division of Student Affairs will make a determination on whether the new policies are necessary, according to Poullard.

Honest Chung, an organizer for Students for a Democratic University and a UC Berkeley fifth-year, said that the language of the policy changes are “too vague” to properly protect students’ rights to assemble.

“It’s pretty clear what the policy says in regards to Sather Gate — it doesn’t want you to block it,” Chung said. “But for the other policies, the language is so vague that whatever demonstration or assembly or protest happens, the university can interpret it the way that they want.”

Contact Geena Cova at gcova@dailycal.org.

The post Campus officials consider changes to public expression policy appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Karishma Mehrotra/Staff

UC Berkeley alumni Jessica Felber and Brian Maissy dismissed their lawsuit accusing the campus and UC system of failure to mitigate a hostile climate against Jewish students during demonstrations in March 2010, the campus announced Wednesday.

The lawsuit was settled with the agreement that the university will consider potential changes to its policies regarding campus protests after collecting campus opinion. Felber and Maissy will receive no monetary compensation or attorney reimbursements.

The suit stems from an incident during which Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Student Association established a mock checkpoint that included fake barbed wire and AK-47 firearms at a 2010 Apartheid Week event. The plaintiffs alleged that Husam Zakharia, campus alumnus and former leader of SJP, rammed Felber — who was a member of Tikvah Students for Israel — with a shopping cart. Felber consequently sought medical treatment and a restraining order against Zakharia.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs accused the university of failing to discipline the accused campus groups, to provide adequate security and to implement policies to prevent the hostile environment, ultimately “turn(ing) a blind eye.”

The legal complaint, filed in March 2011, was dismissed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in December 2011.

“The allegations in the Felber lawsuit and the strategy behind bringing the suit were carefully calibrated to defame and harass Arab and Muslim student groups at Cal,” said Mohamed Haimoud, president of Cal MSA, in a press release issued Friday by civil rights and student groups applauding the dismissal.

The two potential policy clarifications the university will consider under the agreement — though it is not obligated to implement either — are limiting imitation firearms in public areas of campus to only when “it would be obvious to a reasonable observer that the imitation weapon is not a real weapon” and requiring demonstrators around Sather Gate to allow an unobstructed path for pedestrians.

“We had no desire for any personal compensation,” Maissy said. “We just wanted the situation to change for students in the future.”

Maissy said the lawsuit was “not entirely successful” because by the time it was concluded, both plaintiffs had graduated and consequently did not have the same power to seek redress from the court.

According to Chief Campus Counsel Christopher Patti, the university will begin to publicize the proposed policy clarifications and invite public comment from the campus community once students return in the fall. The campus will then decide whether to adopt, modify or reject the proposed clarifications based on the feedback received.

Because of that limitation, Felber and Maissy’s lawyers — Joel Siegal and Neal Sher — released a Title VI complaint to the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice on Monday. After the court case, according to the complaint, “(they) have become acutely aware of, and have obtained substantial evidence demonstrating, a pervasive hostile environment towards Jews on the campus.”

Maissy said he hopes the complaint will lead to an investigation that will cause the university to take more action or lose federal funding.

“Cal SJP, Cal MSA and our civil rights partners will work to ensure that these complaints are dismissed and the legacy of U.C. Berkeley as the birthplace of free speech is protected,” stated independent ASUC Senator Sadia Saifuddin in Friday’s release.

In a press release issued Wednesday, the campus said the majority of the plaintiff’s allegations was constitutionally protected speech and that the university “had made extensive efforts to maintain an inclusive and respectful campus environment that is safe and welcoming for everyone.”

“The claim that there is a hostile environment for Jewish students at Berkeley is, on its face, entirely unfounded,” stated campus Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard in the release. “The campus takes great pride in its vibrant Hillel chapter, the broad range of other Jewish student groups, our world-class Jewish Studies program, and the recently created Institute for Jewish Law and Israeli Law at the Berkeley law school.”

But Sher maintains the Apartheid Week event “brings anti-Semitism to full glory.”

“The atmosphere that some of these Jewish kids have been subjected to (is) reminiscent of what went on in Nazi Germany in the 30s,” Sher said. “And the university has the capability to step in and to stop this, but it hasn’t in years.”

Read the full text of Siegel and Sher’s Title VI complaint below:

The post Lawsuit alleging anti-Semitism against campus, UC dropped by plaintiffs appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Kelsey Finn/Courtesy

Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard announced the selection of the new executive director of the ASUC Auxiliary last week.

In a statement sent to members of the ASUC, Poullard welcomed current director of the Student Union and Event Services at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Kelsey Finn as the new director, a position that works closely with ASUC executives overseeing business administration and acting as a liaison between the student government and the campus.

“Kelsey believes in providing ‘guest first’ services to students, staff, faculty and off campus clients and working collaboratively to enhance the learning experience of students,” Poullard said in the statement.

In her new position, Finn will oversee 27 professional staff and 124 student employees while managing an annual operating budget of $5 million, according to Poullard’s statement. She will also be involved in the ongoing Lower Sproul renovation.

According to ASUC President Connor Landgraf, ASUC officials were involved in the search process for the new director and helped to select Finn from the pool of applicants.

“I think she’s very qualified since she holds a similar position at University of Nevada,” Landgraf said. “She has a lot of experience working with students.”

Marilyn Stager, ASUC Auxiliary financial services manager, has served as the interim director since September.

Former Executive Director of the auxiliary Nadesan Permaul retired amid controversy last June, two days before the auxiliary underwent a major realignment from Administration and Finance to the Division of Student Affairs. Since then, members of the ASUC have said that campus administration is ignoring students’ wishes for the realignment.

In May, former Cooperative Movement Senator Elliot Goldstein wrote an op-ed in The Daily Californian arguing that the idea of “shared governance” on which the basis of managing the ASUC Auxiliary is founded had been breached by Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Harry Le Grande and other members of the campus administration during the realignment.

A committee of students and administrators called the Transition Planning Team was founded as a compromise and created a report detailing ways to streamline the auxiliary’s operations. According to Goldstein, Le Grande has ignored the report’s recommendation regarding the executive director’s role.

“For those in the ASUC, a key part of the committee’s report was to put the ASUC Auxiliary executive director’s reporting line (who reports to whom) to Le Grande himself,” Goldstein said in the op-ed. “… Berkeley students deserve nothing less than having our student government’s reporting line to a vice chancellor level.”

According to Landgraf, as of now, the executive director reports to the dean of students.

Adelyn Baxter is the news editor.

The post Campus announces new ASUC Auxiliary executive director appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Nicole Lim/Staff

The ASUC is a unique student government with a rich 125-year history of being a vehicle for student agency and power at UC Berkeley. It is an organization that during CalSO is often touted as being an “autonomous” student government. Well, the reality is that this notion of “autonomy” is mostly false, and since 1998, the ASUC has not been able to control its own buildings, employees or businesses directly. Management is done through the ASUC Auxiliary, a department within the campus bureaucracy that operates through “shared governance” with the administration and Store Operations Board.

This notion of “shared governance” rests first and foremost on mutual respect and joint decision making, and this tenet has been breached by Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Harry Le Grande and other senior level administrators throughout the ASUC Auxiliary realignment from Business and Administration to Student Affairs. This is highlighted by Le Grande’s unilateral decision to place the ASUC Auxiliary director’s reporting line under the dean of students, rather than the vice chancellor, despite a clear directive from a committee that he charged. I’ll get to why this matters so much later.

Last summer, after being on campus for less than a year, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance John Wilton announced that the ASUC Auxiliary would be moved from Business and Administration to the Division of Student Affairs under Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard. Every single elected official (all parties) in the ASUC objected to this unilateral move during the summer, and the senate responded with a joint resolution sponsored by the 2010-11 and 2011-12 senate classes opposing the realignment. We especially objected to the reporting line under the dean of students, who also oversees the student conduct process.

Nevertheless the administration “realigned” the Auxiliary. This in itself was a bad faith effort by the administration over the ASUC’s right to self-determination that left a sour taste in the mouths of all those students tasked with trying to civilly work with a bureaucracy that lacks accountability and respect for the Associated Students.

However, in late summer, a compromise was reached between Le Grande and the ASUC and Graduate Assembly presidents to charge a committee called the Transition Planning Team consisting of administrators, staff and students. The TPT met over the course of the 2011-12 academic year and produced a report recommending a dramatic transformation of the ASUC Auxiliary into a more professionalized unit that would be more financially sustainable and increase the power of student voice at Cal. In the process, it sought to streamline processes for student groups to make it easier to function on this campus.

For those in the ASUC, a key part of the committee’s report was to put the ASUC Auxiliary executive director’s reporting line (who reports to whom) to Le Grande himself. This is a common practice at many other college student governments and works to increase access and student voice on their campuses. Berkeley students deserve nothing less than having our student government’s reporting line to a vice chancellor level. At its last meeting, the senate passed “A Bill in Consideration of the Transition Planning Team Report”  that supported the TPT report and specifically said that the reporting line is key to the success of the “transition.” No elected official who I know of supports the executive director reporting to the dean of students. However, Le Grande has responded by saying this is exactly what he intends to do.

From my perspective, under the dean of students is the wrong place for the ASUC Auxiliary in the short and long term. In the short-term, I have seen Poullard as micromanaging ASUC affairs and holding a paternalistic attitude toward the ASUC. While I respect Poullard as an inspiring individual and skilled administrator who has done countless positive things for students on this campus, I am completely opposed to the ASUC Auxiliary being under his division coupled with the merger of the ASUC Office of Student Affairs and the Campus Life and Leadership into one unit. This is a recipe for disaster to the vestige of “autonomy” that the ASUC has. The ASUC needs to be able to make its own decisions, be permitted to make mistakes and not have a micromanaging administrator usurping student agency over our own organization!

The response to the TPT report by Le Grande is the the last straw for me to call “foul” over this entire process. It seems to me that the TPT committee was all along just a show while Le Grande had predetermined what he would do with the reporting line. While he has accepted most of the TPT report, the executive director reporting line is the critical element that has the most effect on the power of the ASUC in years to come. This is the long-term issue once Le Grande and Poullard leave their roles — the ASUC will still be in a marginalized and unfitting position within the Division of Student Affairs.

The administration has shown time and again it is a “partner” that acts in bad faith with respect to notions of shared governance. While the TPT report was a recommendation to Le Grande, the delicate student-administrator alliance created on the TPT committee should not have been vetoed with respect to the executive director reporting line. I have observed such unilateral decisions during the Lower Sproul redevelopment process (when the administration divided $30 million off the project) and throughout the Auxiliary realignment.

If I were president, I would rally the support of ASUC alumni to pressure an end to being pushed around and disrespected. I would use all the resources at my disposal to ensure that this realignment does not proceed unilaterally by an administration that thinks it knows what is best for students and our organization.

To step back and look at the framework of this realignment, we see that the B.E.A.R.S Initiative has changed the game. The $220 million project redefined the student-administrator relationship as “business partners.” The Auxiliary was neglected for many years until the ASUC passed the B.E.A.R.S Initiative and it suddenly became relevant. Now is the time for the power struggle over who controls the ASUC and thus the new and very expensive student union. This power struggle is occurring in multiple arenas on campus simultaneously. Who will control the ASUC: students or administrators?

Elliot Goldstein is an ASUC senator.

The post ASUC Auxiliary realignment is disrespectful of student voice appeared first on The Daily Californian.

After the order was overturned Tuesday night, the ASUC Elections Council announced that voters approved the initiative in the election, which was held April 10, 11 and 12. The new charge sheet was filed by ASUC President Vishalli Loomba and ASUC Attorney General Deepti Rajendran. Because of the charge sheet, the initiative cannot move forward, according to Loomba.

The initiative asked students to approve a $2 semesterly fee to support the The Daily Californian, which has a nearly $200,000 annual budget deficit partly due to a loss of advertisement revenue as a result of structural shifts in the journalism industry. Loomba invalidated the referendum with an executive order issued on April 11 — the second day of voting — which the ASUC Senate upheld at its meeting that night.

On April 13 — the day after voting ended —  V.O.I.C.E. campaign manager Lynn Yu filed charges alleging that Loomba’s order violated the ASUC Constitution. The council’s Tuesday decision states that Loomba’s order overstepped her authority.

“(Loomba) has been unable to show that executive action mitigated any harms that had already occurred or that it prevented further harm compared to less disruptive alternatives,” reads the decision. “As a result, there was no urgency for an Executive Order.”

Loomba said she still stands by her executive order in stop a precedent of funds going to noncampus entities.

“(The initiative) needs to be done in the right way,” Loomba said. “I truthfully have doubts that it could be implemented in its current form.”

The charge sheet contains the same allegations as the original charge sheet filed by Rajendran April 11, stating that the initiative violated the policies of the ASUC and pushing “for a punishment that entails disqualification from the current ASUC Election.”

But the new charge sheet also suggests that the Judicial Council does not need to hold another hearing on the initiative before making a ruling.

The Judicial Council has not yet met to discuss whether or not it will accept the charge sheet, according to council chair Erica Furer. Tuesday’s decision by the Judicial Council did not rule on the constitutionality of the initiative itself — it ruled that the Loomba did not meet criteria needed to issue an executive order.

Loomba said she first learned of concerns over V.O.I.C.E. in an April 10 email from campus Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard that said the campus whistleblower program received letters of grievance claiming the initiative violated UC policy. In the email, Poullard said to “expect challenges if the initiative passed.”

Poullard declined to comment on his email and the V.O.I.C.E. Initiative.

Daily Cal Editor in Chief and President Tomer Ovadia said he thinks a memorandum of understanding with the university can be drafted that embodies what students voted for on the ballot. But Ovadia said the key issue is for the university to confirm or deny if this is possible.

As a result of Tuesday’s ruling, the election council released data on V.O.I.C.E. voting late Tuesday night, which showed the initiative received the necessary simple majority to pass with 5,977 students voting in favor and 4,054 students voting to not support the fee.

More than 2,600 students chose to abstain. According to the elections council, this year saw an unusually high voter turnout at more than 12,600 students.

Ovadia said the passing of the initiative was a good sign for the initiative moving forward. He said it also “means a lot to have students say that a small fee increase is worth investing in an independent student press.”

But some members of the campus community expressed concern that the results were influenced by the executive order.

“(Loomba) issuing an executive order tainted the election either way,” said CalTV co-executive director Myles Moscato, who added that students who might have originally voted no on V.O.I.C.E. may not have voted on it because it had been invalidated.

The post Fate of Daily Cal fee initiative remains unclear appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Danielle Lee/File

A fee referendum asking students to support The Daily Californian passed in the ASUC general election, according to ASUC Elections Council chair Pamudh Kariyawasam.

Following the ASUC Judicial Council ruling Tuesday night to overturn ASUC President Vishalli Loomba’s executive order invalidating the initiative, the elections council chair said Tuesday that the V.O.I.C.E. Initiative was approved by voters in the election. The initiative asks for students to pay $2 per semester for five years to support the Daily Cal, the campus independent student newspaper.

Loomba issued an executive order April 11 — the second day of voting — that voided the initiative after she received an email the previous day from campus Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard that said the campus whistleblower program had received letters of grievance claiming the initiative violated UC policy. Tuesday night, the ASUC Judicial Council decided that Loomba had overstepped her authority as president.

The election results for the referendum could not be released during the tabulation ceremony Thursday because an injunction prevented the final tally from being announced.

The percentage by which the referendum passed will be revealed later, according to Kariyawasam.

Tuesday’s decision by the Judicial Council did not rule on the constitutionality of the V.O.I.C.E. Initiative itself, and there is still the possibility that more charges could be filed against the initiative.

Staff writer Chloe Hunt contributed to this report.

The post Daily Cal fee passes following controversy appeared first on The Daily Californian.