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 ASUC Judicial Council backtracked on its previous decision to approve a settlement of charges against controversial divestment bill SB 160 on Saturday.

On Friday, the Judicial Council voted in favor of the settlement, which would have removed clauses that petitioners had said were unconstitutional. They alleged that the bill had not been approved by the appropriate ASUC committees and was not passed by the necessary two-thirds vote.

The settlement removed any clauses that required the ASUC to divest its funds from companies associated with the Israeli military. The Judicial Council’s latest decision means the parts of the bill that were removed will be restored.

The original charges will now go to trial, and the Judicial Council will rule on the validity of the charges. The trial is scheduled for Wednesday at 11 a.m. at a location to be determined.

In an email obtained by The Daily Californian, Judicial Council Chief Justice Suneeta Israni said the settlement was reversed because the negotiators did not have the authority to modify a previously passed bill. According to the email, the original decision to accept the settlement was based on the impression that 11 senators officially voted to pass the post-settlement version of the bill.  In reality, that figure came only from a straw poll taken by ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran, the chief negotiator in the settlement, to gauge support for reaching the settlement.

The Judicial Council issued a gag order around 8 p.m. Saturday, demanding silence on the case from all parties involved. Last Monday, the Council also issued a gag order on the case surrounding alleged election law violations by External Affairs Vice President-elect Safeena Mecklai. According to a high-ranking official within the ASUC, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of disciplinary action, gag orders have traditionally only been used to protect witnesses and defendants from possibly injurious information before a decision has been made.

However, the Judicial Council’s Rules of Procedure do not clarify or limit the circumstances under which the Council can issue such an order.

Two ASUC officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the gag order, were sharply critical — even angered — at what they called the Council’s freehanded use of the gag orders, which the officials said was an overreach of the Council’s authority.

In an email sent to Israni before the gag order took effect, SQUELCH! party chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz expressed his displeasure with the Judicial Council’s handling of the case as well as the decision to rescind the settlement.

“I need to express my deep sadness in both your procedure and transparency,” Ickowitz told Israni in the email. “The whirlwind of having so many verdicts in the span of 24 hours has taken a toll on me and I believe has tarnished my vision of a system I used to appreciate.”

Neither Israni nor Associate Justice Stephanie Chamberlain could be reached for comment for this story.

Like with the case surrounding the health and wellness referendum, the Judicial Council planned to decide the SB 160 case by summary judgement, in which the council can make a decision without the participation of involved parties and without hearing oral argument. According to the Rules of Procedure, the council may issue a summary judgement “in the extreme event the Council does not believe a hearing will provide any substance to the controversy brought to its attention.”

The council eventually reversed its intention to issue a summary judgement, reverting to the original plan to hold a trial.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Judicial Council rescinds decision on divestment bill settlement appeared first on The Daily Californian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Jason Liu at jliu@dailycal.org

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

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 charges were dropped because most of the candidates in question lost their bids for office, so any censures against them would have no effect, according to ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran.

Petitions were filed last week against the entire Student Action executive slate — presidential candidate Rafi Lurie, executive vice presidential candidate Chen-Chen Huo, academic affairs vice presidential candidate Ryan Kang and Mecklai — for sending unsolicited emails. A petition was also filed against CalSERVE senate candidate Taylor Fugere alleging the same charges.

“According to the Council, censures for losing candidates are not an effective remedy for the violations alleged in my petition,” Tran said in an email. “Although Safeena did win, my office had filed suit against the entire Executive Slate in a single petition, and apparently the Council rejected the petition in its entirety.”

The Judicial Council will assess a separate charge against Mecklai for campaigning in the residence halls at a trial scheduled for May 2 in Unit 1’s Slottman Hall at 8 p.m.

The other candidates were charged with violating Section 12.5 of the election bylaws, which prohibits candidates from sending unsolicited emails.

Had the candidates been found in violation of this section, each would have received one censure. In order to be disqualified from the election, they would need to receive a total of five censures.

According to Student Action party chair Joey Lam, the email in question was sent due to a miscommunication. He said that the executive candidates met other people with the same name and accidentally sent it to the student who made the complaint.

Fugere cited a similar reason, saying one of her staff members accidentally sent the email to the wrong listserv.

Andrea Guzman covers academics and administration. Contact her at aguzman@dailycal.org and on Twitter @guzmanandrea5.

The post Judicial Council rejects petitions filed against several ASUC candidates 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.

Derek Remsburg/Staff

The ASUC Judicial Council overturned the executive order Tuesday that invalidated the V.O.I.C.E. Initiative on the spring 2012 election ballot.

In its decision, the council said ASUC President Vishalli Loomba’s order — which was issued the morning of the second day of voting — overstepped the president’s authority. The V.O.I.C.E. fee referendum asked students to pay $2 per semester to support The Daily Californian.

“(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.”

An April 10 email from Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard to Loomba said the campus whistleblower program had received letters of grievance claiming the initiative violated UC policy. Loomba then began the process that led to her April 11 executive order, which was upheld by the ASUC Senate at its meeting that night.

Lynn Yu, campaign manager for the referendum, along with ASUC Solicitor General Erin Delaney and former Attorney General Kevin Gibson, filed charges with the Judicial Council against the order April 13.

“I’m glad about the executive order being overturned, and I think it is a good step forward for the V.O.I.C.E. campaign,” Yu said. “But at the same time I anticipate that we will have to face more challenges.”

Editor in Chief and President of the Daily Cal Tomer Ovadia said Loomba’s order came as a huge surprise and that it “means a lot to the Daily Cal staff that the executive order was overturned.”

At the hearing for the executive order, Loomba said her immediate action was required to maintain the functioning of the ASUC.

But SQUELCH! Senator and chair of the senate Committee on Constitutional and Procedural Review Noah Ickowitz, who testified at the trial, said the ruling affirmed it was the right of the Judicial Council — rather than the president — to void a component of the election.

“Although an executive order is necessary when extreme circumstances arise, the president misused the (power),” Ickowitz said.

Tuesday’s decision did not rule on the constitutionality of the initiative itself, and there is still the possibility that more charges will be filed against the initiative.

CalSERVE Senator Anthony Galace, who also testified at the trial, said he believes the executive order was within the limits of the constitution but said the legality of the initiative is the core problem.

“Hopefully we can move on with the broader issue of whether or not the V.O.I.C.E Initiative was constitutional,” Galace said.

Senior Andy Nevis — who spoke in favor of the executive order at the April 11 senate meeting — said he believes the council will ultimately conclude that the initiative violates ASUC and UC policy.

“President Loomba’s executive order was a good faith effort to ensure that the legal issues surrounding the VOICE initiative were addressed,” Nevis said in an email. “This incident should be a wakeup call to the Senate to explore revisions of the constitution and bylaws to ensure that future presidents know exactly how far the power of executive order extends.”

Loomba could not immediately be reached for comment.

The post Judicial Council overturns executive order invalidating Daily Cal fee referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Following the March 10 visit of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to UC Berkeley — where he was a featured speaker at the Afrikan Black Coalition Conference — SQUELCH! Party Chair Eric Raby spoke about the history and definition of anti-Semitism. Farrakhan’s visit caused student groups to voice concerns regarding anti-Semitic, homophobic and other controversial statements they say he has made in the past.

Later in the meeting, campus independent hearing officer Lee Maranto encouraged students to participate as hearing panel members in determining whether students are in violation of the Student Code of Conduct. Both undergraduate and graduate students are needed for the hearing panels.

The senate also confirmed freshman Stephanie Chamberlain for a position on the Judicial Council, which serves as the judicial branch of the ASUC. It has the power to hear and decide on any cases involving the interpretation of the ASUC constitution, charges and violations under the ASUC Constitution and bylaws and against any person, party or candidate involved in the ASUC, among other duties.

Chamberlain said she knew little about the constitution and bylaws and is coming in “green” to the position.

Because the position was filled in the middle of the semester, concerns were raised that future senators might have to appoint a new candidate in the middle of the semester when Chamberlain’s two-year term ends.

Senators discussed the possibility of Chamberlain voluntarily quitting after a year and a half or changing the length of her term.

Senators from CalSERVE and Student Action who are on the party’s executive slates for this year’s election were not in attendance for the majority of the meeting. Student Action executive slate senators were not present until 10 p.m. because the party’s executive slate members had campaign kickoffs, while CalSERVE senators left for portions of the meeting.

Chloe Hunt is the lead student government reporter.

The post ASUC Senators confirm Judicial Council nominee, discuss anti-Semitism appeared first on The Daily Californian.