The decision on Jackson v. Landgraf to overturn the health and wellness referendum was founded in the argument that ASUC President Connor Landgraf overstepped his presidential authority by using an executive order to get the referendum on the spring 2013 election ballot after the established filing date.

Associate Justice Scott Lara expressed concern that students only had 18 days to become properly informed about a referendum that would initially cost each student $40 per semester, a cost that would rise until reaching a maximum $287 per semester from 2042-46. The ASUC bylaws state that the president may only issue executive orders that are “necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC until the Senate can meet again.”

The justices believed that the circumstances surrounding the referendum did not require an immediate solution.

“Problems that only deal with the comfort of the student body, such as a larger area to work out or newer machines, cannot be an urgent problem that the Executive Order can be used to solve,” reads the decision.

Only five of the nine Judicial Council justices participated in the decision. Chief Justice Suneeta Israni was not involved. No member of the Judicial Council could be reached for comment on this story.

The constitutionality of another executive order that Landgraf issued to ensure students’ continued unlimited access to AC Transit bus passes — the Class Pass —  was not challenged.

Attorney General Hinh Tran, who represented the ASUC in the case and defended the referendum’s constitutionality, took issue with the procedures of the case. He said that the decision was made in summary judgment — a tactic usually reserved for the necessity of expediency — which allows the justices to make a private decision without hearing oral argument. Additionally, Tran said that the decision was made public only one minute before the deadline for an appeal.

“(The Judicial Council’s opinion) does not address the arguments I made in the trial briefs,” Tran said.

Student Action Senator Mihir Deo, who played a major role in including language in the referendum that would serve the needs of disabled students, concurred that the executive order was unconstitutional but said that the council did not consider external factors that caused Landgraf to miss the filing deadline.

“I feel that this is one of those situations where you withhold something unconstitutional, but you’re also withholding democracy a little bit as well,” Deo said.

The health and wellness referendum has already been placed on the 2014 ballot, giving students close to a year to weigh the benefits of new facilities against the fee increases that would pay for them.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Judicial Council nullifies health and wellness referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill, SB 177, calls for professors to report exact percentages and breakdowns of grades to students before they submit grades to the Office of the Registrar. If the bill passes, Academic Affairs Vice President Natalie Gavello will submit a letter to the chair of the Academic Senate requesting that the chair implement this more detailed grade-reporting system.

Currently, after students take their final exams, professors calculate and send grades to the Office of the Registrar without having to show students how their grades were computed. However, Deo said that students need to know why they got a particular grade in order to improve their study habits and to decide whether to appeal their grades if they find them to be computed incorrectly or unfairly.

“It’s an inconvenience to most students, because in order to see why you got a grade, you have to petition against the grade that you got,” Deo said.

According to the bill, a survey  Deo administered showed that more than 90 percent of students wanted professors to release a breakdown of their final grades through the online student portal bSpace or by other means. Of the students surveyed, 75 percent were also dissatisfied with the inaccessibility of professors for discussing grades and final exams after the end of the semester.

Eileen Tipoe, a UC Berkeley junior and teaching assistant in the department of economics, said she disagrees about the usefulness of an exact grade breakdown. Tipoe said, however, that professors should return final exams to students to allow them to learn from their mistakes.

“GSIs find participation hard to grade in the first place, and having students contest that makes it even harder,” Tipoe said. “I think students, from my perspective, usually when they get a bad grade or when they are surprised by a bad grade — it usually had more to do with how they did on the final.”

UC Berkeley freshman Hyunouk Ko felt said that more transparent grade breakdowns would not be much different from the current system.

“The only reason you would want to look at your final, at least for me, would be to change your grade, but especially for subjective exams, once the professor starts changing one person’s grade, the professor would have to look at all the other people’s grades to make it fair,” Ko said. “Chances are your grade won’t change anyway.”

In another effort to reform the grading system, UC Berkeley’s administration has considered adding information such as a student’s percentile rank in a class to transcripts.

The bill is scheduled to be voted on Monday in the senate external affairs committee.

Contact Yvonne Ng at yng@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC bill calls for professors to report final grade breakdowns 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.

After an initial settlement, charges against ASUC President Connor Landgraf’s executive order that put the health and wellness referendum on the spring 2013 ballot have been refiled.

Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco opted to reopen the case against Landgraf around noon Thursday and said he filed the new charges around 6:30 p.m. The new charges request that the ASUC Judicial Council overturn Landgraf’s executive order, an action that would effectively annul the referendum.

The health and wellness referendum seeks to use student funds to build new fitness and wellness centers on campus.

The student body passed the health and wellness referendum by a slim margin in a vote of 6836-6139.

In his legal briefs, Pacheco argues that Landgraf “overstepped his authority” and “damaged the integrity and process of the Spring 2013 ASUC Elections,” and he asks the Judicial Council to “restore the balance of power of the ASUC infringed by (Landgraf’s executive order).”

The new charges come shortly after Landgraf received a letter from Pacheco offering to settle the case if Landgraf agreed not to veto the controversial divestment bill SB 160, which passed in the senate 11-9.

The original charges against Landgraf, which were filed by Student Action Senator Mihir Deo jointly with Pacheco, were dropped when the Judicial Council threw out a proposed settlement between the two parties. This original settlement included concessions that the new center have two trained physical therapists and two disabled students on its advisory board. The agreement borne from those settlement negotiations will still be part of the referendum.

Deo said that he and Pacheco had very different reasons for filing the original charges against Landgraf’s executive order. While Deo sought to secure additional concessions for the new fitness centers favored by the disabled community, Pacheco was concerned about the constitutionality of the way the referendum was put on the ballot. The memorandum of understanding does not address issues of constitutionality but did meet Deo’s demands.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran says that he is confident Landgraf would prevail in court should the case go to trial.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Senator refiles charges regarding health and wellness referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Landgraf said he received the letter, written by Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco, around 4 p.m. Tuesday. In the letter, Pacheco stated that he would settle the suit against Landgraf’s executive order to put the health and wellness referendum on the spring 2013 ballot if Landgraf opted not to veto SB 160. A settlement was ultimately reached on the suit against Landgraf’s executive order around 5:30 p.m. that day.

Landgraf said that he had already made the decision not to veto SB 160 at the time Pacheco slipped the handwritten letter into his office. Landgraf communicated in a text message to Pacheco that he was “disappointed and shocked” by the letter and immediately sent it to ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran to make it clear that Landgraf’s decision regarding SB 160 was not influenced by Pacheco’s offer.

“By not vetoing, I will settle,” the letter reads. “You should make this decision on your own conscience, but this is something I will do if you stand behind your senators and demonstrate everything that would appease any and all of my concerns.”

Pacheco and Student Action Senator Mihir Deo are the original filers of the suit against Landgraf. Deo, however, said he was not aware of the letter and was taken aback when he heard about it.

“When I saw (the letter), I thought I was personally taken for a fool,” Deo said. “The fact that he used something important to all students to leverage a political opinion of his was very disappointing and unacceptable.”

The settlement followed previous indication that Pacheco was ready to take the suit to trial.

Tran said in an email that “while President Landgraf and I did attempt to negotiate a settlement that would address Senator Pacheco’s concerns, he indicated to us that he would only be satisfied by an annulment of the referendum.”

Pacheco said he did not seek to exert political capital to influence Landgraf’s decision.

According to Pacheco, the letter to Landgraf was simply an effort to explain his thoughts on SB 160, and he was not trying to influence the president’s decision on whether to veto the bill.

“I’m not trying to say that settling wouldn’t happen if he vetoed,” Pacheco said. “I just wanted to engage a conversation of executive authority, and that’s basically it. Connor wouldn’t let that affect his decision.”

Tran said that his office is still looking into the legality of such a letter and that it may violate a bylaw. He was not aware of a precedent for this sort of situation.

Read the full text of the letter below:

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC senator sends letter offering Landgraf deal for no veto appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The passage of SB 160 — which divested ASUC funds from companies affiliated with the Israeli military and urged the University of California to do the same — elicited enormous outcry from all parts of the campus community.

The bill has been so divisive that some senators say they have been targeted for their vote, whether it was for or against SB 160.

“I’ve been seeing a lot of emails with a lot of slurs in them … I’m not really comfortable saying them on the phone,” said Student Action Senator Mihir Deo, who voted against the bill at last week’s meeting. “Just by virtue of me being on campus, individuals have been walking up to me. It’s very aggressive and very hostile.”

Independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, a co-sponsor of SB 160, said she has also received hateful messages criticizing her role in the bill.

“Thankfully I haven’t experienced any type of physical violence, although I have been receiving threatening emails,” Saifuddin said in an email. “Most senators have been receiving some very unfriendly emails, and it is so unfortunate that a respectful dialogue is not being maintained.”

But some pro-Israel student groups said they felt this angry discourse begin at Wednesday’s ASUC  meeting when community members passionately debated the bill. Many anti-divestment speakers at the meeting said the bill ignored why Israel was established and why the nation had taken certain actions — like setting up a barrier on the West Bank and establishing checkpoints in the disputed territory. The speakers said that actions such as these greatly reduced the occurrence of terrorism against Israel and made the nation safer for its residents.

“Many pro-Israel and Jewish students feel that it is kind of a silencing of our narrative and our history that is very insulting,” said Avi Levine, president of Tikvah: Students for Israel. “The fact that the bill actually passed made it official. The ASUC actually believes the history of the Jewish people is illegitimate.”

However, many on the opposing side said they also felt targeted — in some cases by the campus administration. In a statement released Friday, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau affirmed his opposition to divestment, saying that “targeting a single nation or state in this highly complex world is not appropriate and does little to advance the cause of peace and coexistence.”

“That response from the chancellor did not contribute to a good campus climate,” said Andrea Urqueta, a member of Students for Justice in Palestine. “It’s a mix of feelings at this point for people who supported the bill. It’s a good feeling, but it’s discouraging to see the chancellor was not supportive.”

SJP, along with other groups, supported divestment on humanitarian grounds. These groups allege that Israel has committed serious human rights violations against the Palestinian people, including the demolition of Palestinian homes and the dropping of bombs on civilians.

When asked for comment, campus officials noted they had not received any complaints regarding the campus climate since Wednesday’s vote but reaffirmed that students should come forward with their concerns.

“We can’t deal with it if we don’t know about it, and that’s why students need to step forward,” said campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof. “We are going to do whatever it takes to have a campus climate that is civil and respectful of people’s differences.”

Jacob Brown is the lead higher education reporter. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter @jacobebrown.

The post Campus climate remains tense in wake of ASUC senate divestment vote appeared first on The Daily Californian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cal Day, for prospective students and parents, will be held this Saturday, April 20, a day also known in marijuana culture as 4/20. Some members of the UC Berkeley community are concerned that the cultural connotations of 4/20, often associated with smoking marijuana, might negatively affect the impression of the UC Berkeley community as a whole to prospective families and reiterate the negative stereotypes associated with Berkeley and drug culture.

According to The Huffington Post, the term “4/20” was allegedly first used by a group of teenagers in the 1970s who would regularly meet after school at 4:20 p.m. to smoke weed.

Today, 4/20 can refer to both the date of April 20 and the time of day and has evolved into an unofficial holiday in which smokers may gather and consume marijuana in a celebratory fashion.

ASUC Senator Mihir Deo expressed concern that the university did not have enough foresight about the cultural connotations of holding Cal Day on 4/20.

“When prospective parents come here, they’ll see this part of Berkeley that doesn’t necessarily define what Berkeley is about,” Deo said. “I think you’ll see some parents who initially wanted their children to go to Berkeley might change their minds.”

According to UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof, this is not the first time Cal Day has been held on 4/20. The last time Cal Day was held on 4/20 was 2002.

In general, Cal Day is strategically held on either the second or third Saturday of April, between Easter and the end of the month, when SIR agreements are due for incoming freshmen.

Despite the 4/20 hype among students, Mogulof trusts that the students of UC Berkeley will make responsible decisions on Saturday. According to both campus administrators and UCPD, there are currently no plans or special procedures in place to monitor marijuana consumption on campus on 4/20, nor have there ever been.

“We will address any marijuana-related activity as appropriate,” said Lt. Eric Tejada.

UCPD Officer Marco Ruiz reiterated Tejada’s point that UCPD does not usually take any extra precautionary measures to monitor students on campus on 4/20. In fact, according to Ruiz, UCPD often sends additional forces to UC Santa Cruz on 4/20 to monitor the annual “Smoke Out.”

Contact Jennie Yoon at jyoon@dailycal.org

The post Campus to proceed with business as usual on 4/20 for Cal Day appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The ASUC Senate will be considering a contentious bill, SB 160, that would divest ASUC assets from Israeli-affiliated companies in protest of the Israeli government’s alleged human rights violations in Palestine. The bill has drawn support as well as criticism from various campus communities.

Whether the bill passes remains in the hands of the 20 ASUC senators. While some senators have openly stated their support, others said they remain uncertain or did not return calls for comment.

“The main reason I am undecided is because this is a very complex issue,” said Student Action Senator Mihir Deo in an email. “I’m not saying that the complexity means it should not be brought up, but that it requires a lot of thought. Divestment is a serious thing to call for, and shouldn’t be used lightly. The main question in my head is whether the call for divestment is justified instead of a serious condemnation of settlements in the West Bank; which is still something this ASUC hasn’t done.”

Although SB 160 was written by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, other Student Action senators have said they are against the bill. Every CalSERVE senator will vote in support of the bill, said Matthew Enger, CalSERVE’s communications coordinator.

Some independent senators have also voiced their support.

“I think that the divestment movement itself is about taking a neutral position,” said independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin. “Right now, the UC does not take a neutral position because they’re funding war crimes, funding the building of a wall and funding the demolition of homes. Every student has a right to feel safe. I believe Palestinian people (should be allowed) to-self actualization and decide for themselves the best way to live.”

However, other senators have said that the bill is divisive and not a real solution.

Student Action Senator Rafi Lurie helped author SB 158, an opposing bill that will also be discussed at Wednesday’s meeting. This bill calls for ASUC “investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation” rather than divestment.

Lurie said that he is fundamentally against divestment because it is not an effective way to promote peace and a two-state solution in the Middle East.

“I believe that a divestment bill in this context is part of the wider Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement, which does not publicly endorse a two state solution and, therefore, the right to have a Jewish State of Israel next to a Palestinian State of Palestine,” Lurie said in an email. “I do not believe that all of the content presented in SB 160 is objectively true and I would feel uncomfortable with the ASUC taking a stance on facts that are clearly not objective.”

Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco said that while he is in favor of divesting, he is also open to voting in favor of SB 158 as long as amendments are made to the bill.

“I want to make amendments so that suffering (between the Israelis and Palestinians) is not equated and not normalized,” he said. “I want to make sure the Israeli government is held responsible and condemned publicly for their human rights violations.”

In addition to declarations of support from senators, 114 members of educational institutions across California have signed a letter backing SB 160.

“I am supporting this bill because I believe that Israel is behaving like an apartheid and racist state — indeed, in ways that are highly reminiscent of South Africa,” said UC Berkeley professor Daniel Boyarin of the department of Near Eastern studies. “I believe that the university should desist from supporting racist and oppressive practices economically.”

SB 158 has also drawn support from faculty members, many of whom signed a letter in support of the bill published April 16 in The Daily Californian.

“I not only endorsed the bill’s substance but wanted to convey my support for the example set by the students who helped draft it,” said associate professor of history Mark Brilliant, one of the signers of the letter. “Their ability to transcend their profound differences offers a model to emulate and points to the possibility of bridging at least some of the divides that must be crossed in order to arrive at a just (two-state) solution to the anguishing Israel/Palestine conflict.”

Ally Rondoni is the lead student government reporter. Contact her at arondoni@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Senate remains divided on divestment issue appeared first on The Daily Californian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Yvonne Ng at ygn@dailycal.org.

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

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