The event was organized by the ASUC Office of the President in conjunction with ASUC senators Sadia Saifuddin, Rosemary Hua and Megan Majd. In order to raise awareness of such crimes on campus, victims of sexual assault shared their stories.

According to a Berkeley Police Department crime report, there were 39 reported incidents of sexual assault in the city of Berkeley in 2012, up from 20 incidents in 2011.

“(Sexual assault) is something that doesn’t discriminate against color or gender,” Saifuddin said. “It’s something that happens to a lot of people.”

According to Bay Area Women Against Rape training coordinator Agustina Perez, 85 percent of sexual assaults are committed by a person whom the victim knows, and only one in 10 victims report the crime.

Student attendees included members of the campus sorority system and the ASUC. The workshop was facilitated by UCPD, University Health Services and BAWAR.

“(Events like Fight Back) allow survivors of sexual assault who are silenced to have a voice,” Hua said. “But it also allows for facetime between UCPD and students (and) facilities a discussion.”

Speakers at the event noted the importance of discussing sexual assault in an open and safe environment.

“The reason why sexual violence is rising at such alarming rates is because people don’t talk about it,” Perez said. “Anything that will get people to talk and create safe spaces is a step in the right direction.”

Community leaders provided attendees with resources to defend themselves against attack.

During the workshop, UCPD officers offered a pepper spray demonstration as well as basic self-defense techniques. Officers said one of the most basic but useful techniques in the case of an assault is to shout for help. The workshop also offered free pepper spray to participants.

“There is nothing that anyone can do that warrants (or) causes rape,” Perez said during her presentation. “The only person responsible for rape is the one committing it.”

Director and Title IX Officer Denise Oldman of the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination said that it is important to know that there are allies in the community for sexual assault victims. She addressed the various resources available to students, including medical, psychological and emotional health services, residential needs and prevention help.

Members of the ASUC and campus community alike said they hope events like Fight Back will educate the students that attended and continue to raise awareness about sexual assault and violence within the UC Berkeley community.

“I feel like it’s important to have events that raise awareness about how critical an issue (sexual violence is) both on campus and in general,” said sophomore Taylor Fugere, who is a member of Greeks Against Sexual Assault and involved in the Gender Equity Resource Center.

UCPD Officer Brendan Tinney said he hopes to see more involvement with sexual assault prevention from other groups on campus, such as fraternities.

“I think there’s some interest specifically in the part of fraternities, at least some of them,” Tinney said. “But I’m waiting for them to reach out. You don’t (only) teach the group that’s interested in the topic.”

Contact Jennie Yoon at jyoon@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that there had been 39 incidents of sexual assault on the UC Berkeley campus this year, a 95 percent increase from 19 incidents the previous year. In fact, there were 39 reported incidents of sexual assault in the city of Berkeley in 2012, up from 20 incidents in 2011.

The post ASUC holds workshop on sexual violence and safety appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The protest, organized by a mix of students in various Jewish student groups, started with around 20 people and grew to around 30 as passing students joined. The students linked arms across the central entrance of Sather Gate in protest of the ASUC Senate’s passing of SB 160, a bill that urges the divestment of ASUC and university funds from companies related to the Israeli armed forces.

The bill triggered immense controversy and was passed 11-9 after a 10-hour public comment session.

“We’re protesting against what the ASUC did,” said Baruch Nutovic, a protester and a former editor in chief of the Berkeley Jewish Journal. “We tried to put forward an alternative bill. It was completely rejected.”

On Wednesday, the ASUC tabled SB 160′s alternative bill, SB 158, which called for the ASUC to help end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, acknowledging the harm inflicted on both sides and supporting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. If passed, SB 158 would also indicate that the ASUC supports a two-state solution.

“We want (SB 160) repealed,” said Jacob Lewis, a protester and former president of Tikvah: Students for Israel. “(The) narrative put forth by this bill is completely ignoring the Israeli side.”

The protesters placed duct tape over their mouths, held Israeli flags and handed out fliers that read, “Do not silence our voices.”

“A lot of people on campus don’t really know what is going on,” said Grant Fineman, a recently elected ASUC senator who participated in the protest. “(There) is a silent majority who don’t know anything about it.”

Nick Slater, who works in the campus financial aid department, was walking by the rally when he stopped to discuss with protesters his opposition to the protest’s message. While he opposed their anti-divestment stance, he said there should be recognition of both sides.

“A lot of Jewish students feel that their stories aren’t being recognized,” Slater said. “I accept that. I want to see a solution which recognizes the interests of Israelis and Palestinians.”

ASUC Senator Sadia Saifuddin, who co-sponsored SB 160, expressed similar sentiments.

“I commend the college and the community for moralizing and being able to express that side (of the debate),” Saifuddin said. “It adds to the diversity at Cal.”

However, Arielle Gabai,  a protester and a former president of the Jewish Student Union, said that the climate on campus remains tense and hostile toward Jewish students and those who oppose divestment.

“It’s unacceptable that Berkeley calls itself such a beautiful, diverse place (that is) accepting of all communities, except for one,” Gabai said.

Contact Tara Hurley at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post Students stage silent protest at Sather Gate against ASUC divestment bill appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In a statement explaining his decision, Landgraf emphasized that he did not support the bill and that it failed to contribute to any constructive dialogue on the issue. However, he ultimately decided not to veto the bill because he felt doing so would only intensify the conflict and lengthen the healing process for the community.

“I think people on both sides may disagree with my decision,” Landgraf said. “I think it’s the best decision for the campus as a whole, and both communities need to reconsider their perspectives on this issue and reconsider the value of having a 10-hour-long senate meeting that tears communities apart.”

In an interview with The Daily Californian’s Senior Editorial Board, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said he personally witnessed the emotional turmoil Landgraf underwent prior to making his decision.

“I met with Connor last night, late in the afternoon, mostly just to listen to him.” Birgeneau said. “He was really, really upset, justifiably so, given the threats against his person. I just tried to console him and give him advice.”

Before announcing his decision, Landgraf said he had been verbally assaulted and threatened. He said he has only received a few angry emails since his announcement was made.

Independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, a co-sponsor of SB 160, said she commended Landgraf for respecting the senate’s decision.

“This issue is clearly one that affects countless students,” Saifuddin said in an email. “But I truly believe it is possible to build bridges in the wake of the passage of the bill.”

Although Landgraf said he sought to hasten the campus’s healing process with his decision, many on both sides of the issue say they feel even more uneasy following his announcement.

While members of the Jewish community acknowledged the difficulty of Landgraf’s position, many said they are disappointed by his decision. Daphna Torbati, president of the campus Jewish Student Union, said she feels that Landgraf’s decision bolsters a one-sided narrative and silences the pro-Israeli voice.

“Regardless of the veto action, much of the damage has already been done,” Torbati said in an email. “Our community is very hurt and disappointed about the sheer amount of anti-semitic and anti-Israel comments made on the senate floor last week.”

Many pro-divestment students said they remain concerned about the climate on campus and that they continue to feel uneasy about expressing their views. Two weeks before the vote occurred, one pro-divestment student was assaulted on campus, allegedly for saying he believed that Israel was an apartheid state.

“The repression is so severe that we have to fear for our physical safety,” said the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine in a statement. “Our physical safety and our right to open debate are at risk.”

SJP also noted that its members feel that their advocacy has been mislabeled by opponents as hate speech.

ASUC President-elect DeeJay Pepito emphasized that all communities need to remain respectful of opposing opinions on this complex issue.

“As students, we need to take responsibility for our own actions,” Pepito said. “Poor campus climate is not determined by a piece of legislation that the senate passes. Poor campus climate is perpetuated by students using hurtful words and resorting to violent threats towards one another.”

Contact Jennie Yoon at jyoon@dailycal.org.

The post Climate remains tense in wake of Landgraf’s decision not to 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 heated debate began Wednesday evening and carried on for 10 hours, continuing into Thursday. Anna Head Alumnae Hall overflowed with hundreds of UC Berkeley students, faculty and community members engaging in a contentious debate regarding the bill, SB 160.

SB 160, authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, calls the UC system a “complicit third party” in Israel’s “illegal occupation and ensuing human rights abuses” and seeks the divestment of more than $14 million in ASUC and UC assets from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Cement Roadstone Holdings. According to the bill, these companies provide equipment, materials and technology to the Israeli military, including bulldozers and biometric identification systems.

The final vote, which occurred just before 5:30 a.m., was met with cheering, stomping and cries of joy by supporters of the bill.

Independent Senator and bill co-sponsor Sadia Saifuddin said she saw the vote as the culmination of years of struggle.

“Tonight is not about corporations,” she said. “It’s about asking ourselves before we go to sleep whether our money is going toward the destruction of homes, toward the erection of a wall. I am a working student. And I don’t want one cent of my money to go toward fueling the occupation of my brothers and sisters.”

But across the aisle, opponents of the bill were silent, absorbing the defeat with dismay.

SQUELCH! Senator Jason Bellet decried the bill for ignoring an important side in the issue.

“If we walk away with anything tonight, it’s that this conflict is nuanced,” Bellet said. “But divestment and the language set forth in SB 160 frames Israel as the sole aggressor. This is more than just divesting from three companies. Divestment is undoubtedly taking a side in the conflict.”

The vote was emotional for senators as well as spectators. At least three senators broke down in tears as they gave their final comments following the vote.

Dozens of community members spoke at the beginning of the meeting, pleading their cases to the senate late into the night.

Supporters of the divestment bill — which included Muslim and Jewish students alike, as well as members of other campus communities — said they opposed the ASUC and university’s financial involvement with companies that benefit from alleged human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli government.

“There are few experiences more traumatic than losing your home or being forced out of the place you call home,” said UC Berkeley junior Kamyar Jarahzadeh. “This university’s money — our money — is complicit in the deprivation of human rights.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alice Walker, who said she had visited the Gaza Strip, was present at the meeting and publicly voiced her support for SB 160.

Following the senate’s decision on SB 160, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau released a statement Thursday afternoon expressing disapproval of the bill’s passage.

“It is my personal opinion 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,” Birgeneau said in a statement. “Ultimately, we believe that engaging in dialogue on these difficult issues is the best hope that we have for achieving peace.”

In his statement, Birgeneau also revealed that UCPD is currently investigating an incident on Sproul Plaza in which a student who was handing out pro-divestment fliers was struck in the face. UCPD Lt. Eric Tejada confirmed in an interview with The Daily Californian that the incident to which Birgeneau referred is the battery that occurred on April 1, when a student tabling on Sproul was punched and knocked to the ground.

On Wednesday night, the senate was also set to vote on SB 158, an opposing bill to SB 160, but the bill was tabled following the long discussion of SB 160. SB 158 “seek(s) investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in pursuit of a two state resolution to the conflict” rather than divestment.

Many members of the Jewish community decried SB 160’s targeted divestment from Israel as choosing one side of the conflict at the expense of the other when suffering has occurred on both.

“Divestment does nothing to better the lives of Palestinians,” said political science professor Ron Hassner. “It seeks to undermine, harm and destroy and offers no vision of an Israeli-Palestinian future.”

Opponents of divestment also reminded the senate of the hostile campus climate Jewish students faced after the 2010 divestment attempt. Many said they felt alienated and unwelcome and warned that the passage of SB 160 could affect Jewish students’ decisions to come to UC Berkeley.

“We will take home that an amendment asking for a two-state solution was failed,” said SQUELCH! party chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz. “We will take home that an amendment asking for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state was failed. We will take home that this body takes divestment as a weapon of choice when that is not the only weapon in our arsenal.”

Although the bill passed, ASUC President Connor Landgraf has the option to veto it. According to the ASUC Constitution, the president may veto an action by the senate within seven days of the decision. A two-thirds vote by the senate is needed to override a presidential veto.

“It was a very close decision, and clearly, it’s an issue in which our campus is divided about,” Landgraf said in an interview. “I will be thinking about (the vote) and deciding on that.”

In 2010, the senate passed a similar divestment bill that was later vetoed by then-president Will Smelko. In the weeks that followed, the senate failed to reach a two-thirds vote to override the veto.

Daphne Chen contributed to this report.

Contact Jeremy Gordon and Daphne Chen at newsdesk@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Senate passes Israeli divestment bill SB 160, 11-9 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

There is a street in Bakersfield that marks the divide between the middle-class residents and the less privileged ones, according to CalSERVE presidential candidate DeeJay Pepito.

Once you cross this street, Pepito says, “you start seeing more people of color.”

When Pepito was 7 years old, she and her family crossed from the poorer side of town to the richer suburban area, becoming one of few Pilipinos in a community dominated by white residents.

As Pepito describes it, on one end lies a community full of cookie-cutter houses. Drive farther down, however, and everything is different. The roads are full of cracks and potholes; instead of spotless single-family homes, there are trailer parks and grimy fast-food joints.

With the move, Pepito learned firsthand what it feels like to not belong. In high school, she was one of 17 Pilipinos in a student body of more than 2,500 people, she said.

“It was hard for me to relate to others because I was always placed as the ‘other’,” Pepito said. “It was difficult growing up and trying to figure out who I was and what my identity was.”

Even today, Pepito is one of about 800 Pilipinos on a campus of nearly 36,000. Pepito says she hopes to represent the Pilipino community, along with other minority groups, such as women, that she feels are underrepresented in the ASUC.

Since her freshman year, Pepito has worked to improve student opportunities and bridge the divide between students of different backgrounds. In particular, Pepito has been heavily involved with the Pilipino Academic Student Services and bridges Multicultural Resource Center. She was also directly involved in facilitating the move from Eshleman Hall to the SURGE spaces as part of the Lower Sproul redevelopment process when she was student spaces director.

Along with independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, Pepito also oversees the Multicultural Fund, which allocates money to student groups that host multicultural events.

“At the beginning of our term, she wanted to do so much, and while that was really admirable, she just didn’t have the bandwidth to take on the amount that she did,” Saifuddin said. “She learned how to say no to some opportunities and weigh the costs and benefits of each one.”

Although admired by many of her fellow CalSERVE senators, Pepito has also been criticized as being too outspoken and even aggressive.

“I would say she is one of the more ‘aggressive’ figures on the floor, including both the positive and negative connotations that may or may not come with that specific verbiage,” said Student Action Senator Tom Seung Kun Lee.

According to Lee, in one instance, Pepito was among a handful of senators who asked for people who were in support of Measure S, a city measure that would have banned people from sitting on sidewalks in commercial areas, to stand up in an ASUC meeting. In an already hostile environment, Lee was the sole person standing.

“I would say the conversation was unproductive because some senators came into the chamber with their minds set and no intention of listening to others or compromising,” Lee said.

Pepito’s assertive attitude may be rooted in her family’s tough experiences during her adolescence. The youngest of three children, Pepito says she gathers her strength from her mother and father, whom she claims as inspirations.

As an immigrant, Pepito’s mother was unable to get a job, as her optometry license from the Philippines was not considered valid in the United States. Meanwhile, Pepito’s father worked to support the costs of raising three children. Throughout Pepito’s childhood, the family struggled financially, especially after the economic downturn in 2008.

“It gave her great insight on the disparity between the privileges and resources that are available to families with a higher socioeconomic status and those with lower statuses,” said her older brother Lyndon Pepito.

Recently, the family has had more than just finances to worry about. In March of last year, just as her senate campaign had begun, Pepito received a shocking call. Her father, who is in his mid-60s, had experienced multiple strokes and was in the hospital in critical condition.

“Dad was always my superhero,” Pepito recalled. “When I had gone home and seen how the stroke had affected him … I remember thinking, I have to be my dad’s superhero now.”

Pepito hopes to carry over this heroic instinct to her role as student body president, if she is elected next week, by creating a more welcoming and safe campus environment and increasing the accessibility of campus administrators for current and future students.

“It’s easy at Cal to feel like you’re a small fish in a big pond,” Pepito said. “In reality, we’re all big fishes. We just need to really learn about one another more, about ourselves and really seize the opportunity to make a change.”

Contact Alison Fu at afu@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
The print version of this story incorrectly switched Jason Bellet and DeeJay Pepito’s platforms. In fact, Pepito’s platforms are improving campus safety, advocating for public higher education and increasing accountability of campus administrators.

The post CalSERVE presidential nominee DeeJay Pepito aims to give voice to minorities appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill, SB 130, states that policies implemented by campus bodies such as the Center for Student Conduct and the Title IX compliance officer strip sexual assault victims’ rights in the reporting process. The bill was passed with 12 votes in support, five against and one abstention. Two senators were absent from the vote.

SB 130 was authored by Aryle Butler and CalSERVE elections coordinator Anais LaVoie, along with CalSERVE Senators Klein Lieu, Megan Majd, and DeeJay Pepito. Pepito is running for ASUC president in the upcoming elections.

Two sexual assault victims spoke at the meeting about experiences with ineffective university policies in dealing with cases of assault.

Butler, who said she was a victim of sexual assault, spoke about inadequate campus responses to complaints of sexual harassment made by victims who have chosen to remain anonymous.

 Present at the meeting was Title IX officer Denise Oldham with the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination and student conduct specialist Erin Niebylski in the Center for Student Conduct. Both offices are specifically named in the bill as campus entities with ineffective policies.

“Our concern is that misinformation about how these cases are handled might deter students from coming forward with complaints or, at the very least, cause confusion about how these cases are handled,” Oldham said in an email after the meeting.

Lieu rebuffed implications that there were mistakes in the bill and said that the authors of the bill had it reviewed by the ASUC lawyer for any inaccuracies.

“Literally, there are over 10 documents you have to go (through) to understand sexual assault on this campus,” Lieu said at the meeting. “I think that’s egregious. I hope with this bill we can start streamlining this and start having (the policies) make sense for students.”

The bill takes issue with a number of specific UC Berkeley policies, including the campus definition of sexual assault, which the bill claims requires victims to prove they were not consenting rather than providing affirmative proof of consent.

Additionally, the bill states that there are more resources and knowledge available for those accused of assault than for victims, as is evident on the website for the Center for Student Conduct, which “provides a flowchart for the accused to understand disciplinary processes, but does not provide information allowing survivors to understand what happens when a report is made or follow-up on their reports once submitted,” according to the bill.

More seriously, the bill claims that if the Center for Student Conduct determines there is not sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation of an assault accusation, there is no recourse or appeals process for a victim to appeal this decision.

Student Action Senator Rosemary Hua was one of several senators concerned about the language of the bill, particularly the clause stating that the ASUC holds “no confidence in the University’s current sexual assault policies and disciplinary procedures.”

“We should tell them what they’re doing wrong, but there is a fine balance — we also need to work with them,” Hua said during the meeting. Hua announced at the meeting that she herself has been a victim of sexual assault.

In a later email, Hua said senators should sit down with campus officials and start amending policies instead of condemning them. She added that she believed the bill should be sent back to committee to rework its language.

Supporters maintained that the bill was not an attack on campus bodies but instead a way to bring the ASUC into the discussion of assault on campus.

Rafi Lurie, a Student Action senator and a candidate for ASUC president in this spring’s election, said he felt that the bill should have been tabled for a week to address Hua’s concerns.

“I feel that because, as a survivor, she feels that way, out of respect to her and people on campus who feel like her, it would have been better to rework the language and then pass it so that all parties that the bill aims to address would feel comfortable with it,” Lurie said in an email.

Other Student Action senators echoed the concerns of Lurie and Hua, including Student Action Senator Mihir Deo, who said in an email that this was not a CalSERVE against Student Action issue.

“The prime reason I voted against the bill was that this bill was not clearly vetted,” Deo said. “The student advocate wasn’t even consulted about the bill, and it creates a new wing in her office. She also stated that there was miscommunication on both sides.”

CalSERVE Senator Nolan Pack spoke passionately in favor of the bill during the meeting, saying that it was the ASUC’s job to protect students.

“Though the ASUC’s legal counsel confirmed that the bill accurately reflects university policies, several senators disregarded this advice and supported the notion that there was a ‘misunderstanding,’ in spite of the fact that nobody who criticized the bill could identify or articulate the alleged misunderstanding,” Pack said in an email.

Student Action Senators Chen-Chen Huo, Lurie, Hua, Deo and Ryan Kang voted against the bill. Student Action Senator Nils Gilberston abstained, and Student Action Senators Emily Chen and Tom Seung Kyun Lee were absent from the vote. All other senators voted in support.

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

The post ASUC Senate votes no confidence in campus’s handling of sexual assault appeared first on The Daily Californian.

ASUC Executive Vice President Justin Sayarath was forced to call a recess at the senate meeting Wednesday night in order to locate enough senators to meet the two-thirds majority necessary to vote on proposed bills.

Senator attendance has been a persistent problem, especially as the ASUC Senate gears up for spring elections, according to Senator Mihir Deo.

Senators Rosemary Hua, Chen-Chen Huo, Sidronio Jacobo, Ryan Kang, Rafi Lurie and Jorge Pacheco were all absent at the time of the first roll call.

Members of BAMN, a coalition that fights for affirmative action immigrant rights, were attempting to add a bill to the agenda when Sayarath was forced to call a five-minute recess so that more senators could be called.

Without a two-thirds majority — or 14 senators — nothing could be done with the bill.

Eventually, enough senators were found, but they were so rushed that they voted without reading the bill or hearing any discussion. Members of BAMN pointed this out, and the senators in question acknowledged that their concerns were valid.

The discussion surrounding the bill had to be rehashed from the beginning, which wasted time that could have been spent on important agenda issues, several senators pointed out.

After a second recess later in the night, the same measure had to be taken after senators failed to return, and senate discussion turned to the inappropriateness of the absences.

“It’s completely embarrassing that we don’t even have enough senators here to vote on bills for our community,” Deo said. “The senators here need to go back to their parties and say, ‘What the hell are we doing?’”

Several absent or tardy senators cited executive campaign responsibilities as the reason for their absence, an excuse that made others bristle.

“We shouldn’t be using this senate time to be campaigning for the next position,” said Senator Daley Vertiz. “This is our job. I feel disrespected.”

Other senators who had invited their communities to speak voiced frustration at the lack of responsibility.

“I’m more embarrassed than upset,” said Senator Sadia Saifuddin. “My community came out tonight, and they don’t do that often, and one reason is that they think the ASUC is a joke. Tonight, we proved to my community that we are a joke. People have elected us to serve them.”

Senator Megan Majd stated to that this happens every year and urged change in the place of complaints.

“This is indeed something that happens every year, I agree with you,” Senator Nolan Pack responded. “I think the bylaws as they stand are reinforcing this issue. Right now, senators can miss 25 percent of meetings before facing any fear of repercussions.”

DJ Sellarole covers the ASUC. Contact him at dsellarole@dailycal.org and follow him on Twitter @DJSellarole.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Jason Bellet was absent at the first roll call. In fact, he was in attendance at the first roll call but left before the second.

The post Lack of senator attendance forces recess at ASUC senate meeting appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The funding application process — which occurs every spring — is the main way that student groups request funding from the ASUC and must be completed to maintain ASUC sponsorship.

All UC Berkeley students are required to pay $27.50 to the ASUC, totaling roughly $1.6 million. Those funds are then allocated to student groups that complete the spring applications.

According to Chini, 95 to 98 percent of this money is allocated to student groups via this application process.

This year the application has been streamlined to make to make it more accessible to students, according ASUC Senator Sadia Saifuddin.

“This year, the form is online and integrated via Google form so students can all access it on CalLink,” Saifuddin said. “We revised the older spring budgeting form and eliminated any unnecessary information so that the form would be more self-explanatory and accessible.”

While these changes will help student groups, Chini added that the main issue isn’t students having difficulties with the application — it’s forgetfulness.

“There’s always a few student groups who miss spring budgeting,” Chini said. “It puts (student groups) in a tight financial situation.”

Chini urged student groups to apply early and be aware of deadlines.

Applications can be found online and are due March 25.

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

The post ASUC opens student-group funding application for upcoming year appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill — SB 10 —  binds the ASUC to complete the withdrawal of any of its $3 million in total investments from fossil fuel companies. CalSERVE Senator Nolan Pack, an author of the bill, said he sought to use UC Berkeley’s position as a global leader to curb the effects of climate change. SB 10 was supported by a coalition of campus environmental groups and Cal Berkeley Democrats.

The bill is part of a wider movement at universities across the nation to support divestment from fossil fuel companies by institutions of higher education.

Senator Sadia Saifuddin, chief of the senate finance committee, was unsure of how the ASUC would logistically divest from fossil fuel companies, saying that the senate would discuss that now that the bill has passed.

According to a press release, divestment would most likely involve requesting managers of the ASUC’s funds, such as the Boston Trust & Investment Management Company and Union Bank, to move investments out of fossil fuel companies.

While acknowledging that investments in fossil fuels tended to yield the highest returns, Pack said that divesting from fossil fuels was not inherently risky and that strong profits could be made in an environmentally friendly way.

“Social responsibility does not have to be unprofitable,” Pack said. “I don’t think the two have to be mutually exclusive.”

Senator Nils Gilbertson, who abstained from voting on the bill, acknowledged that climate change was a problem but said that it was important to maintain maximum profitability.

“They’re thinking about it more idealistically, while I’m thinking about it in a more pragmatic way,” he said, referring to the other senators. “It’s not clear that the long-term benefits are going to be worth all the short-term problems this may cause for students.”

According to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein, the university treasurer’s office makes decisions regarding investment policy, and any action toward divestment must be voted on by the regents.

“If there’s a good reason, then it happens, regardless of the financial consequences to the university,” Klein said. “We’ve made the decision to divest before, from apartheid South Africa and from tobacco.”

Pack said that he was unsure of how much of the UC system’s estimated $70 billion endowment was invested in fossil fuel companies, adding that increasing transparency is another action he urged the university to take.

Jeremy Gordon covers higher education. Contact him at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC bill calls for divestment from fossil fuels appeared first on The Daily Californian.