This is just wrong on soooo many levels…
As reported by Calstuff and Beetle Beat, Student Action is attempting to win the hearts and minds of the Berkeley City Council in an unbelievable web of lies and manipulation. While I’m not shocked by this move, I’m saddened by it, as I’m finally forced to believe what I have known for all too long: that 3 people are being led by a pawn who’s parents believe it is his divine right to rule the students of Cal. This means this whole debacle won’t truly end until SA gets their way, and for no better way to put it, they really are acting like spoiled toddlers, who for the first time, have been told no and are grasping at anything to get some form of their original demand.
SA keeps contesting that the will of the student body was made known when students "overwhelmingly" voted in all four of SA’s execs and that is basically all that should matter. There is one sad reality to this statement though. The student body elected people that they believed they could trust and who would, IN ANY SITUATION, BE PUTTING THE STUDENT BODY WHO ELECTED THEM FIRST.
If things could be done over, with the student body knowing what they do now about the SA executives, I think there would be an overwhelming move to make sure SA does not get elected. SA’s recent behavior shows that they are not only grasping for any support they can get, since they have none from those associated with the school. It also shows the lengths that desperate people are willing to go to win. This is disturbing in the respect that NONE of these executives, to this day, believe that they have done anything wrong and that they are still very much so entitled to the posititions that they ran for.
Believe me, I know how hard they worked for months leading up to the election, but maybe, beyond learning that hard work pays off, there is a greater lesson to be learned. Perhaps this is a lesson about dignity, grace and true leadership. If the SA execs could just truly look at what they have been doing since elections have ended, they might realize how rediculous, pathetic and power hungry they look. They are becoming perfect examples of what elected leaders should strive to not be and at the same time, explain why so many on our campus don’t care about student politics- they see what the SA execs still don’t, that this entire time, it has been about them, not the students that they swear to represent.
True leaders do what is best for those they are leading, even if the right choice is not favorable for themselves. Perhaps that is why real leaders are so hard to find. This type of leader must possess many unselfish qualities that allow them to look out for the future well-being of the greater good, or in the least, be able to, in the present, protect the greater good from people willing to use them as a means to an end. That seems to parallel the situation that we all find ourselves currently in.
Simply stated, it comes down to one painfully obvious and over-simplified truth:
SA is willing to sacrifice both the ASUC and Cal students as a means to an end, an end that they may never actually get…
No matter who’s side you are on, it should be obvious that the above actions are not, by any definition or stretch of the imagination, the actions of someone who claims to be a leader or a responsible individual. Rather, those are the actions of a very confused person.
I think one of the key things you said was that you “think there would be an overwhelming move to make sure SA does not get elected.” There is no possible way to know this during a summer vacation without polling of the student electorate. We do know, however, that Student Action got the most votes in the election.
To judge student sentiment by the posters on blogs is impossible. Those that read and post on CalStuff, Beetlebeat, and Calaholic are not typical students–they are students (and alums and other folks) with a particular interest in the student government. Most of the posters on CalStuff and Beetlebeat have long been involved with ASUC politics. I have been friends with several of them for several years and known many others for a long time.
This is not to discount the opinions of those posting on these blogs. Indeed, the bloggers and frequent commenters know quite a bit more about the ASUC, its structure, government, and history than the typical student would ever care to know. Still, it is the typical student that must decide an election in a democratic system. For a court (or a journalist) to determine the will of an electorate is undemocratic.
Comment by Matt Bunch — July 24, 2006 @ 5:46 am
don’t kid yourself - it’s not just one person running the show. there is at least one other seasoned politician in the mix, who probably wanted the job more than the other guy.
Comment by Anonymous — July 24, 2006 @ 6:57 am
Matt, that’s all fine and good, but I think you’re still missing the point. SA broke the rules, lied about it and then lied about it again. And as someone who intimately knows about SA, I can say the people I know who were pro SA before summer began are no longer pro SA based on what is going on right now. Also keep in mind, the ASUC has a constitution that outlines rules and gives other branches of the government the opportunity to reinforce them. If this didn’t occur that would be undemocratic.
Comment by Administrator — July 24, 2006 @ 7:54 am
#2
Believe me, I know that there isn’t just one person running the show and he’s not as “seasoned” or as “politically saavy” as you may think. Plus, I’m not going to go there because this whole thing makes me throw up everytime something new occurs and giving any credit due to the person who you’re refering to is something that I will NOT do.
Comment by Administrator — July 24, 2006 @ 7:59 am
SA did break the rules. Then they were punished with censures by the 4 justices who attended the hearing. Then the vote counts were totalled.
That is where things get fishy. SUKEN VAKIL, who is no longer a student on campus, allegedly lied in the original case and was sued by Andy. Yet nobody can prove what Suken did or did not say. Certainly not most of the 4 justices who ruled in that case. In fact, most of those justices weren’t actually there for the original hearing where it was claimed Suken committed perjury.
The J-Council has long been a power grabbing beast with no checks on it for some time now. Years even. An old friend of mine, Mike Davis, started that trend. This is especially possible during the summer months when there is no active senate. In this particular case, there was no active President, either (it is very difficult to remain President when you no longer live in Berkeley, have already graduated, and have started work).
The very same constitution, bylaws, and JRPs that you refer to that give the “other branches of the government to reinforce them” don’t work when there are no checks on the one active branch of government. Further, those same rules are intended to prevent the J-Council from over-extending their authority. Unfortunately, those “other branches of government” haven’t been allowed to exist lately to check the J-Council’s power.
SA certainly illegally chalked. They never denied that they chalked. The statement in question was one regarding how effective chalking is in a campaign. From a person who has done more ASUC campaigns than just about anybody else, chalking isn’t very effective EXCEPT for when it allows a personal contact between a candidate/campaigner and a potential voter. The reason SA pushes chalking until late at night and flyering early the next morning is because people see and hear about how hard the SA campaigns work. When was the last time you gave a first place vote to a serious contender for executive office because of chalking? If anybody actually has, it has certainly not been enough to affect the outcome of an executive race.
Comment by Matt Bunch — July 24, 2006 @ 8:42 am
Matt, I’ll say it again, you just aren’t getting it. I’ve met you before at SA functions, and I think you’re not seeing beyond SA’s side bc you are very pro SA and you weren’t involved in SA like I was this year. I’m too tired and drunk to explain myself right now but the reasons you listed exist on very shakey ( did i spell that right?) grounds at best. and i can say, first hand, that reasons you are giving might have been true for when you went to cal, but this year SA was led by suken, not bret, and was not run as well as might remember it being.
Comment by Administrator — July 24, 2006 @ 8:52 am
Believe me, I do know it wasn’t run as well. Remember that I was a student until December and still in Berkeley through January. I was the guy that sued Sharon when SA screwed up.
It is true Suken didn’t run it as well as Bret did. But that does not negate the fact that SA was punished for their wrongdoing before the vote count, got more votes than anybody, and then were screwed by a power-hungry group of justices. Suken may or may not have lied in the first case- it can’t be proven beyond hearsay. If was he said was really as horrible as it has been made out to be, the J-Council could very well have asked for clarification on the spot, and struck him down immediately in contempt. Yet they didn’t.
Calholic, who are you anyway?
Comment by Matt Bunch — July 24, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
first, ya spelled my name wrong. second, telling you who i am would kind take away the fun of things wouldn’t it??
and as for suken lying, it was proved later that he did. Not through hearsay, but by actual people who were able to contradict statements that he made in affidavits where he, again, lied.
honestly, i think the j-council didn’t slap him with a contempt charge bc they aren’t as power hungry as you claim. they kind of gave him the benefit of the doubt bc what he was saying was soooo completely idiotic and stupid. plus, let’s not forget bret’s later tries at covering up suken’s idiocy with more dumb lies
Comment by Administrator — July 24, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
They did ask for clarification on the spot, but Suken chose to dig deeper.
Comment by Beetle — July 24, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
I didn’t power grab so much as learned the rules and did my job. The job hadn’t been done for so long people got used to running their own affairs and then screamed “activist judge! activist judge!” when I started smacking them around Eshleman. Then they figured following the rules would be easier on them than having to deal with my posse, and for the most part they tried their best to adhere to the rules and keep from being brought in front of the Council. Then people got used to not clashing with the Council and started getting arrogant again, thinking might makes right, the rules be damned. That the Council is asserting itself isn’t a power grab, it’s simply a realignment of the balance of power determined by the Constitution.
Comment by Mike Davis — July 25, 2006 @ 12:46 am