Student Action Senate Slate
The Slate (including constituents)
BECS:
No candidates
Student Action
- Jason Mehta (Indus, Cunningham Hall)
- David Kim (Ida Sproul, Asian Christian)
- John Wilson (Hapa, Laloma)
- Maya (Jewish groups)
- Amanda Matteis (Cal Dems, Women’s Organizations, co-ops)
- Eugene Chung (Asian, Sammy's)
- Suken (Indus, Cheney Hall,)
- Billy Wang (Asian groups, Norton Hall)
Unite:
- Brandon Simmons (Pi Lamb Da Phi)
- Christine Lee (KSA, Ida Sproul, Pi Phi)
Either Unite or SA:
- Devin Andre (Delta Chi, Jewish, Danceworks, Bowles Hall)
- Jesse Dosanj
- Bret Manley (BCR, Frat)
- Charles Chern Pi Lamb Da Phi, ABA)
Interviewed (with LIE Score)
- Prasad Pathak (La Loma, Cal Forensics) 17.5
- Sean Kennedy (La Loma, Cal Forensics) 18
- Laura Barkeley (6,6,7)
- Dominic Signorotti (BCR Newman Hall) 18
- Leonardi Neri (Spence Black) 13.5
- Phillip Stoup (Mock trial, Sigma Chi) 19
- Sarah Welch (Beverly Cleary) 12.5
- Chris Holdsworth (Delta Tau Delta) 13.5
- Long Lam (Chenet Hall) 16.5
- Lauren Hubbert (6,6,6) 18
|
Daily Cal and the ASUC
oh where to begin???
- Former ASUC Senator Daniel Frankenstein announced Tuesday his bid for student body president
Didn't the DC write about this annoucement 5 weeks ago?
- In a somewhat surprising move, the party also nominated Bryant Yang for ASUC Student Advocate, a position traditionally free from party politics.
Perhaps it's usually free from party politics, but parties generally (read: always) endorse candidates.
- Student Action's slate surprised few close to the process.
True, Kevin announced the slate 2 weeks ago.
- Student Action has swept the ASUC's top executive positions for the past five years.
Daily Cal: Student Action didn't sweep this year. Perhaps you remember that the Student Advocate, an ASUC executive, is not a member of SA.
Last year, Catherine Ahn was AAVP and Squelch won SAO.
Two and three years ago SAO was won by all major parties.
Finally, 4 years ago, the President was GRASP/Access and EVP was CalSERVE.
|
Let's See the Record, Mr. Frankenstein
Spring 2002
RESOLUTION IN FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF CITY CARSHARE
WHEREAS, the high costs and stress of automobile ownership prevent many students from owning a private automobile; and
WHEREAS, fears about increased traffic and decreased parking availability hamper new high-density housing development throughout the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, private automobile ownership encourages maximum vehicle usage to the detriment of the physical and social environment of the campus and City; and
WHEREAS, City CarShare, a non-profit car sharing organization based in San Francisco, provides convenient automobile access to members driving less than ten thousand (10,000) miles per year at a cost lower than private automobile ownership; and
WHEREAS, car sharing is effectively a short term car rental program where users pay by the hours used and miles driven as recorded by an on-vehicle computer system; and
WHEREAS, City CarShare requires all members to be twenty-five (25) years of age to participate in its car sharing services; and
WHEREAS, City CarShare has already received half of the needed funds to start a car sharing program in Berkeley from the Berkeley City Council and is waiting upon the University to provide the additional needed funds; and
WHEREAS, City CarShare is using the City's grant to start a five-vehicle car sharing operation in Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, this program, as currently operating, does not serve many Cal students because of the age restriction and locations of the vehicles; and
WHEREAS, throughout its history, the ASUC has sought to improve the lives of students by providing services the University failed to supply; and
Whereas, by providing a car sharing service to students, the ASUC could take a commanding lead over the University regarding transportation and housing issues by creating a tangible and conspicuous innovative service that would otherwise not exist for many Cal students; and
WHEREAS, the initial service's effect would extend beyond the initial group of users because of both such a program's ability to expand its market as well as the service's symbolic weight within the University and City;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC create a special Car Sharing fund of eleven thousand five hundred dollars ($11,500) from the Senate Contingency Fund to provide car sharing services to the students of the University of California provided that the nonprofit service provider shall meet the following conditions:
1) The car sharing service provider shall negotiate its insurance contracts so that drivers between the ages of twenty-one (21) and twenty-four (24) may participate fully in all of the car sharing organization's programs.
2) Any ASUC-sponsored vehicle(s) shall be based in the Southside neighborhood adjacent to campus at a location approved by the President of the ASUC so as to most effectively serve the UC Berkeley student population
3) Any ASUC-sponsored vehicle(s) and its parking location shall bear a marking acknowledging the ASUC's support in a manner approved by the President of the ASUC.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the President of the ASUC shall act as the ASUC's negotiator with parties interested in securing these funds and shall be responsible for releasing these funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the President shall announce to the Senate the proposed release of funds from the Car Sharing fund two (2) weeks prior to the actual release of funds and shall provide a written report detailing the exact conditions under which the funds will be released.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during the two weeks between the proposed and actual release of the funds, the Senate, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote, may veto the President's allocation in a fashion identical to a Senatorial override of a Presidential veto.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Car Sharing fund shall exist until the end of the two thousand two/two thousand three (2002/2003) fiscal year and if not spent, shall then be allocated along with all other general ASUC revenues for the two thousand three/two thousand four (2003/2004) fiscal year.
Frankenstein Votes: NO
|
A Sequel to the Berkeley College Racists (BCR) Bake Sale?
Cookies, $1.00 unless you fall into one of the following categories!
- Legacy Students -- $0.50 if you have a parent who is a Cal Alum.
- Athletes -- $0.50 if you are on a varisty sports team
- Foreign Students -- $2,000 if you are not a US citizen
- non-residents -- $4.00 if you are out of state student
|
ASK PAUL HOGARTH OF THE RENT BOARD:
Some bloggers have commented on my "strange saga" in today's Daily Cal. A few questions were left unanswered, so I'll clarify them now:
(1) Why does the Rent Board base landlord profits from 1980 (as opposed to any other year) when granting them special rent increases to help them stay in business?
In the late 1970's, rents were spiraling out of control for most mere mortals -- and landlords were making bigger and bigger profits. In 1980, voters passed the Berkeley Rent Ordinance to control such excesses. All future rent increases were subject to annual rent increases in order to make sure tenants can afford to stay here. The Rent Board is also required to take factors like inflation, maintenance, and other cost-of-living increases into account.
The Ordinance also requires landlords to get a "fair return on their investment," which means that they are supposed to keep the same profit (a.k.a., net operating income) as they were making in 1980. So any Berkeley landlord who is making less of a profit on their apartments than they were making when Rent Control passed are able to petition the Rent Board for a rent increase.
Keep in mind that 1980 was already a time where landlords were making a huge profit and tenants were being gouged. And bad-old, communistic, left-wing Berkeley rent control actually ensures that these landlords will maintain the same profits (if not more) than what they were making back then.
So it's a total crock of shit when Berkeley landlords moan about rent control and how their long-term tenants are making them lose money. Plus, now that Costa-Hawkins allows landlords to set a market rent on a newly vacated apartment, students and other short-term tenants get ripped off big-time.
And the landlords are laughing themselves to the bank.
(2) Is it really true that the Daily Cal got it wrong about what the Rent Board just passed?
The Daily Cal's news story was inaccurate in the sense that the Rent Board did not pass a "new law" or "ordinance." All we did was make a small clarification to one of our Regulations. No law, no ordinance, no nothing. We just tweaked our regulations that allow us to enforce the law.
What was completely untrue was landlord Michael Wilson's op-ed piece, where he claims that the Rent Board has made it illegal for landlords to offer a "free month" bonus for tenants who sign a new lease.
Landlords are still free to do this -- or even offer a DVD player, as Michael Wilson so cynically suggests. But for the purposes of registering a new "rent ceiling" with the Rent Board that is subject to annual rent increases, landlords will have to take the average monthly rent that the tenant pays.
Take the following scenario: You see an apartment for rent at $1,000-a-month. The landlord tells you to pay $1,200 for the first month -- in exchange for the second month free. Afterwards, you rent is at the understood "market level" of $1,000-a-month.
Under the old rules, the landlord could register $1,200 as the new "rent ceiling." Then, if the market rebounds again, he could jack up your rent by $200 at once. Under the new regulation change, the rent ceiling in that scenario would be $1,000.
In other words, the new rent ceiling is the agreed-upon monthly market rent. Now does that sound so illogical??
You already knew he was a shitty journalist...
... but did you know that Editor in chief of the Berkeley Jewish Journal Robert Enayati is also a plagiarist, and for all practical purposes a total freaking moron?
Examine the evidence for yourself!
1) Enayati's column criticizing Edward Said's "new book" was directed at a book that Said didn't even write.
2) That didnt stop Enayati from plagiarizing his editorial.
3) Instead of reading or even bothering to check that the book he was criticizing was written by Said, he basically copied and pasted his argument from a three year old document.
4) The Daily Cal dutifully published this crap.
5) When told about the errors and the plagiarism, no correction was issued, the criticism remains ignored.
Correction 3/6 - Daily Cal is looking into it!
The DC is refusing to correct the blatant factual errors in his column and refusing to address the plagiarism. The following is cut from an [unpublished] letter sent by a colleague of mine to the DC editor. You can check these errors for yourself but this deserves to be read:
Enayati wastes no time in launching his misinformed attack against Said. He states that Said's "new work" is entitled "The New Intifada - Resisting Israel's Apartheid". Yet the most cursory glance at the cover reveals that the book was edited by Roane Carey, a journalist with the magazine "The Nation", while expending the effort to turn to the frontispiece shows that it was published in 2001. While the book includes two articles written by Said (neither of which includes any sort of systematic comparison of Israel to South Africa, by the way), it can hardly qualify as "his" work. If Enayati couldn't bother to read the even front cover of the book, it is doubtful that his "reading" of its contents was any more informative.
Enayati then proceeds to present his position on the issue of apartheid and Israel. Except that it's not so much "his position" as it is a cut-and-paste job of various propaganda issued by established pro-Israel groups. In one case, Enayati goes so far as to lift, almost word-for-word, two paragraphs from a statement (which was also dedicated to attacking Said) issued by the ironically named organization CAMERA, the "Comittee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America". This group is notorious for harrassing and intimidating honest reporters and news organizations around the world who fail to meet its anti-historical standards of "accuracy" when reporting on Israel. A comparison of paragraphs from Enayati's article and the CAMERA statement, dated 20 August 1999, shows this plagiarism:
Enayati - "For example, the Israeli government leases land to Israeli Arabs at subsidized rates unavailable to Israeli Jews. While the government charged Israeli Bedouins $150 for a long-term lease on a quarter of an acre of land in the residential community of Rahat, Israeli Jews were charged $24,000 for a comparable size of the same land."
CAMERA - "...the Israeli government has sometimes leased residential land to Israeli Arabs at subsidized rates unavailable to Israeli Jews. For example, while the government charged Israeli Bedouins just $150 for a long-term lease on a quarter of an acre of residential land in the southern community of Rahat, Israeli Jews were charged $24,000 to lease similarly sized plots in neighboring areas."
|
ProgCal ASUC Predictions
round one
Last year, my predictions were really on target (much better than anyone else's, I may add). This year, I will do three rounds of ASUC predictions: one now, one during elections, and one after.
2003-2004 ASUC Year:
Pres: Kris Primm
EVP: Taina Gomez
ExVP: Anu Joshi
AAVP: Gustavo Mata
Senate: CalSERVE 8-9, SA 3, APPLE 1-2, BCR 1-2, Fong Creation 2, Squelch 1, INDies the rest
(Note: has been updated)
|
