ASUC SENATE MEETING
October 5, 2005
Sixth Week
This regular meeting of the ASUC Senate was called to order by Anil Daryani at 7:10 in the ASUC Senate Chamber.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Mr. Daryani said to offer clarification to the Senate, he followed up with Jan Crowder on SB 33, In
Opposition to Prop. 33, and he believed Ms. Mehta followed up as well, to clarify the Senate’s position
on taking stances on external issues. The Senate was able to do that. But when they print the Voter's
Guide, the only prerequisite is that they should present both sides. He believed Vice President Han will
follow-up on this.
Mr. Wang said past Voter's Guides had pros and cons, and were pretty objective. There was a little
asterisk at the bottom saying the ASUC supported a particular side.
Mr. Daryani said that’s what will happen again this year. The only thing that will happen differently this
time is that they'll run the Voter's Guide by the General Counsel at UCOP.
Mr. Daryani called for any changes to the minutes from September 28, and hearing none, said the minutes
were approved. THE MINUTES TO THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 MEETING WERE APPROVED
WITH NO OBJECTION.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Daryani referred the following bills to committee:
SB 67, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for Koinonia, to the Finance Committee
SB 68, In Support of Extending the Selection Period for the Outstanding Student Recognition Program
Coordinator, to the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee
SB 69, In Support of Senate Sponsorship for the Conflict Resolution and Transformation Center, to the
Finance Committee
New Business (cont'd)
-2-
SB 70, In Support of ASUC sponsorship for the Roosevelt Institution at Berkeley, to the Finance
Committee
SB 71, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for Alpha Beta Zeta Sorority, Inc. (ABZ), to the Finance
Committee
SB 72, In Support of ASUC Opposition to the Reauthorization Act/HR 609, to the University and External Affairs Committee
SB 73, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for the San Francisco Jail Tutoring Project, to the Finance
Committee
SB 74, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for the Cal Undergraduate Philosophy Forum, to the Finance
Committee
SB 75, In Support of the Berkeley African American Conference, to the Finance Committee
SB 76, In Support of Updating the Agenda, to the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee
SB 77, In Support of Updating the Committee Timetable, to the Constitutional and Procedural Review
Committee
SB 78, To Endorse the Public Inquiry and Hearing to Investigate Hostile Climate on Campus Facing
Underrepresented Minority Students, to the University and External Affairs Committee
Mr. Daryani called for any objection to New Business.
Mr. Narodick said that regarding SB 78, since they're forming a task force, he asked if the task force was
independent to the ASUC. If it's external to the ASUC, it should go to the University and External
Affairs Committee, and if it was an internal commission doing this report, it should be a Con-Review bill.
On a point of information, Ms. Thomas said that the Resolved Clause didn't say anything about establishing any committees and just says a public hearing will be held. It endorses a public hearing and
encourages participation. So there was no establishment of a committee.
Mr. Narodick said he was just curious as to the status of the task force in these hearings. If this granted
ASUC sponsorship to the task force, then he didn't believe it was an external issue any longer. If this was
a report distributed by the ASUC, that would make it an entirely different situation.
Mr. Daryani said the bill was only going to the University and External Affairs Committee and as such
the ASUC couldn't offer any task force sponsorship. If it went to Fi-Comm, they could. Mr. Narodick
asked what the result of the bill. If they passed it, he asked if that would be an endorsement of a hearing
and its report, and if so, he asked if they were they claiming it as a product of the Senate. Mr. Daryani
said it’s an endorsement of the November public hearing and encourages the ASUC and ASUC Senators
to participate. That’s all it was, and it was simply as it read. He said the bill was go to External.
Mr. Daryani called for other questions, and called for any objection to New Business. Hearing none, he
said New Business was approved.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Oct. 12)
Approval of the Agenda
Report from the Chancellor's Representative
Guest Announcements
-3-
Mr. Daryani called for any changes to the agenda for next week. Hearing none, he said the agenda was
approved. THE AGENDA FOR THE OCTOBER 12 MEETING WAS APPROVED WITH NO
OBJECTION.
Report from the Chancellor's Representative
Mr. Daryani said he would entertain a motion to move to Reps to the ASUC Reports. It was so moved
and was seconded by Mr. Lin and passed with no objection.
Mr. Daryani said he would like to welcome their new Chancellor's Representative, Ms. Marsha G. Riley.
Ms. Riley said she appreciated the Senate having her there. She knew it was only an interim basis. She
wanted to learn a lot from them and be a good connection with the University. Ms. Kenney was gone and
did a great job for the time she was there, and Ms. Riley said she would do her best to fill her shoes. If
people had any questions they should feel free to e-mail her or contact her directly. She wanted to thank
them. Mr. Daryani said that seeing no questions, he would like to thank Ms. Riley for her report.
Guest Announcements
On a point of information, Mr. Tregub asked if there were any guests in the room who wished to make an
announcement at that time. Mr. Daryani said there were. Mr. Tregub moved to go to Guest Announcements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wang and passed with no objection.
Mr. Daryani said that if any guests wished to make an announcement, they could add their names to the
list posted outside. People had three minutes for their announcements.
Ruth Obel-Jorgensen introduced herself and said she’s with the UC Student Association, and was the new
Organizing Director. She had the opportunity to visit the Berkeley campus that day and spent a lot of
time with Ms. Han and her staff, including Mr. Lightfeldt and Ms. Brown. She did some voter registration on campus. Ms. Obel-Jorgensen said she just wanted to take this opportunity to stop by and give her
thanks to Berkeley for being a part of the UCSA, and not just a part, but being a school that was so much
in the forefront of what was going on. Cal was doing great with the goals for their campaigns of that
year, including stopping the fee hikes, financial aid, and go vote. Voter registration was going great on
the campus, and Berkeley currently had the second-highest voter reg numbers. The goal for voter registration on this campus was 5,000; so people were really excited. That’s a very high number, based on the
rest of the UCs. Also, they're really looking forward to the Regents meeting to be held in November on
campus, and having a really huge turnout. That want to get the word out that students won't take fee
hikes any more. She wanted to thank everybody at Berkeley and wanted to thank them for having her
there that day. She had a great time. She’ll be back either during the voter registration deadline, October
24, or around the election, November 8. She hoped everybody in the room was registered to vote and that
they help in the campaign.
Guest Announcements (cont'd)
-4-
Mr. Tregub said the feeling was mutual. Ms. Obel-Jorgensen said she would like to thank him very
much, and appreciated that. She brought some fliers if anybody was interested.
Sunniya Basravi introduced herself and said she’s an intern on campus for CALPIRG. She’s part of a
higher education campaign that she wanted to tell the Senate about. That summer Congress decided to
cut the student budget by $9 billion. That meant that financial aid will be greatly cut and student loans
and students’ interest rates like increase by a lot, leaving students in a lot of debt. The average college
student leaves school with about $16,000 in debt, and that would be increased by a lot more if the proposal went through. They couldn't tell yet by how much more debt would increase. They're trying to
spread awareness around campus and in the community about this so people know about the bill that
could be passed. CALPIRG was asking for the Senate’s support. They had an event on September 28
that was covered by the media and was a great success. They had 1,500 calls to Washington, D.C. offices
telling their representatives how students feel. They need the Senate’s help for another event coming up
on October 11. If Senators could please volunteer on Sproul, they're spreading more awareness of this.
They just need people to help them call their reps once again and let them know that students were not
happy with this budget cut. She would pass around a sign-up sheet.
Mr. Gupta asked what time the event will occur. Ms. Basravi said it will be held on Upper Sproul, Tuesday, October 11, between 10:00 and 2:00. There are times on the sign-up sheet that people also sign up
for.
Jeff Lai introduced himself and said he was serving as RHA liaison to the ASUC. The Residence Hall
Assembly was an umbrella organization for the various Hall Associations on campus to work to form a
sense of community and solidarity around res halls on campus. Mr. Lai said he would like to report on
two items. The first was an event coming up on October 27, Halloween. They’ll bus in low-income children from Oakland to the res halls to give the kids a safe place to spend Halloween and get candy. The
other item was OTM awards, “Of the Month,” which recognize individuals or events in res hall that promote a sense of community. Candidates for OTM awards can be sent to the President of the National
Residence Hall Honorary. A committee selected by the NRHA will select which OTMs win from the
Berkeley campus. From there, the nominations will go to the regional level, and then the national level.
That year they had their first national OTM award, awarded to Bowles Hall, for its first-year, Community
of the Month award, for a reception where they brought in past alumni to speak. This was the first time
that Cal won a national award. Mr. Lai said he wanted to thank them for their time.
Roll call was taken for attendance.
MEMBERS LEGALLY PRESENT:
Chris Abad
Josie Alvarez
Max Besbris
Rita Encarnacion
Yvette Felarca
Vishal Gupta
Ahmad Huzair
Ki-Hong Lee
Anthony Lin
Sapna Mehta
Ben Narodick
Lisa Putkey
Ashley Thomas
Igor Tregub
Billy Wang
Report from the Chancellor's Representative (cont'd)
Elected Official Announcements
-5-
David Kim
Ernie Macias
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Oren Gabriel
Edward Lam
Report from the Chancellor's Representative (cont'd)
Mr. Daryani said he would entertain a motion to move back to Reps to the ASUC Reports. It was so
moved and seconded by Mr. Tregub and Mr. Besbris and passed with no objection.
Mr. Daryani said Ms. Riley just informed him that she would like to continue her report.
Ms. Riley said she would get better used to the Senate’s format. She wanted to put in a little plug for a
leadership program through the Office of Student Life. In her other time on campus, she was the Director
of Student Involvement and Leadership Programs in the office, and she wanted to get the word out about
a great new pilot program they're putting out that year, the Blueprint Leadership Development Program.
It’s ideal for folks who are doing leadership, as Senators and their interns are, as well as any of their
friends may be doing. It’s an opportunity to get involved if they're not, and if they are involved, to get
recognition for the leadership work they already do. It’s really intended to be a year-long program and to
do some skill building, and get credit for things they already do in their leadership roles. She would
encourage Senators to participate and to pass this information on to other folks. If there were any questions, contact information was included, to one of their amazing people at OSL.
Elected Official Announcements
Mr. Besbris said he wanted to wish people happy New Year. For those who don't know, Rosh Hashanah
was yesterday, the Jewish next year. He would like to inform the Senate that he won't be present at next
week’s Senate meeting because of Kol Nidre, the night before Yom Kippur, which was the holiest day in
the Jewish calendar. In other news, the Berkeley ACLU, which meets Tuesdays at 110 Wheeler, at 7:00,
was giving out an award. Most of their groups will be notified, the Fred Korimatsu Civil Rights Fund
Award, with a monetary reward. Fred Korimatsu was a Japanese American who was interned during
World War II and brought his case before the Supreme Court. Last year the Berkeley ACLU started this
award for particularly active students who were involved in student life with promoting, in some way,
civil liberties. If people had any questions or knew of anybody who would be interested, they should
please feel free to contact him.
Ms. Putkey said she went to the Caucus for Marriage Equality last night and learned a lot of stuff she
didn't know. One was that National Coming Out Week was next week, so on Thursday there will be
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)
-6-
tabling and lots of information. She wanted to let them know about an initiative in circulation that will
try to ban not only gay marriage, but domestic partnerships, which are supposed to be the same as samesex marriages and was for people who couldn't get married because they're the same sex which, in her
opinion, was ridiculous. She wanted to let the Senate know some differences between domestic partnership and actual marriage rights. A lot of opponents to gay marriage said gays shouldn't be able to get
married, but could still have domestic partnership. But that wasn't really good at all. If one was in a
binational relationship and were married, the spouse would have security to stay there. But in a binational
domestic partnership relationship, the spouse could be deported. If one spouse got sick and was in the
hospital, the other spouse would legally be a stranger and couldn't be with their partner because they
didn't have actual marriage rights, or Social Security rights, and couldn't cover one’s spouse medically.
These are things they should think about, with National Coming Out Week next week.
Secondly, Ms. Putkey said she was going to pull a bill out of committee that was tabled by Fi-Comm on
Monday, since the problem was her fault. She wrote the bill for a student group, the Caucus on International Awareness, and she told the group’s rep that it was important for her to come to the Fi-Comm
meeting on Monday, but that it wasn't absolute mandatory. The rep couldn't make it to the Monday
meeting to speak on her bill, and as a result, the bill was tabled. The rep was present that evening and
Ms. Putkey said she’d speak on the bill when the Senate gets to that point of the agenda. Ms. Putkey said
she just wanted to give the Senate a heads-up on this. Ms. Putkey said she hadn't been aware that a representative from any group seeking funding had to be at the Fi-Comm meeting to talk about their bill if they
wanted funding. The rep was present that evening to speak, so hopefully the Senate could consider the
bill.
Mr. Gupta said Mr. Gabriel wasn't present, but Mr. Gupta said he would like to congratulate Mr. Gabriel
on his leadership efforts that weekend at the football game. He was able to help JoJo and Ann coordinate
12 students who came together to raise $1,500 or $1,600 at the Cal game for huricane relief. Mr. Gupta
asked people to please be sure to congratulate Mr. Gabriel and encourage him to continue in this effort.
Also, Mr. Gupta said he would like to remind people, since this was probably the last time he’ll get
chance to do so, that Ras Garba was coming up on Saturday, after the UCLA game. It’s free for Senators
and their names will be on a list. They should come with their ID and enjoy the dance. Mr. Gupta said
he’ll be there, as will other Senators. It’s not hard to learn so he would highly encourage them to attend,
in Pauley Ballroom on Saturday at 8:00. Hopefully, they'll see people there.
Ms. Mehta read the following:
--------------Begin statement by Ms. Mehta
During last week's senate meeting there was discussion over the ASUC Voters' Guide's content including
our positions on ballot initiatives. I find it very disturbing, from the standpoint of not only an ASUC official but from the perspective of a Cal student, that our student government would be opposed to communicating its decisions on relevant matters to the student body. This year there has been a significant
amount of discussion on improving our image to the campus, showing the student body what we do. And
yet there was contention when it came down to actually following through with this.
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)
-7-
--------------Statement by Ms. Mehta (cont'd)
Two years ago, the ASUC was caught in the University's battle surrounding Proposition 54. Many necessary and productive conversations came out of the situation, including talks on mandatory student fees as
they relate to our student government. We, the ASUC, came to a compromise with UCOP on this issue.
UCOP made it very clear to us that we were, in fact, allowed to take positions. Legal guidelines on the
UCOP Web site read: ‘It should be noted that the above does not affect the right of student governments
under University policy (Section 63.00) of the Policy on Student Governments) to take positions on public issues, include particular ballot initiative propositions and particular candidates for public office, so
long as the positions taken are not represented to be the positions of any other entity of the University.
They also have the right to communicate these positions and their supporting rationales on an informational basis to University and government audiences.” Since it does not make much sense to discuss and
vote on symbolic bills, unless these decisions are delivered to the campus, it was understood that as long
as the urging of students to vote a certain way was not allowed, it would be fine. Stated simply, we could
advertise the position we took, without using “vote yes” or “vote no.”
Because of last week's contention over SB 33, I have had conversations with both Clint, from UCOP, and
Jan. UCOP, taking advantage of the lack of institutional knowledge in the ASUC, is now backing away
from the previous agreement. As a Senate, we had discussions during leadership institute over the importance of student fee autonomy. It was even one of our advocacy agenda topic ideas. Quite often, many of
us, including myself, proudly exclaim our membership in the "most autonomous" student government in
the nation. It's important to stop and think about what exactly this means to all of us. Should we immediately seek the approval of the University before letting the campus know how we voted on an issue? To
be frank, I was appalled by the submissive behavior of the ASUC to the Administration in this situation.
We reached an agreement with them, and it is not in the best interest of the Association to let them dictate
what we do.
For those of you who don't know, the ASUC Voter's Guide, made by the External Affairs office, is a nonpartisan voters guide modeled after the League of Women Voters version. Either a nonpartisan explanation is given for ballot initiatives, or a pro and con argument is given. The guides are distributed in main
areas of campus, by the same individuals who ran the nonpartisan voter registration. The distribution of
this material, which includes the ASUC's positions on issues, is not distributed in any aggressive or onesided manner. For the past two years, it has included stances taken by the ASUC. In an educational
pamphlet specifically designed to educate students on issues affecting them, it only makes sense to
include the endorsements or positions of organizations relevant to students (i.e., ASUC, GA, USCA,
USSA, or other campus organizations). If anyone has issues or concerns about legal implications or the
nonpartisan nature of the Guide, I urge you to discuss these with the individuals who will be creating the
Guide. But please, do not move backwards on the progress we have made towards student fee autonomy.
End statement by Ms. Mehta
---------------
Mr. Huzair said that Tuesday night was the first day of Ramadan, the holy month of Islam where they fast
for 30 days. That day was his first day of fasting and he would apologize for having something to eat.
They break their fast at sunset so he was eating a little late. The Muslim Student Association will hold
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)
-8-
many events, including community outreach, and he would encourage Senators to attend. He’ll let the
Senate now as the month progresses what events were coming up. Mr. Huzair said he also looked
forward to fasting with his Jewish Senators next Wednesday.
Ms. Putkey asked if he was allowed to eat at sunset. Mr. Huzair said he was, but he hasn't.
Mr. Huzair said he would encourage people to attend the Ras Garba on Saturday. Student organizations
have put in a lot of effort for this event, and it’s a lot of fun. He’s attended, and it was awesome.
Mr. Daryani asked people to please direct their questions to the Chair.
Mr. Tregub said he would like to start with a tradition that came from Sen. Narodick that he thought was
very good, and he would continue it every week from now on. This was the weekly “Stud Muffin
Award,” institutionalized to recognize Senators who have gone above and beyond their duties. He would
like to recognize Sens. Gabriel and Gupta. As Mr. Gupta announced, $1,500 was raised at the last football game. He would also like to recognize Sens. Kim and Lee for putting on the first meeting of the
APIA Conference, and also for working so hard on the North Korea event that was happening at that
time. He would also like to recognize Sen. Narodick for being just a good Senator, always looking at
bills, and being so analytical. Mr. Tregub asked people to please keep in mind that this was not an
exhaustive list. He would love to hear about the things people were doing, ahead of time, because he
would love to recognize every Senator there. He knew they all do amazing stuff. He said the theme
music from the award was from “Mash.”
Mr. Tregub said he was really excited to announce that the weekly concerts on Sproul put on by SUPERB
will include a benefit component from now on. The first opportunity will be the Cal Katrina Concert next
Friday, October 14, on Lower Sproul, from 12:00 to 1:00. He’d pass around a sign-up sheet if they would
like to work with the Cal Katrina Coalition to help fundraise for this event. Also, on Wednesday, October
19, the External Affairs office will put on a voter registration concert, and he was sure Ms. Han would let
them know about that. If people know a coalition or group that would like to fundraising for this cause,
he would ask them to not hesitate to talk to him. There were a lot of opportunities lined up. Also, on
November 20, there will be a dodge ball tournament jointly put on by CALPIRG, the Katrina Coalition,
and a Greek honor society. Teams range from six to ten people, and he would circulate a sign-up sheet.
Benefit money will go to Cal Katrina relief as well. Finally, the online voting bill has undergone numerous revisions. The new changes were in blue. Mr. Daryani said time for the announcement had expired.
Mr. Abad said he would like to give an update on what’s happening every week on Cal football. Cal
won, and Arizona was held scoreless two seasons in a row. That weekend Cal, ranked #10, was playing
20th-ranked UCLA. Cal was looking for its first 6-0 start since 1950, when they went 9-0. To support
the people going to UCLA, which include himself, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Narodick, Mr. Abad said he
would ask for a Go Bears! Also, it was Mr. Lee’s birthday on Friday, and he would ask them to sing
"Happy Birthday" for him. "Happy Birthday" was sung for Mr. Lee.
Mr. Tregub said that would return to online voting. They'd like to stop tabling it now that people’s positions have been made. This would be their final opportunity to speak to him or Mr. Gabriel and let them
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)
Guest Announcements (cont'd)
-9-
know about any concerns or suggestions they may have with the bill. Mr. Tregub said nothing would
make him or Sen. Gabriel happier than to see this passed unanimously on the floor, and the only way to
do that was to communicate. So if they have problems with the bill as it currently stood, he would ask
them to send him an e-mail.
Mr. Narodick said he was very pleased he was able to motivate Mr. Tregub.
Ms. Felarca moved to hear a Special Order next week to hear Miranda Massey, a representative of the
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By
Any Means Necessary, BAMN, speak to the Senate about hostile climate, from 8:00 to 8:30. This would
benefit the whole Senate. The motion was seconded by Mr. Besbris. THE MOTION TO HEAR A SPECIAL ORDER NEXT WEEK FROM 8:00 TO 8:30 FOR MIRANDA MASSEY TO SPEAK ABOUT
HOSTILE CLIMATE, PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION.
Ms. Thomas said her big project was the Sexual Assault Awareness Dinner. She’s working with SHAPE
and they really want to get student groups on the forefront of the project and really work on the ground
level. She would ask them to do her a favor and think about student groups they want to be contacted
about this that they represent, and she’d ask them to write them down for her. They're making a big
mailing list, and she would ask Senators to think of groups they think would be really interested in this, so
they can start meeting on this.
Guest Announcements (cont'd)
Mr. Narodick moved to go to Guest Announcements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lin and passed
with no objection.
Taylor Allbright, from the National Organization of Women, introduced herself and said she was sure
they wanted to know what was up with the women’s community. October was Breast Cancer Awareness
Month and also Domestic Violence Awareness Month, so people should be aware. The Young Women’s
Day of Action is October 20. The ASUC has already acknowledged its support of this event and Senators
received a report with details about the event. She wanted to talk about it. Women received the vote in
1920 in the USA, less than 100 years ago. That was due to over 72 years of struggle, by groups such as
the National American Women’s Suffrage Association and the National Women’s Party, from which her
group took its name. This included the organization of hundreds of thousands of women, the raising of
millions of dollars, 56 campaigns and referenda; 480 campaigns on State legislatures; 47 campaigns on
State Constitutions; 277 campaigns to urge Party conventions to include women’s suffrage as part of their
platforms; and 19 party campaigns, with successive conferences. And in 72 years, that didn't include
countless hunger strikes, pickets, imprisonments, and beatings of women during this period.
Because of this, and because there's been a huge fight for women to have a political voice, particularly
young women, and in light of the fact that Prop. 73 would affect young women who can't vote, NOW
Guest Announcements (cont'd)
Report from the Attorney General
Report from the director of CAL Housing
- 10 -
wants to organize a coalition to organize a Young Women’s Day of Action. The event will be in two
parts: tabling from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and a potluck mixer in Heller Lounge from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. If
Senators’ student groups were interested in getting involved and tabling, or if Senators want to come to
the mixer, Ms. Allbright said she would ask them to please e-mail her. She would ask them to please
bring food, although no one would be turned away if they don't bring anything. Her e-mail was allbright.berkeley.edu. They reserved Upper Sproul for sound, from 12:00 to 1:00, and they want to invite
the women of the ASUC, as an underrepresented group in their student government, to come and speak.
They've allotted about ten minutes to elected officials from the ASUC, and she’d like to invite them to
come and speak, each for a couple of minutes, about the their experience as a woman and as an elected
official on campus. She called for any questions.
Mr. Narodick moved to go to reports. The motion was seconded by Mr. Besbris and passed with no
objection.
Report from the Attorney General
Mr. Royer said he didn't have a lot of new business. He sent an e-mail to the Solicitor General, Solicitor
General, Ben Brown, to get his support in taking on the suit filed by Mr. Daryani. Mr. Royer said he also
got updated By-laws. He called for any questions.
Mr. Tregub asked if he received an e-mail with the By-laws, and if so, he asked when Mr. Royer planned
on verifying them. Mr. Royer said he got a copy from Mr. Tregub that day and he got a copy from Mr.
Daryani on Monday. Mr. Royer said he had midterms on Thursday so he’ll look at the By-laws over the
weekend.
Report from the Director of CAL Housing
Nicholas Smith introduced himself and said he was just appointed Acting Director of CAL Housing and
City Affairs. They have a new Acting Deputy Director, Ward Dalaei. Mr. Dalaei introduced himself and
said that for his first report to the Senate, he wanted to tell them what they have going on. Next week,
Monday through Friday, the office was putting on Safety Week. Each day will focus on different areas.
On Monday they'll focus on emergency preparation; on Tuesday, mental, physical, and emotional health,
when people will be out on Sproul giving messages; Wednesday was residential safety; Thursday was
campus safety; and Friday was social safety, including a self-defense workshop. They're working heavily
on these events with campus Police, throughout the week. Some Senators have volunteered to help out
with chalking and getting the word out. They hope to appeal to a few more Senators and get a little more
support, specifically with tabling on Wednesday and Thursday, between 11:00 and 2:00. People have
asked to help out and they hope to continue that trend. Mr. Dalaei said they also have a brown bag meeting with Mayor Bates coming up, through their office, and they hope to get his wife, Lonnie Hancock
Report from the director of CAL Housing (cont'd)
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)
Committee Reports
- 11 -
involved. They're waiting to hear back from her office for a Q&A type of thing, probably in the Senate
Chamber, on the 21st. He wanted to thank the Senate for its time. He looked forward to working with
Senators in the future.
Mr. Smith said another project they're working on very hard was Tenant's Rights Week, scheduled for the
week of October 24. Their purpose is to educate the student body to know the rights they have when they
live in apartments. They'll also try to introduce this to freshmen living in dorms. There are problems
living in apartments, such as unfair rent increases, unsafe living conditions, and the like.
Safety Week will be on Upper Sproul from 12:00 to 1:00. They'll have various guest speakers. They're
talking to the Tang Center, the RSF, and other groups they hope will contribute.
Mr. Smith said they have other specialists in the office: Alex Prodan, the transportation specialist; Naomi
Herman-Alpert, the safety specialist; and the City government affairs specialist, Julie Picquel. The Senate
will meet them soon. He called for any questions.
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)
Mr. Narodick said he was very pleased to have inspired Senators to do weekly shticks, especially since he
wasn't doing them any more. Currently, the baseball playoffs have started, and like last year, he would
once again bring to the attention of the Senate a team that embodies the spirit of what the ASUC should
stand for: the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Mr. Narodick said he has been an Orange County resident for 20 years and grew up 15 minutes from Anaheim Stadium, and he’d live and die an Angels fan.
The only flaw with this team was that it wore red; but they sometimes wear white, so it’s okay. This team
embodied the passion, spirit, heart and soul that ASUC Senators should strive to also embody and spread
throughout the student body. Mr. Narodick said that last year he backed the Boston Red Sox, the secondbest team in the American League, and they're close this year. He’ll write a bill in support of the best
team in the American League playoffs. He hoped they keep the Angels in their hearts and minds as they
play the Yankees. He knew people were skeptical about the Angels, but at the very least, he would ask
them to please not root for the Yankees.
Mr. Narodick said he would encourage Senators not to fight next week for two reasons. First, it was bad
to fight on Yom Kippur because it was the day of atonement, and secondly, the Senate hasn't fought yet,
and he didn't want to miss anything. So he would encourage the Senate to play nice next week so he
doesn't miss anything.
Committee Reports
Reporting for the Finance Committee, Mr. Narodick said the meeting on Monday was called to order at
9:05 p.m. All members were present. SB 38 was withdrawn; SB 41 was withdrawn; SB 44 was tabled;
Committee Reports
- 12 -
SB 51 was amended and approved; SB 52 was passed as amended; SBs 53, 54, and 55 were tabled. SB
56 was passed as amended; SB 57 was withdrawn; SB 58 would passed as amended; SB 59 was passed as
amended; SB 60 passed as amended; SB 61 was tabled; SB 62 was passed as amended; SB 66 was passed
as amended. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. From the Contingency Fund budget, they spent
$1,587.50, and $608 was spent from the Greek Philanthropy Fund.
Mr. Narodick said the Finance Committee had set a 60% cap on expenditures for the first semester.
There was $2,446 remaining under that soft cap for the Fall Semester. He could discuss that with Senators off the floor, if they have any questions. There was $7,570 remaining in the Greek Philanthropy
Fund for the entire year. Additionally, he would like to remind Senators that if they submit a financial
bill, to please, please include am itemized budget with the bill. Quite frankly, there are many things they
can't fund through ASUC funds, and Senators need time to look budgets over. So they very highly smile
upon Senators including budgets with the bills they present to the Senate. That way, Fi-Comm has time
to study them. He called for any questions.
Mr. Besbris asked how much was in the Contingency Fund. Mr. Narodick said it was $2,446 from the
soft cap that remained for the Fall Semester. However, there's another $6,000 in that fund, additionally,
or so. But if they reach that level, Fi-Comm will institute stricter policies as to how spending would be
done. That will probably accompany a recommendation from the Committee to delay any appropriation
bills until next semester. That’s not completely possible. They'd keep the Senate informed as that time
approaches.
Mr. Daryani said the Chair would like to thank the Finance Committee Chair for taking it upon himself to
hold the Senate to their soft caps. A lot of times they don't. It shows how fiscally responsible they were.
Reporting for the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee, Mr. Tregub said that in a blitz meeting that lasted less than half an hour, the Con-Review Committee achieved the following results. Bills
that were passed included SB 39; 42-A, 63-A, 64, and 65. Bills that were tabled include SBs 30-A, 38,
40, and 44. No bills were killed. All members were present except for Mr. Gabriel. He wanted to thank
Mr. Besbris for not overlooking the attendance.
Reporting for the University and External Affairs Committee, Mr. Yang said that in their blitz meeting
they passed SB 51 and all members were present.
Mr. Narodick said that SB 51 and SB 51-A had incongruent amendments, and someone in Fi-Comm and
External should meet to resolve the differences. He moved to amend so he and Mr. Yang could meet and
hash out the differences.
Mr. Tregub asked if the recess could be appended while they check bills for Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar -- SB 39, In Support of Temporary and Ad Hoc Committees
- 13 -
The following bills were up for consideration that evening under the Consent Calendar: SBs 39; 42, as
amended; 51, as amended; 52, as amended; 56, as amended; 58, as amended; 59, as amended; 60, as
amended; 62, as amended; 63, as amended; 64; 65; and 66, as amended.
Mr. Daryani called for a motion to recess for five minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gupta and
passed with no objection. This meeting was recessed. Back in session, Mr. Besbris moved to extend the
recess by three minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gupta and passed with no objection. This
meeting was recessed.
Back in session, the following bills were removed from the Consent Calendar: SBs 61; 62, as amended;
and 63, as amended.
Mr. Daryani called for any other changes to the Consent Calendar, and hearing none, said the Consent
Calendar was approved. THE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS APPROVED WITH NO OBJECTION:
SB 39; SB 42, AS AMENDED; SB 51, AS AMENDED; SB 52, AS AMENDED; SB 56, AS
AMENDED; SB 58, AS AMENDED; SB 59, AS AMENDED; SB 60, AS AMENDED; SB 62, AS
AMENDED; SB 63, AS AMENDED; SB 64; SB 65; AND SB 66, AS AMENDED.
The following Resolution, SB 39, was approved under the Consent Calendar and was authored by Mr.
Narodick:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY AND AD HOC COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, the guidelines by which temporary and ad hoc committees are formed in the ASUC Senate
can be described as ambiguous at best; and
WHEREAS, there need to be clear and transparent rules so that Senate business can be completed more
efficiently;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Title I, Article 7.12 be amended to read as follows:
7.12 Temporary Committees
1. Temporary Committees may be established be by a majority vote of the Senate.
These Committees shall dissolve upon completion of their designated task.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Title I, Article 7.13 be amended to read as follows:
7.13 Ad Hoc Committees
1. Ad Hoc Committees may be established be by a majority vote of the Senate. These
permanent committees shall meet regularly to provide oversight over a specific task
or function of the ASUC.
Consent Calendar -- SB 42, In Support of Clarifying the Censure Count for Campaign Violations - 14 -- SB 51, In Support of Sponsorship and Funding for "Universities Allied for
Essential Medicines"
The following Resolution, SB 42, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Mr. Tregub:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CLARIFYING THE CENSURE COUNT FOR CAMPAIGN
VIOLATIONS
WHEREAS, the censure system for ASUC campaign violations was radically restructured in fall 2004;
and
WHEREAS, a specific censure count was not defined for those infractions specified in Title IV, Article
13, Section 6; and
WHEREAS, this oversight led to an excessive amount of freedom on the part of the Judicial Council in
crafting an equitable remedy during deliberations of violations that fit this section; and
WHEREAS, the anticipations of a committee that will fix all problems ever conceived with the By-laws
bylaws should never get in the way of the Senate's attending to By-law misappropriations in
a timely manner;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Title IV, Article 13, Section 10, Subsection 4 of the ASUC Bylaws be amended as follows:
4. A finding of violation of the conduct prohibited by Sections 13.3,13.4, or 13.5, and 13.6
shall be punishable by single or multiple censures. A violation of Section 13.3 shall result
in a maximum of two to three censures. A violation of Section 13.4 shall result in a
maximum of one to two censures. A violation of Section 13.5 or 13.6 shall result in a
maximum of one censure apiece.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Title IV Article 10 read “by a simple majority vote of the entire
Senate.”
The following Resolution, SB 51, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Timothy Minh and was co-sponsored by Mr. Gupta, Mr. Huzair, and Mr.
Buenrostro:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SPONSORSHIP AND FUNDING FOR "UNIVERSITIES ALLIED
FOR ESSENTIAL MEDICINES"
WHEREAS, no one should be denied access to essential medicines simply because they cannot afford
them; and
Consent Calendar -- SB 51, In Support of Sponsorship and Funding for "Universities Allied for
Essential Medicines"
- 15 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SPONSORSHIP AND FUNDING FOR "UNIVERSITIES ALLIED
FOR ESSENTIAL MEDICINES" (cont'd)
WHEREAS, a majority of the global poor who need essential medicines unfortunately lack access to
them; and
WHEREAS, university scientists are major contributors in the drug development pipeline, conducting
more than half of the United States' basic research and are responsible for important health
technologies; and
WHEREAS, universities have the power to help make medicines and health technologies more accessible
for the world's poor through their licensing policies; and
WHEREAS, universities have an avowed commitment to advancing the public good; and
WHEREAS, a decrease in the price of medicines typically correlates with greater access (for individuals)
in lower and middle income countries, and that generic competition is a means to achieve
low prices for patented medicines: and
WHEREAS, Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) is a student advocacy group with
chapters at over twenty-five major research universities in the United States, Canada, and the
United Kingdom. UAEM has been campaigning for universities to acknowledge their role in
global public health, and to improve access to health goods in developing countries by
changing their technology licensing policies; and
WHEREAS, UAEM has a two-fold mission: (1) to ensure that biomedical end products, such as drugs,
are made more accessible in poor countries and (2) to increase the amount of research conducted on neglected diseases, or those diseases predominantly affecting people who are too
poor to constitute a market attractive to private-sector research and development investment;
and
WHEREAS, UAEM stands ready to support UC Berkeley with years of expertise regarding equitable
licensing and the nature of the global access to medicine crisis; and
WHEREAS, UAEM has been working in conjunction with international experts in intellectual property,
global economists, and pharmaceutical manufacturers to develop model licensing provisions
that oblige licensees to allow unfettered generic access to end-products in low- and middleincome countries. In addition, UAEM has developed a broad list of recommendations that
includes, for instance, promoting university research on neglected diseases; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley chapter of UAEM is newly registered group with the Office of Student Life;
and
WHEREAS, some of UAEM's main expenses will include publicity, funding guest lecturers, and other
basic costs for raising awareness of this issue of drug access; and
Consent Calendar -- SB 51, In Support of Sponsorship and Funding for "Universities Allied for
Essential Medicines"
-- SB 52, In Support of Alpha Kappa Delta Phi's Annual Breast Cancer
Awareness Philanthropy Event
- 16 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SPONSORSHIP AND FUNDING FOR "UNIVERSITIES ALLIED
FOR ESSENTIAL MEDICINES" (cont'd)
WHEREAS, UAEM is in need of funds so that it can be more effective as a new student group at UC
Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, the group has already raised $2,000 from outside sources, including BigIdeas@Berkeley;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that UAEM be granted sponsorship as a first-year Student-Initiated
Service Group (SISG).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that UAEM be allocated $100 (one hundred dollars) from the Senate
Contingency Fund.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC Senate at UC Berkeley endorse UAEM and its two-fold
mission to promote greater access to biomedical end product in low- and middle- income
countries.
The following Resolution, SB 52, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Mr. Lam and Ms. Han:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ALPHA KAPPA DELTA PHI'S ANNUAL BREAST CANCER
AWARENESS PHILANTHROPY EVENT
WHEREAS, alpha Kappa Delta Phi's national breast cancer awareness philanthropy event has raised
thousands of dollars in the fight against breast cancer since its inception in 1991; and
WHEREAS, alpha Kappa Delta Phi is the first and only nationally recognized Asian-American interest
sorority, with 37 chapters, and growing in the United States; and
WHEREAS, alpha Kappa Delta Phi is an officially recognized sorority by the College Panhellenic at the
University of California, Berkeley since 1990; and
WHEREAS, one of alpha Kappa Delta Phi's four pillars is the ideals of philanthropy, which fosters sisterhood, scholarship, leadership, and Asian-American awareness; and
WHEREAS, alpha Kappa Delta Phis raised over $1,300 last year for the Susan G. Komen Foundation, a
non-profit organization that raises money for breast cancer research and awareness; and
Consent Calendar -- SB 52, In Support of Alpha Kappa Delta Phi's Annual Breast Cancer
Awareness Philanthropy Event (cont'd)
-- SB 56, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for the National Organization for
College Placement, Berkeley Chapter
- 17 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ALPHA KAPPA DELTA PHI'S ANNUAL BREAST CANCER
AWARENESS PHILANTHROPY EVENT (cont'd)
WHEREAS, alpha Kappa Delta Phi's annual two-week Breast Cancer Awareness Philanthropy Event
shall have a workshop to inform the public about the dangers of breast cancer, as well as two
weeks of informative pamphlet flyering to Berkeley students; and
WHEREAS, the event shall consist of handing out nationally recognized breast cancer awareness pins in
return for donations to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, in an effort to outreach to the
Berkeley campus and fund breast cancer research;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC shall allocate $608 (six hundred and eight dollars)
from the Greek Philanthropy Fund to help defray costs for alpha Kappa Delta Phi's Annual
Breast Cancer Awareness Philanthropy Event.
The following Resolution, SB 56, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Mr. Kim and was co-sponsored by Mr. Besbris and Ms. Felarca:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ASUC SPONSORSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
FOR COLLEGE PLACEMENT, BERKELEY CHAPTER
WHEREAS, the ASUC exists to serve the needs of student groups, and one way in which this duty is fulfilled is by providing sponsorship for student groups; and
WHEREAS, the National Organization for College Placement (NOCP) is a non-profit organization established to help high school students with college admissions, focusing on underprivileged
communities; and
WHEREAS, NOCP exists to support giving equal advantage and opportunity to all high school students;
and
WHEREAS, its primary objective is to teach high school students college admissions strategies, such as:
how to analyze college statistics, how to choose between colleges, and how to increase one’s
chance of admissions by knowing how to market an application to a particular college; and
WHEREAS, past activities include, but are not limited to: college admissions workshops at high schools,
financial aid workshops, and staff development seminars; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley chapter of the NOCP is a registered student group with the Office of Student
Life;
Consent Calendar -- SB 56, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for the National Organization for
College Placement, Berkeley Chapter (cont'd)
-- SB 58, In Support of V-Day at UC Berkeley
- 18 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ASUC SPONSORSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
FOR COLLEGE PLACEMENT, BERKELEY CHAPTER
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Organization for College Placement (NOCP),
Berkeley Chapter be recognized by the ASUC as a first-year ASUC-sponsored Student-Initiated Service Group (SISG).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC shall allocate $150 from the Senate Contingency Fund to
the National Organization for College Placement, Berkeley Chapter.
The following Resolution, AB 58, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Taylor Allbright, Crystal Randall, Katie Hutchins and Whitney Wilson, and was cosponsored by Mr. Besbris, Mr. Lin, Ms. Mehta, Ms. Thomas, and Ms. Encarnacion:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF V-DAY AT UC BERKELEY
WHEREAS, V-Day is a global movement to stop violence against women and girls; and
WHEREAS, through V-Day campaigns around the world, local volunteers and college students produce
annual benefit performances of The Vagina Monologues to raise awareness and funds for
anti-violence groups within their own communities; and
WHEREAS, V-Day at UC Berkeley has produced the Vagina Monologues on campus for the past five
years; and
WHEREAS, past Berkeley Vagina Monologues productions have been highly successful, consistently
selling out large venues such as 155 Dwindle and Wheeler Auditorium; and
WHEREAS, past beneficiaries of V-Day at UC Berkeley include the Intersex Society of North America,
La Casa de las Madres (a local domestic violence shelter), the Gender Equity Resource
Center, the women of Iraq, and the women of Juarez, Mexico; and
WHEREAS, all of V Day at UC Berkeley's profits are donated to beneficiaries; and
WHEREAS, the projected expenses for V-Day 2006 are as follows: Total expenses, $8,242.25; Expenses
eligible for ASUC funding, $3,460;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC recognize V-Day at UC Berkeley as a first-year Student-Initiated Service Group.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that ASUC allocate $600 (six hundred dollars) from the Senate Contingency Fund to V Day at UC Berkeley.
Consent Calendar -- SB 59, In Support of Students for Access to Education
-- SB 60, In Support of American Institute of Architecture Students
- 19 -
The following Resolution, SB 59, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Ms. Mehta:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF STUDENTS FOR ACCESS TO EDUCATION
WHEREAS, Students for Access to Education (SAE) is an organization that is committed to bring awareness to the campus on issues affecting all levels of education; and
WHEREAS, the organization fights for the prioritization of education and works on these issues on our
campus and in the surrounding communities; and
WHEREAS, issues that SAE has organized around include the budget cuts to California's K-12 system,
the continual cuts to outreach in the State budget, and the drop in enrollment of students of
color and low-income students in higher education; and
WHEREAS, this is the third year SAE has been an active student group; and
WHEREAS, the proposed budget for the organization is as follows: Total, $1,047.50;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC recognize Students for Access to Education as a firstyear ASUC-sponsored Student-Initiated Service Group.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC shall allocate $137.50 (one hundred and thirty-seven
dollars and fifty cents) from the Senate Contingency Fund to Students for Access to
Education.
The following Resolution, SB 60, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Ms. Mehta and Jackie Park, and was co-sponsored by Ms. Encarnacion, Mr. Besbris,
Mr. Tregub, and Mr. Abad:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS
WHEREAS, the American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS) is the Association of Architecture
students on the UC Berkeley campus; and
WHEREAS, the organization strives to create stronger bonds between architecture students, the faculty,
and professionals in the Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, AIAS is extremely important for representing students, as it is the only formal representation
nationwide for architecture students; and
Consent Calendar -- SB 60, In Support of American Institute of Architecture Students (cont'd)
- 20 -- SB 64, In Support of Clarifying Elected Official and Guest Announcement By-laws
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS
(cont'd)
WHEREAS, AIAS has been a student group on the UC Berkeley campus for five years and has an
approximate membership of fifty students; and
WHEREAS, AIAS was previously ASUC sponsored; and
WHEREAS, due to a change in the organization's leadership, ASUC sponsorship was not renewed;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC recognize the American Institute of Architecture Students as a fourth-year ASUC-sponsored SAG (student activity group).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC shall allocate $250 (two hundred and fifty dollars) from
the Senate Contingency Fund to the American Institute of Architecture Students.
The following Resolution, SB 64, was approved under the Consent Calendar and was authored by Mr.
Tregub:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CLARIFYING ELECTED OFFICIAL AND GUEST ANNOUNCEMENT BY-LAWS
WHEREAS, there is currently only a nebulous specification as to the vote required to extend Elected
Official Announcements; and
WHEREAS, if following a precedent set out by Robert's Rules of Order, a motion of this nature only
requires a simple majority vote; and
WHEREAS, the ASUC By-laws contain a clause on guest announcements that is both superfluous and
contradictory to a clause that follows;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC amend Title I, Article V, Section 4 of the ASUC Bylaws to read:
5.4 Elected Officials Announcements
1. Under Announcements, Elected Officers or their proxies, may make announcements
not to exceed five (5) minutes. If all elected officers so desiring have made
announcements, guests of the Senate may make announcements not to exceed five (5)
minutes. Time for Individual Announcements may not be extended.
CC -- SB 64, In Support of Clarifying Elected Official and Guest Announcement By-laws (cont'd) - 21 -- SB 65, In Support of Ameliorating Confusion With Regard to Attorney General Selection Timeline
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CLARIFYING ELECTED OFFICIAL AND GUEST ANNOUNCEMENT BY-LAWS (cont'd)
2. The total time for announcements shall not exceed thirty (30) minutes, unless
extended by a simple majority vote of the Senate. Time consumed by debate on Main
Motions shall not be counted against the total time allotted for announcements.
3. Time for Announcements shall not be used for Officer Reports.
5.5 Guest Announcements
1. Any guest wishing to make an announcement may do so in this portion of the agenda.
2. Any guest wishing to make an announcement shall sign a list in the Senate Chambers,
asking for the guest's name, year, major, and announcement subject. The Senate
Chair shall refer to this form when calling for guest announcements.
3. Guest announcements shall not exceed three minutes individually, and fifteen minutes
collectively, unless extended by a simple majority vote of the Senate.
4. No guest may consume more than one announcement.
The following Resolution, SB 65, was approved under the Consent Calendar and was authored by Mr.
Tregub:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AMELIORATING CONFUSION WITH REGARD TO ATTORNEY
GENERAL SELECTION TIMELINE
WHEREAS, the ASUC By-laws are currently contradictory with regard to the AG selection timeline; and
WHEREAS, this lapse can easily be addressed by the ASUC Senate;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC amend Title I, Article IX, Section 2 of the ASUC Bylaws to read:
9.2 Attorney General
1. The Senate shall appoint a temporary committee consisting of the five 5 ASUC Senators, with preference given to members of the Constitutional and Procedural Review
Committee, who shall select and forward one (1) Attorney General nomination to the
full Senate for approval by a two-thirds vote of the entire Senate. Nominees for consideration by this committee shall be limited to and must include those people
CC -- SB 64, In Support of Ameliorating Confusion With Regard to Attorney General Selection
Timeline (cont'd)
-- SB 66, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for jericho!
- 22 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AMELIORATING CONFUSION WITH REGARD TO ATTORNEY
GENERAL SELECTION TIMELINE (cont'd)
nominated by at least one (1) elected officer. Following the formation of the Attorney
General Selection Committee (hereafter AGSC), the Senate shall be given at least one
(1) week to submit nominations. The AGSC is not required to accept nominations past
the required one (1) week period, though it may choose to do so.
2. The AGSC must be formed at the first regular meeting of the Fall Session.
3. The AGSC must submit its selection from the properly nominated nominees to the
Senate for approval by the fifth third regular Senate meeting.
4. If the Senate fails to approve an Attorney General by the third Regular meeting of the
Fall Session, the Executive Vice President shall appoint an interim Attorney General
whose term will expire when the Senate approves a properly nominated candidate for
Attorney General.
5. If the Senate has not approved an Attorney General by the sixth Regular meeting of
the Fall Session, they may not consider any other business until they do so.
6. The Attorney General may be removed from office for failing to do his/her duties by a
two-thirds (2/3) vote of the entire Senate.
7. The Attorney General shall keep a record of all policies of the ASUC. Such record
shall include all boycotts currently in effect, and shall inform the Senate at the commencement of the Fall Session of the same.
The following Resolution, SB 66, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Mr. Gupta and was co-sponsored by Mr. Lee:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ASUC SPONSORSHIP FOR jericho!
WHEREAS, the ASUC exists to serve the needs of student groups, and one way in which to fulfill this
duty is by providing sponsorship for student groups; and
WHEREAS, jericho! became a registered student-initiated activities group (SAG) with the Office of Student Life in August 2005; and
WHEREAS, jericho! is an open student organization on campus that seeks to educate and entertain students with improv performances and activities; and
CC -- SB 66, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for jericho! (cont'd)
Items for Immediate Consideration, SB 61, In Support of the Caucus for International Awareness
- 23 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ASUC SPONSORSHIP FOR jericho!(cont'd)
WHEREAS, jericho! is currently seeking support from the ASUC for an event to be held in 145 Dwinelle
on October 14 & 15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, jericho! is hoping to grow and expand through publicity and through holding successful,
educational, entertaining events; and
WHEREAS, last year's Finance Committee set a soft-cap for first-year sponsored groups at $150;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC recognize jericho! as an ASUC-sponsored student
activities group (SAG) in its first year.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC shall allocate $150 (one hundred fifty dollars) from the
Senate Contingency Fund to jericho! (a budget will be provided during presentation at the
Finance Committee meeting).
ITEMS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION
Ms. Putkey moved to resurrect SB 61 and to move it to IC. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas
and passed with no objection. Mr. Daryani asked if there were any amendments made to the bill in committee. Ms. Putkey said there weren't.
The following Resolution, SB 61, was authored by Jennette Claassen and Ms. Putkey:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CAUCUS FOR INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS
WHEREAS, the Caucus for International Awareness (CIA), founded in spring of 2005, exists to broaden
our education of international social welfare issues and perspectives through the following
ways:
• Raising awareness of the impact the global community has on local issues
• Exploring the role of domestic social work in the international arena
• Promoting educational opportunities for exploring international social problems and
promising practice models that address such problems
• Expanding the integration of an international perspective within the school
• Actively participating in international social welfare issues; and
SB 61, In Support of the Caucus for International Awareness (cont'd)
- 24 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CAUCUS FOR INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS (cont'd)
WHEREAS, the CIA collaborates with students, faculty, alumni, and members of the community to promote the following activities:
• Disseminate information about university/community events and resources
• Work with professors to incorporate international perspectives in the curriculum
• Expand international opportunities through field placements, summer internships,
and volunteer positions
• Arrange new activities and promote already existing events such as: debates, forums,
colloquiums, and culture exchange programs with other schools.
• Enhance school décor, raise funds for relief/aid efforts
• Share personal anecdotes with students who have international experience; and
WHEREAS, the budget for an upcoming event of the CIA, bringing speaker Father Roy Bourgeois, founder of the School of the Americas Watch, to Berkeley is as follows: Total, $105; and
WHEREAS, CIA has been actively raising funds through fundraisers like bake sales and has applied for
grants from organizations such as the Townsend Center for Humanities, yet is still in need of
funding for publicity for their events; and
WHEREAS, it is under the mission of the ASUC to support student groups through such means as sponsorship and funding;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Caucus for International Awareness be recognized as a firstyear ASUC sponsored Student Activities Group.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC shall allocate $150 from the Senate Contingency Fund to
the Caucus for International Awareness.
Jennette Claassen introduced herself and said she’s the Co-Chair for the Caucus for International Awareness, which is within the School of Social Welfare. They were founded last year and their purpose was to
raise awareness of the impacts the global community has on local issues, especially around issues of
social welfare. They explore the role of domestic social welfare in the international arena and explore
international social problems, and promising models that they could use here in the US. The group was
hosting Fr. Roy Bourgeois on October 11 and they hope to get additional funding for the group’s publicity efforts. Fr. Bourgeois is the founder of the School of the Americas Watch, which deals with a government-funded training facility for various military personnel, especially in Latin American. They often
use questionable methods of training, and the people they train often go back to Latin American countries
and use their tactics against organizing at the grassroots level, especially with educators and community
SB 61, In Support of the Caucus for International Awareness (cont'd)
SB 62, In Support of On the Frontlines
- 25 -
organizers. Fr. Bourgeois has founded an organization, School of the Americas Watch, which attempts to
close down the School of the Americas. He will come to raise awareness about the School and encourage
people to be active in closing it down.
Mr. Narodick moved to recess for two minutes to verify the group’s Constitution. The motion was seconded by Ms. Putkey and passed with no objection. This meeting was recessed.
Back in session, Mr. Daryani said he would entertain a motion to table SB 61. It was so moved and seconded by Mr. Narodick and Mr. Besbris. THE MOTION TO TABLE SB 61 PASSED WITH NO
OBJECTION. This meeting was recessed.
The following Resolution, SB 62, as amended in committee, was authored by Mr. Tregub and was cosponsored by Ms. Putkey:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ON THE FRONTLINES
WHEREAS, "On the Frontlines" is a conference co-sponsored by the Campus AntiWar Network and
Military Out of Our Schools Bay Area and intends to bring together students (both college
and high school), parents, teachers, and community activists to discuss the ongoing war in
Iraq and the military; and
WHEREAS, the program will consist of both education and debate on the current state of the antiwar
movement and options for youth in times of war, as well as the role of the military in our
schools; and
WHEREAS, a purpose of the conference is to network with students from across the country and engage
in thoughtful dialogue about where the antiwar movement needs to go from here; and
WHEREAS, the ASUC has made a commitment to encourage and honor dialogue of an educational purpose, regardless of ideology; and
WHEREAS, this event is being put on with the generous help of the Peace Studies Student Association,
an OSL-sponsored student group; and
WHEREAS, the budget for On the Frontlines stands as follows (funds requested from the ASUC are in
bold): Total, $1,300; funds requested from the ASUC, $250;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC recognize On the Frontlines as an ASUC-sponsored
event.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC shall allocate $200 (two hundred dollars) from the ASUC
Contingency Fund to On the Frontlines.
SB 62, In Support of On the Frontlines (cont'd)
SB 63, In Support of Senate Self-Determination In Situations of Boycotting
- 26 -
Mr. Tregub said he removed the bill from Consent Calendar to make an amendment. He moved amend
the second-to-last Whereas Clause, to read as follows:
"Whereas, this event is being put on with the generous help of the Berkeley peace Journal, an ASUCsponsored student group; and”
The motion to amend was seconded by Mr. Besbris. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION.
A motion to call the question and end debate was made and seconded by Ms. Thomas and Ms.
Encarnacion and passed with no objection. THE MOTION TO APPROVE SB 62, AS AMENDED IN
COMMITTEE AND ON THE FLOOR PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE, RESOLUTION
IN SUPPORT OF ON THE FRONTLINES.
The following Resolution, SB 63, as amended in committee, was authored by Mr. Tregub:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SENATE SELF-DETERMINATION IN SITUATIONS OF
BOYCOTTING
WHEREAS, the ASUC Senate has for a number of years followed the precedent that, each year, a new
group of Senators has full capacity to decide appropriations and other Senate actions; and
WHEREAS, to maximize the sanctity of these decisions, few of them ought to influence the actions taken
by subsequent Senates without the consent of subsequent Senators; and
WHEREAS, the current expiration date of boycotts imposed by previous Senates places a decision on the
hands of new Senators with which they may not necessarily concur;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC amend Title I, Article IV, Section 1, Subsection 5 of
the ASUC By-laws to read:
6. Bills to impose boycotts by the ASUC shall expire at the end of the eighth fifth week of
the following Fall Semester.
Mr. Tregub moved to call the question. The motion to end debate was seconded by Mr. Lin and passed
with no objection. THE MOTION TO APPROVE SB 63, AS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE, PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SENATE SELF-DETERMINATION IN SITUATIONS OF BOYCOTTING.
Report from the Finance Officer
Report from the Finance Officer
Appointments -- Judicial Council
- 27 -
Mr. Gupta moved to go to the Finance Officer’s report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Besbris and
passed with no objection.
Chaitanaya Desai said the Senate Contingency Fund had $2,446.60 and the Greek Philanthropy Fund had
$7,570.75. He called for any questions.
Mr. Narodick said SB 61 was pulled off the table, and next week’s numbers should account for approximately $105 withdrawn from the Contingency Fund. Mr. Desai said that number would go down to
$2,341.60.
Mr. Huzair asked if he had any information on carryforward. Mr. Desai said he didn't have any numbers,
but he’s been promised that more information will be available on the 11th, and he’ll report after that
date.
APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Tregub moved to go into J-Council appointments. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alvarez and
passed with no objection.
Mr. Daryani said the first J-Council appointment under consideration was Stephanie Lam.
Ms. Lam she’s really been interested in ASUC government since it has a real impact on students and
achieves the results it wants. The J-Council seemed to be the backbone of the government, unlike the
legislative and Executive branches, which seem to be more dynamic in nature and change every year with
personalities, programs, and ideas. The J-Council is the internal regulating unit to make sure the ASUC
stays true to the Constitution, which is what defines it as an organization. If she were a Councilmember,
she would strive to be a very strict interpreter of the Constitution and By-laws because to her, it seemed
like that left the least room for inconsistencies.
Ms. Felarca said she wanted to thank Ms. Lam for applying for the position. Ms. Felarca said she was
open about her litmus test for what she was looking for in making her decision on the J-Council. For the
past few years a few very controversial cases have come before the J-Council. One case was the disqualification of her party over accusations of badgering. At the time, the By-laws had no basis for disqualifying a candidate or an entire party. Her party argued that the disqualification was completely unconstitutional and that they were not guilty of badgering and were simply asserting their due process rights. The
party was the Defend Affirmative Action Party. They fought this not only for themselves, but because
they thought the J-Council’s action disenfranchised the entire student body, since the students ought to
decide who’s elected, not an appointed body like the J-Council. She didn't now how familiar Ms. Lam
was with this case. The J-Council’s number one job, if there's any job it has, was to decide over elections.
Ms. Felarca said she would be very concerned that Ms. Lam would need to be familiar with these things
because she’ll need to be ready, since other members of the J-Council voted in favor of these decisions,
the wrong way, in her opinion. She asked if Ms. Lam would be under their influence.
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 28 -
Ms. Felarca said she had another question. Last year Rocky Gade came up before the J-Council because
it was claimed that since he was an Extension student and not a Berkeley student, he was not fit to hold
office. The J-Council had a split decision, with the majority ruling that he should be able to hold office,
while a significant minority ruled that he did not have that right. She asked Ms. Lam about her opinion of
the majority opinion. Ms. Lam asked what the Constitution and By-laws say about that. Ms. Felarca said
the Constitution allows Extension students to hold office the first semester, but was silent about the second semester, while Spring Semester Extension students have the right to vote. Some Senators may be
sitting in the Senate because some of their votes may have come from Extension students. There was a
lot of gray area in the By-laws. Ms. Lam said she’d try to go with the spirit of the Constitution, which it
seemed to say that he would have a right to hold office.
Mr. Tregub said that as a point of information, the Constitution states that Fall Extension students actively
seeking to be registered can hold office and vote.
Mr. Besbris asked if she could elaborate on her current Association with current Justice White. Ms. Lam
asked if that was Amaris White. Ms. Lam said she was a clerk with the J-Council last Spring Semester
and worked with Ms. White briefly. Basically, Ms. Lam said her job was with pre-trial procedures, calling people to ask them when they were available, to set up meetings.
Ms. Felarca said last year a J-Council member pulled a referendum from the ballot ten minutes before the
polls were to open, and other J-Council members stood by that decision and defended that decision. The
ASUC held an impeachment procedure and hearing for the Councilmember and was one vote short of
impeaching her. Ms. Felarca said she was one of the people who voted to impeach, because she felt the
Councilmember abused her powers, and thought the referendum should have never been pulled. Ms. Lam
asked why it was pulled. Ms. Felarca said she thought it was because the former Chair of the J-Council
called her at 8 a.m. and told her she should pull it. Ms. Lam asked if that action had any backing in the
Constitution. Ms. Felarca said that was the Council member’s justification, but many in the Senate disagreed. She asked Ms. Lam what her opinion was of that and if she thought the J-Council should have
that kind of power. Ms. Lam said Ms. Felarca kept talking about situations, but didn't state what the Constitution said about it, Ms. Lam said she wasn't that familiar with it yet, given that she wasn't a J-Council
member. Her stance would be that she’d go with whatever the spirit and the letter of what the Constitution said. Whether it was 8 a.m. or not, she thought what was important was whether it was constitutional
or not. Mr. Daryani said this was not cross debate. A question was asked and Ms. Lam answered.
On a point of information, Mr. Tregub said the JRPs have since then been revised, and there's now a procedure in place, so that what happened in that situation would not happen again.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Lam what her current knowledge was of the ASUC Constitution and By-laws, and
if that would help her in this job. It seemed she was asking questions about the Constitution without previous knowledge of it. She asked Ms. Lam what her knowledge was of the Constitution. Ms. Lam said
she’s looked it over several times in order to prepare. She was not familiar enough with individual rules
to be able to make decisions on it yet. Since she hasn't been appointed, that was not yet her job. In terms
of knowledge, she had a little knowledge about the Constitution and knew a little about pre-trial procedures of the JRPs, since that was her job last year. Obviously, she would have to read it a lot more and
get a lot more familiar with it, and get a better working knowledge of it, which she’d do if appointed.
Mr. Besbris asked about the time commitments she had for the next two years, and if she planned to be
there for her entire term. Ms. Lam said she didn't have any plans and would be there for two years.
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 29 -
Mr. Narodick asked if she felt her relationship with the Daily Cal would in any way influence her position
on the J-Council. Ms. Lam said her role on the paper was strictly in science and technology, and involved
interviewing professors and finding out about their research. It really had nothing to do with student government or anything else happening on campus.
Mr. Besbris asked if she could clarify what other groups she was involved in, and what other groups she
planned to be involved in. Ms. Lam said that currently she’s involved in ABSK, wrote for the Daily Cal,
on science and technology, and was in the Regents and Chancellor’s Scholars organization. Those were
the groups she was currently in.
Mr. Narodick asked who referred her to the clerkship last year, or how she heard about it. Ms. Lam said
it was on the Web site, which was how she found out about it; and she believed there was an ad.
Mr. Daryani said speaking time had expired. Mr. Narodick moved to extend speaking time by five minutes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alvarez and passed with no objection.
Ms. Thomas asked how her relationship with members of the Senate might affect her position as a JCouncil member. Ms. Lam said she didn't foresee any problems. She worked with Sen. Abad as a Senate
intern last year, but that was strictly on a project basis. She didn't even know what party he was in. And
she was not really familiar with anybody else in the Senate. If that relationship were to become a problem in a case, she would recuse herself from any hearing.
Mr. Besbris asked if she was aware of a bill that was passed last week or the week before concerning JCouncil nominees lying or deliberately deceiving the ASUC Senate. Ms. Lam said she was now, and
wanted to thank him.
Mr. Narodick asked if she was still writing for the Berkeley Political Review. Ms. Lam said she would
apologize, and said she also wrote for the Berkeley Political Review, an undergraduate, non-partisan
political journal. She forgot about that.
Mr. Besbris asked if she thought that with all her time commitments she could put in the amount of work
necessary for the J-Council, especially when elections come around. Ms. Lam she did.
Mr. Narodick asked if there has been another position where she’s been in a stressful situation, as a JCouncil hearing might be, some experience she could cite in high-pressure situations similar to what may
come up in J-Council hearings. Ms. Lam said she took organic chemistry last year, which was a highpressure situation. She didn't know particularly what sort of pressure he was talking about, and if it was
time pressure or social pressure. Mr. Narodick said he was asking about having to make stressful situations knowing the decision would affect many people on campus, and working with other people to negotiate the solution of a problem. Ms. Lam said she hasn't had that much experience in that on the Berkeley
campus, as she’s only a sophomore. But in her high school, she had to resolve a dispute between a club
she was in and the financial secretary, and that was pretty stressful.
Ms. Thomas asked if she was aware of present events as they pertain to the ASUC and to student government in general, and how that might affect her job in the future, if that made sense. She asked if Ms.
Lam knew much about current happenings in the ASUC, and if that lack of knowledge would help or hurt
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
SB 61, In Support of the Caucus for International Awareness (cont'd)
- 30 -
her doing the job. Ms. Lam said she didn't really have that much knowledge of student government that
year, as she’s been occupied in other things. But she thought that would actually help because it would
prevent her from having any sort of bias, in case any decision came up that dealt with current events.
Ms. Felarca asked if she agreed that constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States and
California should also be applied to students at UC Berkeley and student candidates, including free
speech and due process, and asked if she would pledge to protect those rights as a member of the J-Council. Ms. Lam said she would pledge to protect those rights so far as they maintain the ASUC Constitution. This was an ASUC organization, and it’s important to worry about that first.
Mr. Daryani said speaking time had expired. He would urge the Senate to move to call the question.
Mr. Besbris moved to recess for five minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gupta and passed with
no objection. This meeting was recessed. Back in session, a motion to extend the recess until called back
by the Chair was made and seconded by Mr. Abad and Mr. Macias and passed with no objection. This
meeting was recessed.
ITEMS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION (cont'd)
Back in session, Mr. Daryani said he would entertain a motion to move back to Immediate Consideration.
It was so moved and seconded by Mr. Tregub and Mr. Besbris and passed with no objection.
Mr. Daryani said they were back to SB 61, In Support of the Caucus for International Awareness.
Ms. Putkey moved to amend the bill to $105. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. THE MOTION
TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION.
Ms. Thomas moved to call the question. She asked to rescind the motion.
Mr. Narodick said he hasn't seen anything such as a Constitution. Ms. Putkey said one was available.
Mr. Besbris moved to recess for 30 seconds. The motion was seconded and passed with no objection.
This meeting was recessed. Back in session, Mr. Abad moved to recess for one minute. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lin and passed with no objection. This meeting was recessed.
Back in session, moved the question on the bill. The motion to end debate was seconded by Mr. Gupta
and passed with no objection. THE MOTION TO APPROVE SB 61, AS AMENDED ON THE FLOOR,
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CAUCUS FOR
INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS.
APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Daryani said they were back to Appointments.
Appointments -- ASUC Web Master
- 31 -
Mr. Narodick moved to table the consideration of the Services Board Director. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lin. THE MOTION TO TABLE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SERVICES BOARD DIRECTOR PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION.
Mr. Daryani said he would entertain a motion to move to the appointment of the ASUC Web master, so
he could go home. It was so was made and seconded by Mr. Wang and Mr. Gupta and passed with no
objection.
Mr. Daryani said they were under consideration of Albert Lai as ASUC Web master, with a stipend of
$1,000.
Albert Lai introduced himself and said that last night he got something from the previous Web master and
saw what a lot of them asked what they learned most in college, and most wrote that college wasn't about
classes, but what they could contribute to the community they live in and the people they meet, and stuff
like that. To be honest, that was the reason he was there that evening, because up to this point, he’s only
taken classes, studied hard, and tried to get good grades. He realized he could do a lot more and could
contribute to the Berkeley campus with the skills he’s learned. The ASUC was a very important organization and the Web site was a conduit between people at UC Berkeley and the ASUC. It’s very accessible, with AirBears everywhere on campus. Mr. Lai said he aimed to make the ASUC Web site a place
where students could get accessible information, that was easy to navigate and easy on the eyes, and make
it a place where the ASUC could communicate with students effectively.
Mr. Lai said that what he brings to the table were a couple of skills. He was a really quick learner, and
over the summer, in the span of five weeks, learned two industry-standard languages to design chips in
cell phones and laptops. He learned html last year in preparation for an internship that fell through. He
was well versed in html and had lots of experience in graphic design because he fools around with Photoshop as a hobby. If people had any ideas or projects they would like to see on the Web site, he’d do his
best to make their ideas a reality. He was very hard working and in the past week he created a template
for the Web site, updated all the Senate bios, put up their pictures online, and even fixed a couple of bugs
in the documentation server, as the previous Web master had some wrong code. If they look at the documentation, they can see that the agendas for the fall, ’05 meetings were now online; and he did that 30
minutes ago. If he becomes the Web master, he would ask them to give him ideas. He had a template out
for a potential make-over for the site. He hoped to get constructive criticism if they think something was
garish, ugly, or corny. He’ll put all his effort into making the Web site something they could be proud of.
On a point of information, Ms. Thomas asked if the Web master does the technology for the elections,
and if he would do online elections. Mr. Daryani said the Web master was not in charge of that, and that
function was appointed by the Elections Council Chair.
Mr. Tregub yielded time to J-Council Chair Gregg. Mr. Gregg asked if Mr. Lai had a plans to do scripting programs so Senators and Council members could update things themselves, without having to go
through the Web master or others. Mr. Lai said that was a good idea. If he’s approved, they could talk
about that and figure something out.
Mr. Tregub moved to call the question. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wang and passed with no
objection. THE MOTION TO APPROVE ALBERT LAI AS ASUC WEB MASTER, WITH A
Appointments -- ASUC Web Master (cont'd)
-- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 32 -
STIPEND OF $1,000, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE. Mr. Daryani said he would like to
congratulate Mr. Lai. (Applause)
Mr. Daryani said he would entertain a motion to move back to J-Council Appointments. It was so moved
and seconded by Mr. Besbris and Mr. Gupta and passed with no objection.
Mr. Daryani said they were back to consideration of Stephanie Lam as J-Council member.
Mr. Tregub moved to go to the report from the Judicial Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gupta.
Mr. Narodick said he felt that report might be relevant to the appointments, and the Senate should see the
appointment through to its conclusion. This appointment may transcend a report by the J-Council, and a
J-Council report might turn into a campaign for appointments; and didn't feel that was proper. He would
like to continue with the appointment process. The motion to go to the J-Council report failed by handvote 6-8-2.
Mr. Daryani said they were back to consideration of Ms. Lam to the Judicial Council.
On a point of information, Mr. Tregub said J-Council Chair Gregg could offer his knowledge of Ms. Lam,
and the Senate was in no way obligated to listen to him. Mr. Daryani said that was not a point of information and he would rule that out of order.
Mr. Narodick said that when they go into debate, somebody could yield time to Mr. Gregg.
Mr. Gupta moved to go into debate. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tregub. Mr. Besbris objected, and
said he didn't think they needed to debate, since he thought people were clear about how they felt. The
motion to go to debate passed by hand-vote 11-5-0. Mr. Daryani said they were under debate of Ms.
Lam’s nomination.
Mr. Abad asked for a straw poll on approving Ms. Lam to the J-Council. The request was seconded by
Mr. Wang. A straw poll was taken. Mr. Daryani said the result was 3-8-5 and that vote would fail. Mr.
Daryani said they would hear debate on this issue.
On a point of information, Mr. Huzair asked if they could ask the nominee to step outside to discuss this
without violating her rights. Mr. Daryani said this was a public forum and she was free to remain. He
appreciated Mr. Huzair’s concern. Mr. Daryani called for pro and con speakers.
Mr. Tregub yielded time to Mr. Gregg. Mr. Gregg said he was there to offer his time to answer any questions. He wasn't there to try to persuade them in any way.
Mr. Narodick asked if last year’s clerks were allowed to participate in discussions regarding decisions, or
involved in decisions, and asked whether or not Ms. Lam was qualified. Mr. Gregg said clerks were simply involved in procedural matters for cases. They hope to make clerks involved post hearing, such as in
post decisions and informing litigants of decisions, but that has not been done yet. Ms. Lam did not,
unless she did it herself, have any knowledge of the actual outcomes of cases and, of course, didn't have
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 33 -
any influence on the decisions themselves. She did pre-trial organization, such as calling people at 7 a.m.
the day of the election after they had that disturbance; and she was very helpful in that. But other than
that, she had no role in the Council’s decisions.
Mr. Tregub asked if he could describe her thought process in her capacity as clerk for the J-Council, such
as if he felt she was logical. Mr. Gregg said he didn't have an opportunity to analyze the way she thought
about things because she didn't deal with interpretation. She simply followed the JRPs and did what he
requested of her in terms of scheduling cases. She did an excellent job and was competent and on time.
That’s the only observation he was able to have.
Mr. Abad said there have been some questions about institutional knowledge and how that would affect
how well Ms. Lam would do her job. He asked how qualified the candidate was to become a J-Council
member, given that her knowledge of the ASUC was limited. Mr. Gregg said he believed at the time she
joined as a clerk, her knowledge of the ASUC was minimal. However, she obviously learned the J-Council’s procedures very well. As far as her knowledge of the Constitution and By-laws, what she knew she
learned on her own time because he didn't train her, since that wasn't her role at that time. She’s very
knowledge about the procedures and was very helpful when it came to that, as anybody else would have
been in her situation.
Mr. Narodick asked how her experience as a J-Council clerk would prepare her to be a J-Council member
if it didn't involve any education of the Constitution or By-laws. Mr. Gregg said if they could find a candidate who had a knowledge of the Constitution and By-laws, he would support that candidate. But to the
extent of his knowledge, Ms. Lam knows the JRPs; and if she could learn the JRPs on her own and be
very competent with them, he would assume that would be her style and that she’d also be able to learn
the Constitution and By-laws.
Ms. Putkey said that based on previous years and previous J-Council members when they first began their
jobs, she asked if they usually had a really good background on the Constitution and on parties, and asked
if it was hard or easy to transition, and if people got trained on the job. Mr. Daryani said speaking time
had expired. Ms. Putkey moved to extend speaking time by four minutes. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Abad.
On a point of information, Ms. Thomas asked if this situation was relevant to the agreement they made
not to extend speaking time for questions, or if this was a different situation. Mr. Daryani said that in his
opinion, time was yielded specifically for questions. Ms. Thomas said that’s what they agreed not to do.
Mr. Daryani said Mr. Tregub yielded time to the speaker just to answer questions, not to speak. Ms.
Alvarez said time had expired, however. Mr. Daryani said he did not yield his time and he was given
time specifically for questions. He felt as Chair that this was a very unique situation in which they should
extend time. So he would accept the motion, although it was up to the Senate as to whether to extend
time.
The motion to extend speaking time was seconded by Mr. Gupta. Mr. Besbris objected and said he
thought four minutes was too long. Ms. Putkey said she would move to extend by three minutes. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Gupta and passed with no objection.
Ms. Putkey asked if it was hard to learn judicial knowledge, and asked if people usually had a lot of
knowledge at first or if they learn. Mr. Gregg said it’s been the position of the Chair of the Council that
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 34 -
one can't really prepare for the Council’s work until one was actually on the Council. The position of
clerk was established last semester. Ms. Lam was the first of the clerks. He would say that it would help
in the transition to become a Councilmember, which is a very intense job at times and required a lot of
reading of the laws. He thought Ms. Lam definitely had that start and has shown her competence to learn
those laws.
Mr. Besbris asked if he felt it was appropriate for Mr. Gregg to comment on this, especially to the ability
of a J-Council nominee. Mr. Gregg said it’s for the Senate to ask him questions. Mr. Besbris asked if he
thought this was appropriate. Mr. Gregg said he thought he’s answered the question.
Mr. Tregub asked if he could comment on the typical J-Council procedure as for new J-Council appointees. If a case is called on Thursday, he asked if new appointees would by privy to take part in negotiations in the case, and what kind of training they'd receive. Mr. Gregg said training starts immediately
after they're appointed. The amount was up to the new member.
Mr. Daryani called for any other questions and seeing none, said he would like to thank Mr. Gregg.
Mr. Wang said he would address some concerns that he heard from Senators. One was that because it
appears that Ms. Lam didn't have extensive knowledge of cases in the past, or of specific By-laws, that
she would be very malleable to the current status quo of the J-Council. He strongly disagreed with that
because one reason she was such a vigorous candidate was because of her non-politically motivated reasons for doing this. He thought it was good to have an unbiased background towards previous J-Council
decisions, and the fact that she didn't know about or have an opinion about them was good, since they
don't want people who come in with previous biases. Also, Mr. Wang said he didn't think he’s ever seen
a nominee to the J-Council that was incredibly knowledgeable about the By-laws. It harkens back to the
point that when people apply for this position, they get the gamut of all majors and all motivations. For
example, when Con-Review interviews people, they get all kinds of people. One main reason he felt so
strongly about this candidate was because she was actually interested in political science, but was not
really motivated for any agenda. Nobody ever really knows the By-laws when they come into this position. It’s on-the-job training. He would ask how many Senators knew the By-laws before they become
Senators. It was the same argument. The Senate really should appreciate people who want to come into
this position without ulterior motives. She wasn't politically motivated and didn't know about parties.
Mr. Wang said he got the impression that she probably didn't answer questions on the floor as well as
Senators would have liked about past cases, but he asked how many J-Council nominees could. He
recalled when the Senate grilled Ms. Unterhalter last year, and she didn't do that well during the interview
process. He felt people on the J-Council shouldn't be held to the same standards as Senators because
they're not used to speaking in a public forum.
Mr. Huzair asked if he was aware that the J-Council was substantially different from the Senate in terms
of one’s knowledge of the Constitution itself and how it’s interpreted. Mr. Wang said he was very aware
that the J-Council’s main job was to read the Constitution and By-laws and interpret them. However, the
argument he was trying to make was that one didn't need a previous, holistic understanding of this before
coming in. What he liked about the potential nominee was that she was familiar with the procedural stuff.
A lot of the time when people work in the ASUC, a big hurdle to get through are the procedural aspects,
not necessarily understanding the By-laws. Every case in the J-Council was so different from year to
year. They always have controversial cases when their By-laws are insufficient to explain to the J-Council what its course of action might be. He was beginning to understand Mr. Narodick’s complaints about
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 35 -
revising the By-laws, but Mr. Wang said he didn't think in the current situation that the Senate should say
the nominee didn't understand the By-laws. There were so many problems with their By-laws, and the
Senate should confirm people to the Judicial Council who weren't biased and were interested in the
position.
Ms. Thomas said she hadn't been going to speak but she thought about last year, when debate was shut
down in certain instances with respect to her community, which really upset her. So with respect to that,
she’d debate the issue. She really felt the nominee, if she wanted to assume a position in the ASUC,
should actively want to learn more about the position, and actively want to know what her role would be,
and actively know about the body of legislation that she would be interpreting, and the Constitution she’d
be interpreting. If they hold themselves as the ASUC up as the most autonomous student government,
they should hold their Executives, legislators, and J-Council members up to a higher standard. She really
thought this Councilmember at this point in time wasn't ready to assume the position. Ms. Thomas said
she understood people’s thoughts that the nominee was not knowledgeable about the parties, and how that
might be a benefit, but Ms. Thomas said she thought it was negative to not know anything at all. Ms.
Lam was a sophomore, and most of the Senate were sophomores, yet they know about current ASUC
happenings and know about the party system, and they came into the job knowing their job, knowing
what they're supposed to do. She felt this person at that point in time didn't know what her job was and
didn't know the rules that would guide her throughout her job. She thought the Senate should hold people
to higher standards than just being interested and the fact that they're not typical ASUC people. The Senate should try to hold their J-Council members up to a higher standard with regard to knowledge and
information.
Mr. Daryani said seeing no other pro speakers, the question was automatically called.
Mr. Tregub said there was a request by many Senators to move to a two-minute recess. He would ask if
the Senate would consider waiving the rules and procedures by a majority vote. Mr. Narodick a motion
to recess was a privileged motion. Mr. Tregub moved to recess for two minutes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alvarez and passed with no objection. This meeting was recessed.
Back in session, Mr. Besbris called for a quorum. Mr. Daryani said that if people left the Senate Chamber
at that time they would receive an absence. He said they had a quorum.
Mr. Daryani said at that point the question on Ms. Lam’s appointment was automatically called.
Mr. Wang requested a roll-call vote.
On a point of information, Ms. Thomas asked if a Senator who wasn't present for the roll call for attendance at 7:20 was allowed to vote. Mr. Daryani said they were.
Roll call was taken on the motion to approve the nomination of Ms. Lam to the Judicial Council:
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
Report from the Academic Affairs Vice President
YES
Chris Abad
Ernie Macias
Billy Wang
NO
Josie Alvarez
Max Besbris
Rita Encarnacion
Yvette Felarca
Vishal Gupta
Ki-Hong Lee
Anthony Lin
Sapna Mehta
Ben Narodick
Ashley Thomas
Igor Tregub
- 36 -
ABSTAIN
Ahmad Huzair
Lisa Putkey
Jesse Yang
Mr. Daryani he would entertain a motion to close the rolls. It was so moved and seconded by Mr. Besbris
and Mr. Lin and passed with no objection. With the rolls closed, the motion to approve Ms. Lam to the
Judicial Council failed 3-11-3. Voting comments were heard.
Mr. Daryani said the next appointment to consider was of Meriel Lee to the Judicial Council. Mr. Wang
moved to call the question. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alvarez.
Mr. Tregub objected. He believed the informal agreement was to table this appointment. The motion to
call the question on the appointment passed unanimously by voice-vote.
The motion to approve Ms. Lee to the Judicial Council failed by voice-vote.
Mr. Tregub moved to go to Executive Officer reports. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wang and
passed with no objection.
Report from the Academic Affairs Vice President
Mr. Dixson said the Office of Academic Affairs will have an event, “Are You Smart Enough for Berkeley,” in which various colleges will compete against each other for prizes. It will be on October 25 in 145
Dwinelle. He would ask Senators to please tell people about it. He would make announcements about it
as they get closer to the date. It will go towards fundraising for Huricane Katrina. Mr. Dixson said the
Programs Department has been meeting and advertising mentorships, and getting grads and undergrads to
apply, making sure people keep the program going. It was started last year and 120 people were
involved, and they hope to expand it this year. In terms of campus committee relations and committee
appointments, they've set October 16 for committee representative training, in an all-day event for anybody sitting on a campus committee. For the Policy Department, they’ve worked on various issues that
came up over the last week. Finally, the Grants Department had the first meeting of the Grants
Report from the Academic Affairs Vice President (cont'd)
- 37 -
Committee on Tuesday and they allocated funds from the Academic Opportunity, Intellectual
Community, and Educational Enhancement Funds. Sens. Encarnacion, Mehta, Lee, and Gupta were
present, and it went pretty well for the first meeting. Mr. Dixson said he looked forward to having more
in two weeks.
Mr. Dixson said they've opened three new funds: the Community Building Fund, the Leadership Development Fund, and a Multicultural Fund. The office will develop the applications on Monday. The same
type of rules will apply, where people could apply for up to $500. The Community Building Fund will be
used for student groups working collaboratively to support a sense of community. Leadership Development will grant up to $500 to individuals or groups that want to attend leadership conferences or bring
leaders to campus to speak on leadership issues. The Multicultural Fund will be used for multiculturaltype events, promoting multiculture to the entire campus community and putting on events at the Multicultural Center. If people had any questions about these, they should let him know. He called for any
questions.
Mr. Abad said that since there were so many grants, he asked if people could apply for more than one.
Mr. Dixson said the three original grants were sustained by the ASUC, and people couldn't double-dip
among those. But because the University was providing funding for the three new grants, the office saw
that as a supplement to what they have, and so people could apply across the line between one of the old
grants and one of the new grants the University provides.
Mr. Besbris asked what’s been going on with the Academic Senate in terms of appointments and applications. Mr. Dixson said the process was basically done. Right now he’s scouring through to see if they
could get more spots on various committees. He’s been going through old notes from previous AVPs,
trying to find bodies that students sat on in the past, and calling people at the University to see if students
could get representatives on committees that have had student reps in the past. They've had some success
on that.
Mr. Huzair said he was under the impression that all the positions on the Academic Senate were filled,
because he personally applied and never received any response from the Academic Affairs office. Mr.
Dixson said they spoke about that off the floor. There was a misplacement from the previous administration and Mr. Dixson said he didn't actually have a copy of Mr. Huzair’s application, as they discussed.
He said they could talk about this further off the floor. The office didn't want to turn away representatives, and the list of student reps was never static. Things pop up and new committees are formed. The
University was very dynamic. The office doesn't want to reject any applicant, and they want to keep people on standby. They'll let people know shortly that there's no availability for them at the moment, but if
something came up that matches their interests that applicants might want to apply for, they'd appoint
them to that committee.
Ms. Thomas asked what was going on with the administrative committees. Mr. Dixson said it was the
same situation. He asked if she had a specific question. Ms. Thomas asked if all the spots were filled.
Mr. Dixson said they were, except for a couple. The office had low interest in technology committees, so
they tried to compensate. People didn't want to join as many technology committees that year. For technology committees, it’s a specialization. The office wouldn't stick a student on one of those committees if
the student didn't know about computers. If a committee deals with campus networking and security
systems, students who didn't know about computers wouldn't have an interest or the knowledge
Report from the Academic Affairs Vice President (cont'd)
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 38 -
necessary. Those are about the only spots that are available. In terms of diversity, outreach, student fees,
campus life, and student conduct, committees dealing with those issues fill up pretty easily, and there's a
lot of demand for those spaces.
Mr. Besbris asked why he thought this year’s Academic Affairs Office was having such a tough time with
the Academic Senate whereas in past years, nominations to committees and appointments to committees
were made much earlier than they have been currently. He asked if the office realized they may have lost
four months of lobbying time, especially when it came to committees that meet once a semester. Mr.
Dixson said he’d try to explain this clearly and concisely. Committees don't start meeting until the academic year starts. Most committees haven't met yet. Academic Senate committee appointments are made
during the summer, before Senate Training; and those committee members have been attending those
meetings. Administrative committees have not begun to meet yet, and representatives will attend when
they start to meet. So the office was on track with everything. The only thing they have not done yet was
training, and October was around the normal time for training. This was from AVPs Gade, Matta, and
Falcone. So everything was on track the way it’s supposed to be, and on time. Mr. Daryani called for
any other questions. Mr. Dixson said he wanted to thank them.
Mr. Daryani said he asked Student Advocate Aiyer who was here, and believed he had to leave. If
Executives and were present and had to leave, the Senate should move right into their reports, when they
can.
APPOINTMENTS (cont'd)
Mr. Daryani said he would entertain a motion to move back to Appointments. It was so moved and seconded by Mr. Tregub and Mr. Wang and passed with no objection.
Mr. Daryani said they were back to the J-Council nominations and would consider the nomination of Ms.
Masum-Javed to the Judicial Council.
Aurora Masum-Javed introduced herself and said she’s a sophomore and a Poli.Sci. major. She first
heard about the J-Council last year while interning in the Office of the President. While interning, she
gained a lot of respect for the ASUC, and this year she really wanted to get involved. When she read
more about the J-Council, she was really impressed by the position, because eventually she’d like to
become a public defender or judge. She could be really passionate and dedicated to the job. In the past
she’s chaired a lot of debates, so she could be impartial and knew the importance of being impartial.
She’s familiarized herself with the By-laws and the Constitution and believed she could uphold them in a
practical and fair manner. She called for any questions.
Mr. Narodick asked if she could elaborate on the role she played in the Office of the President last year
and whether she played any role in campaigning last year. Ms. Masum-Javed said she did not play any
role in campaigning. She worked under one of the project directors and they worked on voting day and
tsunami relief.
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 39 -
Mr. Narodick asked if she could elaborate on her work with the Model UN and asked about some of the
work she may have done as far as going through documents, making decisions, and scenarios that might
also come up with the J-Council. Ms. Masum-Javed said she just joined the Model UN that year, so she
hasn't really done anything thus far.
Mr. Narodick asked if she could elaborate the publications she was writing for. Ms. Masum-Javed said
she wrote for Smart Ass last year, a Cal Dems magazine.
Mr. Besbris asked if she could elaborate on her relationship with Ms. Putkey. Ms. Masum-Javed said Ms.
Putkey was in her house, in AOP. Ms. Putkey was her friend, but she hasn't gotten to know her that well.
But they do live together.
Mr. Narodick said she was involved with a student paper back home, and asked if she could elaborate on
that experience. Ms. Masum-Javed said she was Editor-in-Chief of her high school paper, which was
completely student-run, with a staff of 70. It was something she was really passionate about. She got a
lot of experience dealing with difficult situations and learned how to balance her time and be impartial.
She learned a lot, and it was definitely worth it.
Ms. Felarca said that to her, with the Supreme Court, there are certain litmus cases, such as with stances
on abortion, that were applicable to the ASUC position. Ms. Felarca said that what was applicable to her
were questions on democracy, free speech, and student rights, which was why she was asking about specific cases and nominees’ familiarity with them, and their opinions about the previous Council and its
decisions. There was a case a couple of years ago where an entire party, her party, was disqualified
because they were accused of badgering the Chair of the J-Council. Ms. Felarca said her group disagreed
and said they were asserting their due process rights, and challenging the Chair. The J-Council Chair
found her guilty of badgering and disqualified the whole party. They ended up going to court about it and
ended up settling it. But the Judicial Council had held for disqualification. She asked Ms. Masum-Javed
what her opinion was of that decision, and if she was familiar with it at all. Ms. Masum-Javed said she
familiarized herself with cases last year, so she didn't know much about this case. From what Ms. Felarca
told her, Ms. Masum-Javed said she definitely thought the Bill of Rights was in the Constitution for a reason. They need to make sure everybody had a fair and equal opportunity when elections come out. Since
she didn't know the details, she couldn't really say what she would have done in that position. But she
definitely felt strongly about upholding the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Gupta asked if she could describe her familiarity with the Constitution and By-laws. Ms. MasumJaved said that when she applied for the position, she read over it twice and read over it once before this
meeting; and did the same with the By-laws. She focused mostly on Elections By-laws because that
seemed to be the biggest point of contention.
Ms. Alvarez said that when Ms. Masum-Javed came into the Con-Review interview, she was asked a
question answered that University policy should supercede the ASUC, and Ms. Alvarez said she wanted
to know why. Ms. Masum-Javed said that obviously she felt the J-Council should follow the ASUC Constitution to the letter and the spirit. But without cooperation with the University, the ASUC wouldn't be
able to get things done that they've accomplished thus far. She felt they need to take into account what
the rules of the University are and make sure they fall under those rules, because they're part of the University, as an organization. But she felt they should follow the ASUC Constitution first.
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 40 -
Mr. Huzair asked if she felt, in her opinion, that she had a decent enough knowledge of the Constitution.
Ms. Masum-Javed said she definitely tried, but she obviously hasn't applied it. One learns a lot on the
job, and she will definitely read it over again and again, once appointed. She didn't know if she could let
the past shape her current state, but she’ll prepare herself for that.
Ms. Felarca said last year there was a case where the Academic Affairs VP appeared before the J-Council
and was challenged for his right to hold office because he was a UC Extension student. The contention
was whether he had a right to continue in his position. It was a very close vote by the J-Council, and a
minority voted that he should not hold office. She asked if Ms. Masum-Javed was familiar with that case
and what her opinion was of the decision. Ms. Masum-Javed said she read a few Daily Cal articles, and
from what she understood, there's a “gray area” about what the Extension fell under. So she would
uphold that decision.
Ms. Encarnacion asked about her relationships with EVP Daryani and AVP Dixson, as they're both
friends on Facebook. Ms. Masum-Javed said she was friends with Ms. Han last year and met Mr.
Daryani. And with Mr. Dixson, they have friends.
Ms. Masum-Javed was asked how familiar she was with current J-Council members and if she’s been to a
J-Council hearing. Ms. Masum-Javed said she met Mr. Gregg for the first time that evening and Facebooked them because she was curious. But other than that, she doesn't have any interaction with any
Councilmembers.
Ms. Felarca said last year a candidate for the election, Zach Liberman, was found guilty of a censure for
soliciting people to join his Facebook for his campaign. Candidates are disqualified after five censures,
so one censure can make a difference. She asked if Ms. Masum-Javed was familiar with that case and
asked if she thought the candidate should have been given a censure. Ms. Masum-Javed said she read
some of what he wrote, and he had a lot of suits filed against him; so she didn't know about the specific
case. She felt people should express friendship on Facebook regardless. Mr. Daryani said speaking time
had expired. Ms. Alvarez moved to extend speaking time by five minutes. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Wang and passed with no objection.
Ms. Felarca said that if she could clarify, the candidate wasn't trying to solicit friends, but was given a
censure for having solicited someone to join his campaign on Facebook. Ms. Masum-Javed said there
were a lot of groups on Facebook. So she didn't know if he should have been specifically censured.
On a point of information, Mr. Wang said the contention was that Mike Davis actually filed suit because
Mr. Liberman specifically added Mr. Davis, when Mr. Davis wasn't friends with him. So Mr. Davis
thought it was necessary to have a trial to set precedent for Facebook adding in general. That was the
issue, that he added somebody who wasn't his friend.
Mr. Narodick said there were currently By-laws on the books that state that people cannot send any electric communication to anyone who wasn't a friend of theirs, or who they weren’t personally acquainted
with. And that statute was applied to the Facebook last year. Ms. Masum-Javed said Mr. Liberman, then,
sent Mr. Gregg a request to be a member of a Facebook group when they weren't actually friends. That
sounded like it would be something that was against the By-laws, as the situation was stated. She didn't
know the actual details.
Ms. Thomas asked if she ever read a J-Council opinion. Ms. Masum-Javed said she hasn't.
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 41 -
Ms. Felarca said the referendum last year that was pulled from the ballot by Ms. Unterhalter was very
contentious. She asked about her opinion on the rights and powers to pull referendums two minutes
before the ballot begins. Ms. Masum-Javed said she thought that was very ill-timed. There was time to
prepare a revised version of the referendum. Ms. Masum-Javed said she would have definitely taken
other J-Council members into consideration. It didn't make sense for one person to do that, and she
would have talked to rest of the J-Council and consulted with them to figure out the constitutional
grounds of the case. The objection should have been brought up much sooner.
Ms. Felarca said the Bill of Rights was mentioned. As a member of the J-Council, she asked if Ms.
Masum-Javed would believe that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights applied to students on campus as
they apply to elections, and asked if she felt a student’s democratic rights should ultimately decide who
should be elected, not the decision of people appointed to the J-Council. Ms. Masum-Javed said she
agreed with all of those statements. Students are Americans and have rights granted by the US and California Constitutions, and the ASUC Constitution; and if it was in contradiction to those, the State and
national Constitutions were supreme.
Mr. Narodick asked how she felt about the ASUC’s status as a private, non-profit organization affects the
rights of students to participate in such an organization. Ms. Masum-Javed said the spirit of the Constitution and the point of the ASUC was to represent the student body. So she thought it should be an inclusive organization that should always take into consideration the rights of students first.
Mr. Daryani said speaking time had expired. Ms. Alvarez moved to extend speaking time by five minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lin and passed with no objection.
Ms. Thomas asked what she thought she’d uniquely bring to the J-Council from her professional or personal experience. Ms. Masum-Javed said she felt that she had a lot of experience in similar situations.
She’s actually been a judge in student government and also chaired a lot of debates. So she knew how to
be impartial. If one doesn't hold their biases aside, they could never rule along constitutional lines. One
had to be fair and pragmatic in all situations. If there were extenuating circumstances, she would be
impartial. She had a lot of experience in leadership positions similar to this. She was vice president of
her delegation in student government and was editor, and she always liked to get involved.
Mr. Narodick asked, if approved, what time commitments she would balance that semester. She mentioned Greek organizations, and it was unclear whether she was still a member of the Cal Dems. Ms.
Masum-Javed said she’s not involved that semester and was not in a leadership position in her sorority, so
she didn't have much time commitment there. She’s also doing research for a Poli.Sci. professor and she
dances. The J-Council would be her priority, and everything else was not nearly as significant.
Ms. Thomas asked how her history of being part of a newspaper affect her ability to be non-partisan. Ms.
Masum-Javed said she was definitely Democratic but didn't have any involvement with parties on campus, and she considered herself a liberal. In terms of regulating elections, she wouldn't make judgments
on that and would be impartial. She couldn't think of a situation in which being a Democrat would compromise that.
Ms. Thomas said there were organizations on campus that were staunchly conservative. She asked if Ms.
Masum-Javed’s involvement with a liberal organization would affect her ability to judge on behalf of a
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 42 -
conservative organization. Ms. Masum-Javed said she didn't, and believed she would listen to all sides of
the case and would rule impartially. She was liberal, but not at all closed-minded. So she’d listen to all
sides.
Mr. Narodick asked if there were any situations she should could envision at this point where she might
have to recuse herself due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Masum-Javed said she didn't believe there were.
She felt she could be impartial in all situations. The only situation would be something involving Ms.
Putkey, but she still felt she could judge impartially. But if for some reason she at all thought it would
cause bias, she would recuse herself.
Mr. Daryani called for any further questions. Mr. Narodick moved to recess for five minutes. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Alvarez and passed with no objection. This meeting was recessed.
Back in session, a motion to call the question was made and seconded. Mr. Narodick objected and said
he would like to move into debate. The motion to call the question failed by voice-vote.
Mr. Gupta moved to go into debate. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alvarez and passed with no
objection. Mr. Daryani called for pro and con speakers.
Ms. Putkey said she was extremely impressed with Ms. Masum-Javed’s presentation that evening. She
thought she should have let Ms. Masum-Javed know that she wondered if she read the By-laws or Constitution, and was extremely impressed she read Daily Cal articles about the J-Council. Ms. MasumJaved was really interested in this position. Ms. Putkey said she thought her past experience, being a
judge, was awesome. Ms. Masum-Javed had a wonderful ability to carry herself and was very articulate.
Ms. Putkey said she had a class with her last year, and was articulate and on point, and felt she would be a
wonderful candidate for this position.
Ms. Thomas asked if she thought that Ms. Putkey’s relationship with the nominee had affected her
thought process in the nomination. Ms. Putkey said she didn't. She was very impressed, and was just
stating that as a fact, and it wasn't on the basis of being friends at all.
Ms. Mehta said her only hesitation at that point was the candidate’s position on the relationship between
the University and the ASUC. She found it really concerning, especially with the question of autonomy
and student fee autonomy, that the nominee viewed the relationship as the ASUC being under the
University.
Mr. Abad asked for a straw poll. The request was seconded by Mr. Wang. A straw poll was held on the
nomination of Ms. Masum-Javed to the J-Council. Mr. Daryani said the result was 9-2-5, and the motion
would fail.
Mr. Narodick said one of the most important things to him was, he felt, a J-Council nominee who could
bring something new to the Council, a new train of thought, and contribute to a new conversation, and to
hold a position and do so intelligently. He felt the nominee could do that based on her experience on the
floor and her experiences in the past. Additionally, he felt the Senate needed to talk about standards that
they're proposing there. All Senators have their individual standards, but the two most important for him
were that J-Council members be intelligent and work well under pressure, and secondly, that the rights of
students, which were specifically outlined in the Constitution, JRPs, and the By-laws were protected to
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
- 43 -
the utmost. The nominee did, several times, state that that was her priority, and that she felt the Constitution and the By-laws were the focus. As such, he personally felt this nominee was well-suited for the
position. He didn't feel this was an attempt to get one of “their” three in, but a fair and honest judgment
of the information presented to him as a Senator. He felt comfortable with the nominee filling this position. To clear the air as to why there were disputes regarding the relationship with the University, a lot of
that was the Senate’s job. If issues of University autonomy come to the J-Council, quite honestly, the
Senate hasn't done its job. While her answering wasn't completely satisfying to him on that point, the
blame was more on the Senate than the nominee.
Mr. Daryani said there were no more pro and con speakers and the question was automatically called.
Mr. Tregub moved to recess for one minute. The motion was seconded by Mr. Besbris and passed with
no objection. This meeting was recessed. Back in session, Mr. Tregub moved to extend the recess by
two minutes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Putkey and passed with no objection. This meeting was
recessed. Back in session, Mr. Tregub moved to recess for two minutes. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lee. Mr. Daryani said the question was called right before they left. On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Narodick said a straw poll was a point of personal privilege and that’s a privileged motion. Mr.
Daryani said the motion was not made when the Senator was in their seat.
Mr. Narodick asked for a straw poll. The request was seconded by Ms. Putkey. A straw poll was taken
on the nomination of Ms. Masum-Javed as a J-Council member. Mr. Daryani said the result was 8-1-8,
and the vote would fail.
On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Tregub asked for a straw poll on tabling this appointment until next
week. The request was seconded by Mr. Gupta. A straw poll was taken. Mr. Daryani said the result was
6-5-6, and the vote would pass.
On a point of information, Mr. Gupta asked if the Chair could tell him how many Senators have already
committed to being absent for next week’s meeting. Mr. Daryani said he didn't know at that time. Mr.
Tregub said the tabling of any main motion or appointment was not limited to one week, and they could
extend this again next week. Mr. Daryani said it could be extended up to three weeks.
Mr. Daryani said they were under consideration of the appointment. Mr. Narodick asked for a roll-call
vote.
Roll call was taken on the appointment of Ms. Masum-Javed to the J-Council:
YES
Chris Abad
Vishal Gupta
Ahmad Huzair
Ki-Hong Lee
Ernie Macias
Ben Narodick
Lisa Putkey
Igor Tregub
Billy Wang
NO
Sapna Mehta
ABSTAIN
Josie Alvarez
Max Besbris
Rita Encarnacion
Yvette Felarca
David Kim
Anthony Lin
Ashley Thomas
Jesse Yang
Appointments -- Judicial Council (cont'd)
Report from the President
- 44 -
Mr. Besbris moved to close the rolls. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lin. Mr. Abad objected and said
he wanted to hear more about why people were abstaining. The motion to close the rolls failed by voicevote. Mr. Daryani said the rolls were open and they’d continue with business.
Report from the President
Mr. Besbris said people received the main part of his report by e-mail, and most of his report will be to
answer questions. He wanted to submit three more nominees to the J-Council. And depending on what
happens that evening, he’d make more nominations next week. Mr. Buenrostro said he was nominating
the following to the J-Council: Daniel Kluesing, Meriel Lee, and David Israel Wasserman.
Mr. Buenrostro said that he and GA President Lola Odusanya had their first of a series of weekly meetings. The issue they talked about was GA autonomy. They're looking at having a better understanding
between the ASUC and the GA and they'll go over details to see if they can change their relationship a
little for the better. That’s what they'll do for this semester, and hopefully they can have something
drafted by the end of the semester. If any of that would need to go through a vote, they'd have a referendum in Spring Semester.
In terms of what was happening, that week they have three events going on, two that week and one on
Monday, next week. On Thursday, from 12:00 to 1:00, if people want to get a free lunch, in the Senate
Chamber they'll have Dr. Cal Wood speak, a UN weapons inspector. This will be a good opportunity to
learn first hand about his experiences being a weapons inspector and being captured in Iraq. On Saturday,
if they're not going to the UCLA game, they should go to the area behind the Bear's Lair, where they'll
broadcast the away football game for free, starting at 4:30. The Bear's Lair was giving discounts for this
event and they'll also have free giveaways from the Athletic Department. Lastly, on Monday, at 7 p.m.,
in 155 Dwinelle, they're having a fair-trade panel with rice farmers from Thailand who will give out free
samples of their recipes. It should be fun and educational. Everything else was in the report he submitted. He called for any questions.
Mr. Huzair asked if professors from departments on campus will be on the fair-trade panel. Mr.
Buenrostro said they were just focusing on the rice farmers, but that was a good comment.
Mr. Buenrostro said he forgot to mention something about J-Council nominations. He knew they will
have more nominations next week, and he had 13 applicants, but only got two more applicants since the
first round. So he would like to ask Senators for their help to make sure they get a new applicant pool, so
he could make good nominations for the next round. He would like to emphasize that some communities
didn't have any applicants in the first round, so it would be nice to get the word out and get applicants
from communities that haven't previously had a chance to be part of the process.
Report from the Executive Vice President
Report from the Executive Vice President (cont'd)
Report from the External Affairs Vice President
- 45 -
With Mr. Martinez chairing the meeting, Mr. Daryani said he was very disappointed by the decorum at
the Senate meeting. This was the third time he’s said that. It wasn't his job to tell them how to act during
Senate meeting, and Senators were supposed to conduct themselves as elected officials. They had 300
students put their faith in them because those students thought they would do a good job. Senators should
do that job to the best of their ability. That’s all he was asking. Mr. Daryani said he was there to facilitate their meetings and make them as efficient as he could. It wasn't his job to push things through, but to
facilitate debate so Senators could hear all sides of the issue and make decisions. He would appreciate it
if people respect each other. People were calling each other by their first names, and he would ask them
to have respect for the Senate. They're one of a few students who were Senators to sit in that position,
and they were so privileged to be in the room. He felt they sometimes squander their time. They could
do so much more than taking recesses for ten minutes and debating hours on end when things, in his
mind, have been hashed out. People might disagree. But he was disappointed. He had a bad day that day
and he thought it would be a good Senate meeting that evening. And now, he just wanted to leave. Ms.
Alvarez asked what they should do, and if they should debate. Mr. Daryani said he had a midterm, and
would ask them to finish up the meeting.
Mr. Daryani said Student Group Support was wrapping up its support activities that were going on. SGU
was planning a de-stress club fest, probably in the middle of October. Campus Affairs has been
researching prices for something that will come to Fi-Comm. External Outreach had its second mixer at
Kip's. Internal Outreach has been tabling and was working on a barbecue for Katrina relief next month.
The Office Affairs Department was working on inter-office morale. The Little Sis and Little Bro’ Program will help facilitate bonding among interns. The ASUC Affairs Department had the alumni reception
that past week. They had a lot of good food and some old school people came. ASUC Affairs will work
on a community project, most likely a beach clean-up project in the future. The Senate Affairs Department had the first Senate/intern meeting where interns found out which Senator they'd intern for. The
ropes course has been pushed back to October. The OSL will facilitate that course, and it will also help
increase ASUC/OSL interaction. The Department was working on updating the Web site. Paper copies
of bills were completed. He called for any questions.
Ms. Alvarez said that given the fact that they're all elected officials and in the middle of interns, and that
they were there to serve their constituents and the student body as a whole, she asked if he felt it was
appropriate, as a facilitator, to rush the Senate meeting so he could go and study for a midterm. Mr.
Daryani said he meant the comment only out of frustration and how the meeting was going so far. Ms.
Alvarez asked if he still felt it was bad to debate the nominations and do what they were there to do. It
sounded like the problem was that the Senate was discussing the issue too long. She asked if he believed
the Senate was not being productive by discussing the issues before them. Mr. Daryani said there was no
intention of that. The idea was that when the Senate recesses, they're not discussing. Debate promotes
efficiency. They might think going into the antechambers to discuss things was most effective, and he
didn't know what happens, because he’s not back there. But the Senate recessed an hour, and that meant
and he sits there waiting for them to come back, wondering if anything was getting done.
Report from the External Affairs Vice President
With Mr. Daryani chairing the meeting, Ms. Han said she realized Mr. Smith was present earlier to
discuss his new position and that he told the Senate about the transition. Mr. Smith is the new CAL
Report from the External Affairs Vice President (cont'd)
- 46 -
Housing Director, and Ward Dalaei is the Acting Deputy Director. Ms. Han said the office was very
excited to have both of them in these positions. They are aggressively and actively at work on projects.
Ms. Han said the first project was Safety Week, which will start on Monday and go until Friday of next
week. She wanted to thank members of the Safety Committee who were there yesterday, and said the
office really appreciated their help. She hoped they could help financially. She’s mentioned Safety Week
a couple of times. Monday will be earthquake safety and fire safety; Tuesday was mental and physical
safety, with a team of Cal message therapists from 12:00 to 1:00, giving free massages; Wednesday was
residential safety, and they'll have engravers from the UCPD who will write people’s names on laptops
and cell phones; Thursday was campus safety, and the UCPD offers bike registration every Thursday; and
on Friday they'll have social safety, specifically on drug and alcohol abuse, and offer a self-defense workshop from 12:00 to 1:00.
Ms. Han said CAL Housing was working on a brown bag with Mayor Bates on October 21, from 12:00 to
1:00 in the Senate Chamber. They'll start actively publicizing that next week. Tenant's Rights Week will
be October 24-28. They're working with Renter's Legal Assistance and the Berkeley Rent Stabilization
Board, with Jesse Arreguin and Jason Overman. UC Affairs Internal, with Maryann Brown, is in the third
week of voter registration, and they've registered over 1,000 voters. They'll register for three more weeks,
until October 21. They'll have a voter education concert on Wednesday, October 19, from 12:00 to 1:00
on Lower Sproul. They're looking for a band and a featured speaker. They want student groups to table
for the event, so if Senators have any groups they'd like to see doing this, or would be interested, she
would ask them to please let Ms. Brown know.
The Internal Department is working on Community Day, which will be held on a Saturday. They want to
work on this with the OP. This will be kind of like the Key Club, where they'll go to People's Park and do
a clean up with neighbors and other members of the community, and afterwards, have a big picnic and
social, to be more aware and visible. They're looking to have this event in early November. The Cal
Lobby Corps is having its second in-district visit scheduled for Friday, with Rep. Wilma Chan’s office.
The topic will be Cal Grants and the Reauthorization Act. The Lobby Director has also faxed requests to
Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s office regarding the possibility of speaking at the education concert on
October 19, as well as the Regents meeting in November. The Case Studies Project is progressing, with
over half the interviews complete. The Lobby Corps is working on a new project in which a regular
newsletter will be sent to legislators as an update on the External Affairs office, to make sure communication with them was strong and clear, and to let these representatives know the activities of the Cal
Lobby Corps and of the ASUC. UC Affairs-External was working on preparing for the Regents meeting.
They had a meeting on Thursday with members of the Graduate Assembly about this. The meeting will
be on campus during the 16th and 17th. They're not sure where it will be held, and it will probably be at
Clark Kerr.
Ms. Han said the second round of the Call-in Day, for HERA, has been pushed back to October 26, when
that will be voted on, due to Huricane Katrina and the Supreme Court hearings that have been going
occurring at Capitol Hill. Ms. Han said they've decided to do a second round of Call-in Days, on
Wednesday, October 19, the same day as the Voter Education Concert. They have an amazing group of
interns and Director, and the office was highly confident it will go well. The Senate’s support was greatly
appreciated. She called for any questions.
Ms. Han said it was Allen Lightfeldt’s birthday. "Happy Birthday" was sung for Mr. Lightfeldt. Ms. Han
said they had cake to distribute.
Report from the Student Advocate Office (cont'd)
- 47 -
Report from the Student Advocate Office
Mr. Aiyer said that regardless of differences the Senate might have about substantive aspects of things
they dealt with that evening, he sat there for a little while and really enjoyed watching the Senate. He
really respected the concept of the Senate. He saw it as a game they play, very well. They speak with
each other and have a very deliberative process. He respected what they do and the means by which they
do it. That being said, his absence in making reports to the Senate for the past couple of meetings in no
way came out of a lack of respect, or any disrespect, for the Senate. It’s really just been other circumstances. He just wanted that to be clarified. While they do send out an Executive summary or report
every Tuesday of what the office was doing, he didn't feel that served as a sufficient substitute of the
office actually being present. But often times, other things come up.
Mr. Aiyer said the SAO’s report had a couple of things to address. First was a general update. They
recruited all their new caseworkers, who have all been trained and integrated. They had a little concern
over the case load coming in, which seemed to drop. The number of cases dropped for each division,
except for Financial Aid. That either tells them they're not doing a good job in promoting themselves,
and/or there aren't enough students who were up to delinquent behavior. If the reason was the latter, that
was great. But it’s probably the former, which was always on their minds.
Mr. Aiyer said the office just had a meeting with Student Judicial Affairs, as far as the conduct side of
things. Every time SJA sent out a Notice of Possible Violation, they included a letter stating that the student could use the SAO as a resource. But they realized that at the start of the year, SJA pulled that out of
their Letters of Possible Violation. When they met with SJA, the office resubmitted a letter, which will
go back in. They actually had SJA submit a sample Notice of Possible Violation to make sure the SAO
was part of their protocol. That was one part of solving the problem with the number of cases. At the
same time, if Senators have peers or know of anyone on campus who had some issues, he would ask them
to please keep in mind that the SAO was a resource. Even though he might not be there every Wednesday telling Senators about that, he’d like to think Senators were consistently out there, and if something
happened, they could refer people to the office.
As far as the Code of Conduct and the mentoring committee, Mr. Aiyer said he had his first face-to-face
meeting with Vice Chancellor Padilla, which was great as far as the office was concerned, because most
of their interactions with that office has been with his assistant. Right now the SAO was in the process of
compiling data as far on how effective or ineffective they feel the revisions of the Code of Conduct have
been. They're quantifying that in an effective form of wins and losses. As an office, they don't like to
think that they win or lose cases, but that they're advising. But in the case of their meeting with the Vice
Chancellor, they would like to have something more definitive for him to reflect on. So in all the cases in
which they have had wins or losses, they'll define how effective they thought sections of the Code of
Conduct were, as opposed to being ineffective. That’s to show the Vice Chancellor, and whoever was
helping him, that’s it’s not just when the office gets a win that they feel the Code of Conduct was quote
“on the side of the students,” but that there's a balance in terms of how they perceive cases, outcomes, and
the Code of Conduct itself.
Regarding the idea of metrics, they started shifting into quantifying more and more how each case comes
in and how they evaluate it. Cases were being broken down into a typical status of information of year,
major, and also going into whether students speak English as a first language, if there are disabled
Report from the Student Advocate Office (cont'd)
- 48 -
students, students who have priors, and ethnicity, if the student wishes to disclose that. The idea of
ethnicity was an important factor to the office because in the past, they've noticed trends. They haven't
been able to substantively support that with any numbers, and that’s why metrics were an issue that year.
If a student chooses not to disclose ethnicity, there wasn't anything the office could do. But they have an
optional column where they can speculate on that, and they often speculate as to ethnicity and
background.
Mr. Aiyer said another issue is that they had a meeting with the Chancellor’s Task Force on
neighbor/student relations, addressing a number of problems regarding the alcohol moratorium and issues
like that. It was the first time he attended the actual Task Force and felt it was really substantive. They
broke into groups, and he was part of the enforcement group. He talked to a couple of police chiefs and
talked to individuals who enforce the ABC grant, which deals with undercover police officers, an initiative that began last year. It’s important for the Senate to know that with the numbers that the UCPD and
the BPD have received, the ABC grant hasn't made significant decreases in the amount of alcohol violations occurring on campus. That’s not to say that what they're doing was bad, but they should take away
two things. The SAO needs to be more inclined and equipped to take on these cases and secondly, these
efforts, while noble in their intention, weren't working perhaps in the way they were legislated to work.
That said, one important thing to come from the office dealt with a new fine. That year, freshmen were
implicitly mandated, when they logged into BearFACTS, to participate in the alcohol education program.
There was a high percentage response rate, with 96% of all incoming transfers and freshmen responding.
The only issue was that for those who didn't respond, if they ever get accused of a violation of the Code
of Conduct, even if it’s plagiarism, theft, or alcohol abuse, they're charged $50 if they have not previously
filled out this alcohol program survey. That raises an issue, because many freshmen and transfers have
not been informed that this came with a penalty. And while everyone who has not taken this will not necessarily cross paths with Student Judicial Affairs, that was something to keep in mind, that this was a
stipulation in the contract with Student Judicial Affairs.
Mr. Aiyer said he wanted to thank the Senate for confirming the Chief-of-Staff, Daniel Garvin. Mr. Aiyer
said he may see the Senate next week, and may not. The office spends a lot of their week nights with
case workers, so he would offer his apologies in advance if he doesn't attend. If he does come with a
report, he promises to be as exhaustive as possible.
Mr. Huzair asked if the $50 penalty was in addition to any other fines. Mr. Aiyer said it was. It was
rather bizarre. He just found out about this that day. He communicated this with their Conduct Division
and passed it on to their caseworkers, so they have some institutional knowledge about this.
Mr. Besbris asked what the Senate could do to help with the student Code of Conduct revisions and help
get rid of ABC grants. Mr. Huzair moved to extend speaking time by three minutes. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Alvarez nominated passed with no objection. Mr. Aiyer said that right now the best way
to help with the Conduct Code wouldn't be to state problems, because the Committee has heard about
them over and over, and was getting beaten over the head with that. They have to come up with numbers,
or more substantive ways to convince them. If any Executives or Senators have contact with the new
Dean of Student Affairs, or have any faculty or administrative interactions, when they talk with them,
they should press them that it’s important to revisit the monitoring committee on Student Conduct. The
reason it’s taken this long was because no one was pressuring Mr. Padilla to change things. They should
keep repeating that they need this to be revisited. Even if they don't agree, the fact that they're hearing
this was good. As for the ABC grant, Mr. Aiyer said he didn't know how to remove that.
Report from the Judicial Council
Elected Official Committee Reports
- 49 -
Mr. Daryani said he would entertain a motion to go back to Reports. It was so moved and seconded by
Mr. Wang and Mr. Lee and passed with no objection.
Report from the Judicial Council
Mr. Gregg said the plaintiff and the defendant in the Daryani case were working on a settlement, and the
matter should soon be resolved without a case. At that point they'll decide what to do with the other
pending case, Davis v. GA. Mr. Davis was no longer a student, so the case will either be dropped or will
continue with a representative, if Mr. Davis appoints one. Mr. Gregg called for any questions.
Mr. Besbris said he would apologize for his comment earlier when asking Mr. Gregg questions during
debate. Mr. Gregg said he appreciated that.
Elected Official Committee Reports
Reporting for the Standing Committee on the Advocacy Agenda, Mr. Daryani said he was ill last week so
he couldn't get together with Advocacy Agenda Chairs. However, he was hoping a Senator could take it
upon themself to write a bill in support of the Advocacy Agenda. He looked up the line item for that item
and couldn't find it. There was supposed to be money allocated to that line item, and he’ll check again.
He called for any questions.
Mr. Tregub said that if he looked at the final budget on asuc.org, until Monday, when it’s removed by the
Web master, it has $2,500 allocated as a line item. The more accurate figure was actually $800. Mr.
Daryani said he would follow-up on that with Mr. Tregub afterwards.
Reporting for the Advocacy Agenda Committee on Campus Safety, Mr. Lee said the Committee met on
Monday night at 5:30 to make posters for Campus Safety Week. He wanted to say thanks to Mr. Gupta,
who wasn't on the Committee, but showed up. Mr. Lee said he would encourage Senators to get
involved. It will be a great week of events. He’ll talk to Mr. Smith and Ms. Han and try to schedule a
time for Senators to volunteer. They'll meet on Tuesday at 2 o'clock. All members were present at the
last meeting, except for Mr. Abad.
Reporting for the Advocacy Agenda Committee on Access to Higher Education, Ms. Encarnacion said
they met that day at 6 p.m. in the June Jordan Room, and everybody was present. They talked about the
conference they want to hold in the spring, late April or early May, and whether to hold one. It was
brought to their attention that a lot of other student groups were holding conferences, and the Committee
felt it wouldn't be right for the ASUC to trump those, because that’s not the ASUC’s role, which was to
help groups and give them more resources. So they'll get in contact with groups to see if they could help
them. They also wanted honor societies and service groups to collaborate. The affirmative action and
Elected Official Committee Reports (cont'd)
Reports from ASUC Representatives
- 50 -
integration symposium may be held the second week of February. The Committee brainstormed possible
speakers and workshops. And Ms. Felarca reminded them about the affirmative action debate on October
20 between BAMN and the BCR. Ms. Encarnacion asked people to please come out. The ASUC has
allotted money and a fee waiver, so Senators should at least show up. All members were present.
Reporting for the Selection Committee for the Elections Council Chair, Mr. Gupta said they'll meet on
Thursday and consider two applications.
Mr. Daryani said a Greek Affairs Officer was supposed to be chosen by the fourth meeting. There were
no consequences in the By-laws for not doing that. Mr. Gupta said they have yet to receive an application. He would send out the application again.
Reporting for the Selection Committee for the Fundraising Director, Mr. Abad said they held interviews
and it went well. They should have a nominee by next week.
Reporting for the Committee on Educational Enhancement, Mr. Gupta said the Grants Committee met
last night. For Educational Enhancement, they funded grants to a DE-Cal class that trains people to go to
Ecuador that winter, and for a movie the transgender DE-Cal will show. This movie was difficult to
acquire, making it more expensive.
Reports from ASUC Representatives
Reporting for the Engineer's Joint Council, Mr. Tregub said it’s revamping its communications capabilities to make it easier to send out announcements. If there's a project or event they would like to publicize
to engineers, Senate reps would be more than happy to forward it to the EJC. Mr. Abad said they're also
trying to get Daily Cals in the Etcheverry breezeway.
Reporting as the ASUC representative to the Intellectual Community Grant, they met on Tuesday at 12:00
and allocated money to Ras Garba, which was occurring that weekend, and the affirmative action debate.
Reporting for the Academic Opportunity Fund, Ms. Encarnacion said they gave out money to all people
who submitted requests, although not necessarily the full amount that was requested. They allotted $325
to the Gabriella Network. They also gave money to several students to do research, and to Cal Forensics
and their debate tournament at Pacific University.
Elected Official Committee Reports (cont'd)
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)
- 51 -
Reporting as the ASUC representative to the University Students Cooperative Association, the co-ops,
Ms. Alvarez said they'll meet on Thursday at Cloyne at 6 p.m. If people were interested or had any questions, she would ask them to please talk to her.
Elected Official Announcements
Mr. Tregub moved to go back to Elected Official Announcements. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Gupta and passed with no objection.
Mr. Narodick said that to the people who abstained on the J-Council nomination, he felt the Senate
hashed it out for a long time and he didn't see people abstaining. After all the recesses and debates, he
didn't see how anybody didn't have enough information to vote, and he didn't know why anybody would
abstain except for political considerations, and he found that unfortunate.
Ms. Alvarez said she wanted to say that she was feeling a lot of different things. Just to respond to what
Sen. Narodick said about abstaining, Ms. Alvarez said she personally abstained because she felt that
sometimes they need to take into consideration that even though they talk things through, it’s not all about
logic and understanding things. It’s also about the gut feeling that one gets. That’s not to say someone
wasn't qualified, but it’s the Senate’s job to be 100% sure with who they select for these positions, and
that they trust the people they choose, and have researched them, and know they'll do a good job. Ms.
Alvarez said she wasn't entirely sure about this and she thought it would be highly hypocritical of her, and
disrespectful, if she were to vote on something she wasn't completely sure about. She just wanted to
explain her personal situation. She also wanted to remind people that they were elected officials and have
made a commitment to the student body to represent them. They're all busy, and given the fact that they
are there, and in between midterms, holidays, and birthdays, they could still do their job. That’s something they need to take into consideration. They need to be careful how they word things, or express sentiments, because things could be misunderstood. She hoped, as the year progresses, people will continue
analyzing why they were there and why they got elected, and the promises they made while they were
campaigning.
Mr. Kim said he came back from the convocation with Dr. Young Woo Kang, who expressed great joy at
the students. He showed great interest in UC Berkeley. He’ll fly back to Washington on Sunday. On
Tuesday he’s having dinner with Pres. Bush, and said he would mention Berkeley.
Ms. Felarca said she wanted to thank Senators who co-sponsored the bill to endorse the public hearing.
She would apologize for the typos and was falling asleep over her computer while typing, and didn't
mention to call for a “pubic hearing.” She wanted to encourage Senators next week, when Miranda
Massey speaks, to stay in the room for her presentation because it will be worth their while. On the JCouncil appointments, she had really been wavering whether to vote yes or no on the candidate. She
thought the second applicant sounded much stronger than the first one, but she was also aware that the
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)
- 52 -
applicant was in the room when the Senate debated the first candidate. To her, the pivotal question was
the question of free speech. While the nominee’s statement on the Constitution and Bill of Rights was
strong, and Ms. Felarca was impressed with the passion she expressed that, the test was in application.
Ms. Felarca said she didn't think anybody should be censured for soliciting someone to be part of their
group who they don't know directly, whether it’s a Facebook or a blog, where they're honored to be solicited. The abstract ideals of free speech were one thing, but defending that abstraction in reality was
another thing. She thought the ASUC’s standards for elections and free speech ought to be the same as
they are for any presidential election. They should think how damaging it would be if candidates in
presidential elections were penalized and removed from the ballot because someone knocked on their
door who didn't know them ahead of time and tried to solicit their vote. That was democracy, and people
were informed by that. She wanted to see someone on the J-Council that she knew would be a champion
for free speech and due process, and unless she saw someone who was like that, she couldn't in good conscience vote yes. She voted for only one J-Council member last year, out of all the nominees who came
up, and she regretted it. In the end, that Council member voted the wrong way on the Gade case, and Ms.
Felarca said she told herself then that she wouldn't support a nominee unless she felt 100% confident they
would really be a champion for students’ rights.
Mr. Abad said it’s important they vote their conscience and not waiver on abstentions. He voted to
abstain last year when they were there until 1 a.m. and he was torn, and abstained. He wanted to give
them money but wanted to be financially responsible. So he took the middle road and abstained. After
that, he never abstained again, because a former Senator said people elected him to make a choice, and
not to waiver and abstain. People who elected them trust them, and even if one was in the minority, they
would still accept you. So Senators should vote their conscience, even though they might hurt people.
Mr. Lin said he voted the way he felt. And if he wanted to abstain, that was his right as a Senator. He
didn't feel trying to guilt trip Senators into voting yes or no would really help the situation. People should
respect their decision, and he would ask others to please not lecture the Senate any more.
Mr. Tregub moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Besbris and passed with no objection.
With the rolls closed, the motion to approve Ms. Masum-Javed to the J-Council failed 9-1-7. Voting
comments were heard.
Roll call was taken for attendance. Members present were:
Chris Abad
Josie Alvarez
Max Besbris
Rita Encarnacion
Yvette Felarca
Vishal Gupta
Ahmad Huzair
David Kim
Ki-Hong Lee
Anthony Lin
Ernie Macias
Sapna Mehta
This meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
These minutes respectfully submitted by
Steven I. Litwak, Recording Secretary
Ben Narodick
Lisa Putkey
Ashley Thomas
Igor Tregub
Billy Wang
Jesse Yang