Docstoc

st Boxers Briefs

Document Sample
st Boxers Briefs Powered By Docstoc
					                                      ASUC SENATE MEETING

                                           February 21, 2007

                                               Sixth Week




This regular meeting of the ASUC Senate was called to order by Vishal Gupta at 7:15 p.m. in the ASUC
Senate Chamber.


APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES


Mr. Gupta called for any changes to the minutes from the February 14 meeting, and hearing none, said the
minutes were approved. THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 14, 2007 MEETING, WERE
APPROVED WITH NO OBJECTION.


NEW BUSINESS


Mr. Gupta referred the following bills to committee:

SB 47, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for Racism and Inequity in Structures of Education, to the
       Finance Committee
SB 48, In Support of the Early Appointment of an Elections Council Chair, to the Constitutional and Pro-
       cedural Review Committee
SB 49, In Support of Modern Election Practices, to the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee
SB 50, In Support of the Thai Students Association, to the Finance Committee
SB 51, In Support of Humble By-laws, to the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee and to the
       University and External Affairs Committee
SB 52, In Support of Poker for Peace, to the Finance Committee
SB 53, In Support of Lower Sproul Lighting, to the University and External Affairs Committee
SB 54, In Support of Increasing Access to Education, to the Finance Committee
SB 55, Commemorating Nelson Polsby, to the University and External Affairs Committee
SB 56, In Support of Pi Kappa Phi’s Journey of Hope, to the Finance Committee
SB 57, In Support of The Suitcase Clinic, to the Finance Committee
SB 58, In Support of UC Berkeley’s 21st Annual Indus Culture Show, to the Finance Committee
SB 59, In Support of the ASUC Senate Contingency Fund, to the Finance Committee

Mr. Gupta called for any objection to New Business, and seeing none, said New Business was approved.
Approval of the Agenda                                                                                 -2-
Report from the UCPD Liaison


APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Feb. 28)


Mr. Gupta called for any changes to the agenda for next week. Mr. Averbach moved to hear a Special
Order next week, with the California Alumni Association Executive Director, Tuck Coop, for an intro-
duction and meet-and-greet, from 7:30 to 7:45. The motion was seconded by Ms. Moon. THE MOTION
TO HEAR A SPECIAL ORDER NEXT WEEK, FROM 7:30 TO 7:45, TO HEAR FROM THE
ALUMNI ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TUCK COOP, PASSED WITH NO OBJEC-
TION. Mr. Gupta called for any other changes to the agenda, and hearing none, said the agenda was
approved. THE AGENDA FOR THE FEBRUARY 28 MEETING WAS APPROVED WITH NO
OBJECTION.


Mr. Gupta said there were no Guest Announcements.


REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ASUC


Mr. Permaul said that Dean Poullard sends his regrets. He was still that evening and wished to express
his regret that he couldn't join them that evening.


Report from the UCPD Liaison


Sgt. Tucker said that unfortunately, he had three Crime Bulletins that involved the use of firearms, all
within a few blocks of campus, between February 12 and 19. Two were robberies. There was also an
attempted arson at Unit 1, the lower complex, where somebody apparently lit a paper towel dispenser on
fire. And on February 16, at about 4 p.m., a couple of bicycle officers made a traffic stop on a car with
expired registration tabs on the corner of Parker and Regent, a very minor infraction, but in this case, the
officers detected the smell of marijuana coming from the car, and when they searched it, they found a
very realistic toy gun, an exact replica. The owner graciously surrendered it, and this was currently under
investigation to see if it was related to any crime locally or further away. Also, on the 17th, at about 11
a.m., there was a report of a laptop stolen from the I-House. And officers responded and took a very
thorough report, as usual. Then, about 2:00 that afternoon, the same officer happened to respond to report
of a suspicious person at the Haas Pavilion, and when he and a second officer arrived, they noticed the
person in question was carrying a laptop computer. The officer noted that the computer looked a lot like
the one that was stolen at the I-House, and, in fact, after some investigation, determined that it was the
same computer. So that person was arrested and was later identified by a witness at the I-House. So that
was a closed case as well. Sgt. Tucker called for any questions.

Mr. Averbach asked if he knew what took place that afternoon at MLK, with about a dozen people and
half a dozen police officers on the veranda above MLK, with some police action taking place. Sgt.
Tucker said that may have been officers responding to people attempting to bed down. Seeing no other
questions, Mr. Gupta said he would like to thank Sgt. Tucker for his report.
Report from the ASUC Store Operations Board                                                           -3-


Roll call was taken for attendance.

MEMBERS LEGALLY PRESENT:

 Taylor Allbright                     Dmitri Garcia                      Ilana Nankin
 Lisa Ang                             Carolina Jauregui                  Van Nguyen
 Ali Ansary                           Vince Law                          Vivienne Nguyen
 Dwight Asuncion                      Curtis Lee                         Jane Park
 Jen Avelino                          Jeff Manassero                     Donald Rizzo
 Sammy Averbach                       Victoria Mitchell                  David Wasserman
 Brandon Chen                         Eunice Moon


Report from the ASUC Store Operations Board


Mr. Permaul said he wanted to let them know that the Auxiliary has been working very closely with the
Gelateria Naia to try to improve access to Naia for student groups, and also to get Naia’s products out on
campus more visibly. They have managed to persuade both the Men’s and Women’s Faculty Clubs to
consider selling Naia’s products on their menus, and they were also discussing this with the International
House. They will also approach Cal Performances to suggest that they sell Naia’s at intermissions in
Zellerbach Auditorium. Naia’s will produce 1,000 of the fliers he was holding, which he’d pass around.
Naia’s would greatly appreciate it if students could put these in student boxes, in Eshleman and at Sproul
Hall, to let student groups know that they could use Naia’s for activities in the evening. There were many
student groups that didn't realize that Naia’s was available for events.

Mr. Permaul said a meeting of the Safety Committee has been scheduled with the campus landscape
architect to discuss lighting and other improvements. Also, the UCPD will come over to the building and
Crime Prevention will do another survey for the ASUC, and appropriate adjustments will be made after
that survey. They're meeting with the landscape architect to talk about the lighting on Lower Sproul. He
believed a couple of Senators will join them at that meeting. Mr. Permaul said the strategy he would rec-
ommend to the Senate was that they expect the campus to fund this project. It should not be student gov-
ernment that funds safety issues on the campus. They've already set it up on the agenda for the ASUC
and GA Presidents to advise the Chancellor of that at their next briefings with him. But they also think
that student government, through its offices, should take that stance at the meeting with the landscape
architect. And if the Senate was considering the bill to fund safety improvements, he thought it might be
appropriate in that bill to suggest that the campus take on the responsibility of lighting Lower Sproul,
because it was no longer just a pass through, but as they knew, every evening it was a destination, where
students were out there dancing, or doing other activities late into the evening. So he would leave that as
a recommendation to the ASUC.

Mr. Permaul said that morning, and for the last two days, he’s met with the campus telecommunications
office to work on the replacement of the phone systems inside Eshleman and Martin Luther King Jr.
Union. Their telephone system was so antiquated that the campus no longer even supported it in terms of
maintenance. The Auxiliary was looking to replace it with a system that would provide a lot of variety
and tools that students, student groups, and particularly student government, could use in communicating
to people, both externally and internally. So they’ll install a new telephone system and they'll work with
the Secretariat to get their input on what student government feels are the needs it had for telephones.
Report from the ASUC Store Operations Board (cont'd)                                                    -4-


Mr. Permaul said they were not seeking to change the phones in student group offices, because those old
sets can be unplugged, and plugged into another office, and that phone would instantly work at that new
location with the same telephone number. No phone system that the campus provided at that time
allowed that ability. So when the Auxiliary replaces all the other phones that currently exist in the two
buildings, there will be a supply of these old Eagle phones that they could continue to use, and sort of sal-
vage, in order to provide the same numbers and convenient telephone service to their student groups as
they move from space to space. But for student government, the Auxiliary, and the Union, they're look-
ing at a high quality telephone system that would allow for much better communication than they now
have.

Mr. Permaul said the Web contracts have opened, and work on Web infrastructure was in progress, for
the Auxiliary and the Graduate Assembly. They also let a contract for the front end, a design concept to
make the Web site a destination for students on campus. They may call it “My ASUC,” or they may call
it something else. They have met with OSL, which has agreed to consider having one-stop shopping for
student groups on campus. What would happen is people would go to the site, apply for student group
status, get authorization and approval through OSL, and then come back to the ASUC and have access to
all the other services. As a result, students would not have to search around and go from office to office
in order to sign up student groups. Mr. Permaul said he was very pleased to have OSL support this con-
cept. And they continue to look forward to collaborating with the ASUC student government as well.

Regarding seismic renovations for Pauley and the Tilden Room, they will be seismically renovated that
summer. They've come up with a seismic solution for Tilden that will not destroy its look or style. And
they'll add a pantry to would allow student groups and others to use the room as a place where food could
be served for activities and events on the decks. And they'll redo the restrooms up there, and signage as
well. The campus has possibly offered to put in technology for an overhead projection camera and the
ability to hook up other kinds of services there. So they hope that will take place. They were also willing
to consider that for Pauley Ballroom next summer.

Mr. Permaul said he met with the Director of the Career Center, and that resulted in an interesting conver-
sation. It may not lead to anything, but the Director was very much heartened over changes that were
being proposed to the Student Union over the next few years, and was considering the concept of putting
a satellite Career Center office in the Student Union. There would be a couple of advantages to that.
They would not only have an office where students could go and get Career Center services, rather than
going all the way down to Shattuck, but they could create a space where they could do things like have a
vendor a day. So a particular vendor would come in who wanted to advertise or interview students and
they would be at a location where students could just walk in, drop in on that vendor, as opposed to hav-
ing to have a meeting at a sublocation. So they should keep their fingers crossed, and hopefully they'll be
able to bring the Career Center to the ASUC.

Mr. Permaul said he would like the ASUC to consider a couple of bills. He hasn't thought this through
yet, and he was seeking their input and advice on this. The Auxiliary was up for potentially two contracts
on the campus at that time, through the Cal Student Store. One was the book contract for University
Extension, and the other would be Intercollegiate Athletics, which was supporting a huge debt and was
looking for ways to raise and generate revenue to support itself. Intercollegiate Athletics was taking the
contract for the Cal logo, which will expire, and putting it out to bid. Mr. Permaul said he seriously
thought that at the end of the day, Athletics would be making a serious mistake if that didn't come back to
the ASUC, because the ASUC had the location where people buy overwhelmingly the majority of Cal
Report from the ASUC Store Operations Board (cont'd)                                                   -5-
Elected Official Announcements


logo clothing. Athletics only had Memorial Stadium for six games a year and the basketball Arena for
home games. But that was a very short period of time. But Athletics was trying to cut the best deal it
could, and by putting logos out to bid, they're trying to force the Auxiliary’s hand to give them more
money. The Auxiliary already gives Athletics 20% of whatever revenue they generate, and the margin
was only about 30%. So the Auxiliary was barely breaking evening at both these venues. Nevertheless,
it's important to have a unified approach to their marketing. Mr. Permaul said he may ask the Senate, at
some point in the future, to consider writing a bill that would go to the Athletic Director to encourage her
to remember that student governments, student groups, and that the Student Store was part of the envi-
ronment of the campus, and that student Athletics and the ASUC should be tied together. He thought the
same was true for University Extension. With legitimate cause, they have concerns about the service the
Auxiliary has provided to them. But the Student Store has replaced the Book Manager and completely
revamped the way they approach providing those services. He thought the fact that the Store’s book sales
were up dramatically was a testament to how successful they've been. At some point, he may ask the
Senate to consider sending a bill to the Dean of Extension to express their desire that the Extension con-
sider the Cal Student Store and the Cal Student Bookstore as their store of choice. He called for any
questions.

Mr. Wasserman asked if it was the case that Fall Extension students pay a student fee to the ASUC and
other Extension students do not. Mr. Permaul said that was a good question, and he didn't know the
answer. Mr. Wasserman asked if he was aware that about a week ago, when it was pouring, it was leak-
ing through the Student Union overhang that people walk under, and in Eshleman, there was a large pud-
dle of water in the stairwell, on the floor, because water was coming in through the side of the wall, he
believed. Mr. Permaul said he would thank Mr. Wasserman for that, and said they were aware that the
40-year-old skin of both of the buildings has been permeated by moisture. They have problems on the
deck of the Tilden Room, in the basement of Eshleman, and in the basement of MLK. And these were
very costly to fix, sometimes, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. So they were trying to deal with
remedies in a symptomatic way as opposed to a systemic way, because eventually the campus will do
something with these buildings. If there's simply a renovation, then they feel that systemic work could be
done. But if there were changes to the buildings altogether, and the buildings were torn down, then they
didn't want to waste student dollars for repairs. Mr. Gupta said that seeing no further questions, he would
like to thank Mr. Permaul. Mr. Permaul said he wanted to thank them.


Mr. Gupta said his voice was not entirely back, so he would ask people to please bear with him.


Elected Official Announcements


Mr. Wasserman said it was Black History Month, and he had a candle burning. A group of students from
the black community that evening had essentially a candlelight vigil where they went from Unit 1, walked
down Durant, along Telegraph, through campus, through Sproul, and then to Lower Sproul, and had a big
conversation. A lot of students came out and reflected about what they felt was important about black
history in their own lives and as students, and took a moment to remember the struggles of the ancestors,
and to kind of see the progress of black Americans in America, and to understand what they could do,
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)                                                                 -6-


considering what has occurred, and what their role has been in the past, and their role in the future. Mr.
Wasserman said he thought about Black History Month a lot, for many reasons. He didn't necessarily
know about any other ethnic month, and wasn't aware of them. And if people told him what those months
were, that would be great. But now that people know it was Black History Month, he hoped they reflect
on black history and on the things that black Americans have contributed to this country, and understand
that black history was American history, and that when they think of things that happened in the United
States, they need to realize the contributions of black Americans. They weren't going away. That’s why
there was a candle on the table.

Mr. Wasserman said that he got accepted to another law school, to Hastings. That was really cool. He
still didn't know where he’d be going yet. Hastings was just across the Bay, which was really cool, a UC
school. Other than that, he hoped people were having a good time and a good month.

Ms. Allbright asked if it was true that on that day, in 1921, the Kappa Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta
Sorority, Inc., was founded in Berkeley. Mr. Wasserman said that was correct. The Kappa Chapter has
come in to the Senate to ask for Contingency Funds and did amazing community service project. The
National Panhellenic Council, the nine traditionally black fraternities and sororities on this campus, typi-
cally do more community service and philanthropy than any other Greek organization, and most student
organizations. On a campus where they only have 800 black students, out of over 30,000 students, those
800 black students, that segment of the population, did more community service than the rest of the
30,000 in community service.


Mr. Averbach said he wanted to thank the Senate for allocating $475 last week to the Golden Apple
Award. Nominations and advertising will begin next week. The California Alumni Association gave a
substantial gift to go towards the winning professor. That’s why he asked Executive Director Tuck Coop
to come and speak to the Senate next week. Secondly, Mr. Averbach said he wanted to congratulate Sen.
Allbright for her op-ed. piece in the Daily Cal. He liked it. Also, he would ask Senators to take very
seriously bills revising the By-laws, on which Sen. Manassero has worked very hard.


Ms. Jauregui said there will be a rally on Tuesday, February 27, from 12:00 to 1:00, to support the
DREAM Act. Every year, 65,000 students graduate from high school and were not able to attend college
because the cost was much too high and their immigration status disqualified them from any kind of
financial aid regardless of their educational merit. The DREAM Act provides a solution for students who
have grown up in the US, but because of a broken immigration system, end up without legal status. The
rally will be in Upper Sproul.


Mr. Asuncion said he would pass around two sheets on ASUC stationery for the bill for his cousin, Grace
Asuncion. He would ask them to sign it. They'll put it in a frame to give to his uncle and aunt, and to the
ASUC also to frame so they remember Grace. He’d also pass around the pen he wanted them to sign it
with. There were two sheets, so he would ask them to please sign twice. Secondly, on Eshleman safety,
the hinges on Eshleman doors don't quite lock correctly, so Mr. Permaul has been talking about that to
maintenance, and estimates will come in. He also met with UCPD Crime Prevention, which said a cam-
era system would cost at least $10,000, and the recorder itself would cost $5-7,000. He thought the
ASUC should concentrate on safety in Eshleman. Fi-Comm could use the capital improvements fund for
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)                                                                 -7-


safety, along with carryforward, and still have money for the Spring Concert, Greek Philanthropy, and
other programs.

As for the token system for MLK bathrooms, Mr. Asuncion said that at 7:30 a.m. there were people who
sleep in the west porch of MLK, and once the doors open at 8 a.m., they go in and use the bathrooms and
leave them in a terrible mess. So they're thinking about installing a token system. Regarding Lower
Sproul lighting, they're meeting with the landscape architect on Thursday, February 28, from 2:00 to 3:00
p.m. He’d send out an e-mail about that. Lastly, Mr. Asuncion said it was his 21st birthday on Monday,
and he was going to Kip’s on Sunday night at 12 a.m. If people wanted to join the festivities, he would
ask them to please do so. If they were underage, they shouldn't come, as he didn't condone underage
drinking. He called for any questions.

Mr. Averbach asked if the camera project would be funded by capital improvements. Mr. Asuncion it
would be through carryforward and capital improvements, and would be included in the bill on Eshleman
safety. The Auxiliary would help. He thought it would make a strong statement if they go to the campus
and say that since the ASUC funded Eshleman safety, that the campus should improve lighting on Lower
Sproul.

Mr. Wasserman said he had a problem with the language that the previous speaker used, which seemed to
criminalize the homeless for using public bathrooms. He asked what suggestions Mr. Asuncion had to
create a system that would allow the homeless to maintain their human dignity. Mr. Asuncion said he
believed those bathrooms should be primarily used by students. They may be public, but they should be
clean and safe. Homeless people made a mess, and he went there once and a guy was shaving, and could
have done anything. With tokens, people would go to a vendor and ask for a token to use the bathroom.


Mr. Nguyen said they got an e-mail from a student who was looking into the BP bill with the University,
the $500 million grant to do research. Mr. Nguyen said he was still trying to figure out all the informa-
tion about that, and it was worth investigating. He sat on the Academic Senate Committee on Academic
Freedom and this issue was kind of glossed over. He thought this was something the ASUC should
investigate, and talk about with students concerned with this, and with the possibility of affecting the kind
of research being done. Also, he felt very uncomfortable with people marginalizing the homeless. If
people make comments about the homeless, they should make sure to back them up with some statistics
about making bathrooms dirty, or harming people. He thought students were just as dangerous as any
homeless person on the street. On a brighter note, on Monday, Mr. Nguyen said he had a chance to go to
San Francisco for a fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer. The keynote speaker was Barak Obama,
and Mr. Nguyen said he got a chance to shake his hand. Obama was very charismatic and was making
history as a black man running for president. Rep. Boxer announced that she was going to run for US
Senator in 2010. There was a lot of talk that Gov. Schwarzenegger might run against her. He called for
any questions.

Mr. Asuncion asked if he was aware of the homeless person harming a student before. Mr. Nguyen said
he wasn't. He didn't doubt that in Berkeley’s 100 years that a student was harmed by someone who was
homeless. But students have also harmed students, and he asked if they should would criminalize stu-
dents. Mr. Asuncion asked if he’s been in the bathrooms after they open at 8:00 and has seen their dirty
condition. Mr. Nguyen said he’s seen dirtier bathrooms on campus than the ones at MLK. Mr. Asuncion
asked if this wasn't a problem they should try to solve. Mr. Nguyen said it might be a problem, but it
Elected Official Announcements (cont'd)                                                                -8-
Committee Reports


wouldn't be solved by criminalizing and blaming the homeless because they think the homeless created
the problem. Mr. Gupta said speaking time had expired. Mr. Chen yielded speaking time. Mr. Asuncion
asked who else should be blamed if clean bathrooms become dirty after the homeless use them. Mr.
Nguyen asked if Mr. Asuncion monitored everybody who went into the bathroom to see if they were
homeless. Anyone could go into the bathroom, and he didn't see how it was possible to make the asser-
tion that homeless people made the mess in MLK bathrooms. Mr. Asuncion asked if he was generalizing
that it wasn't the homeless. Mr. Nguyen said it was a serious generalization to say the homeless made a
mess. Mr. Gupta said that further questions would be better off taken off the floor. Mr. Nguyen said he’d
like to thank Mr. Asuncion for the questions.


Mr. Manassero said there was a scholarship for junior women that people could apply to. Five or six
were given out a year, and it was due March 16. Also, he was in an American Indian history and issues
class, and there was an issue with some schools using American Indian mascots. The University of Illi-
nois will retire its mascot, an Indian chief. That evening was the last home basketball game the Indian
mascot will be used.


Ms. Ang said that on Thursday at 7:00 in Heller, the Nikkei Student Union was having its “Day of
Remembrance,” in commemoration of the Executive Order that made it possible for the incarceration of
100,000 Japanese Americans. No Senators there were Japanese, so this would be a good event to attend.
Mr. Rizzo said he was part Japanese. Ms. Ang said that on Thursday, at 7:00, in 213 Wheeler, the Pili-
pino Association for Health Careers, which got Contingency Fund money for a fundraising concert for a
mission, will talk about what they did on the mission, bringing health care to the Philippines. Lastly, she
wanted to wish the Senate a happy Ash Wednesday, and happy Lent. She was very excited about this
time and waiting for the resurrection of her personal lord, Jesus Christ.


Committee Reports


Reporting for the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee, Mr. Manassero said they partially
met as there were quite a few people sick and with midterms. Everybody was there except for Ms.
Allbright and Ms. Nankin. Bills passed were SBs 37, 38, and 39. No bills were tabled and no bills were
failed. They're going to table SB 38, the ASUC membership bill, to get some verification and discussion
of other things that should be talked about. There were no problems with it, but they were just going to
wait on it. Con-Review also discussed JRP revisions, and J-Council Chair Cuevas was present to answer
any questions. The Senate will consider the bill that evening.

---------------
Begin written report from the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee

Constitutional Review Committee
Monday February 19, 2007

Meeting Begins: 9:23pm; Senate Lounge
Committee Reports (cont'd)                                                                      -9-


---------------
Written report from the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee (cont'd)

Attendance: Senators Manassero, Nguyen, Ansary, Mitchell, Avelino, Attorney General Rosetta Upshaw
(absent: Senators Allbright, Nankin)

Business Conducted:
SB39
       Judicial Council Chair Marisa Cuevas: authorship speech.
       Manassero: questions about JRPs
       Mitchell: motion to call to question
                  Avelino: second
                  Motion passes

SB 37
        Manassero: authorship speech
        Mitchell: motion to call to question
                   Avelino: second
                   Motion passes

SB 38
        Manassero: authorship speech
        Mitchell: motion to call to question
                   Ansary: second
                   Motion passes

General Discussion
Mitchell: Motion to adjourn
Avelino: second

Official Business:
SB 37 passes, SB 38 passes, SB 39 passes

Meeting adjourns: 9:56pm

End written report from the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee
---------------


Reporting for the Finance Committee, Mr. Chen said the Finance Committee met on the 19th. Bills
passed were SBs 34; 41, as amended; 42, as amended; 45; and Senate Waiver 10. Bills tabled were SBs
18, 35, 43, 44, 46, and SW 8. No bills were killed. All members were present.

---------------
Begin written report from the Finance Committee

Finance Committee, 02.19.07
Committee Reports (cont'd)                                                                          - 10 -
Report from the Elections Council Chair


---------------
written report from the Finance Committee (cont'd)

ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Senators Ang, Chen, Jauregui, Lee, Moon, Rizzo, and Wasserman.
Members Absent: None.


LEGISLATION
Bills Passed (with amendments):
SB 34: $150.00
SB 41a: $1,250.00
Sponsored by Senator Van Nguyen
SB 42a: $1,000.00
SB 45: $150.00
SW 10: $575.00

Senate Contingency:          $4,441.30
Greek Philanthropy Fund:     $4,150.00

Bills Tabled:
SBs 18, 35, 43, 44, 46, SW 08

End written report from the Finance Committee
---------------


Reporting for the University and External Affairs Committee, Mr. Law said bills passed were SBs 36 and
44. No bills were killed and no bills were tabled. Sens. Park and Garcia were absent.


Mr. Gupta said the Chair would entertain a motion to move into Reports. It was so moved and seconded
by Mr. Nguyen and Ms. Ang and passed with no objection.


Report from the Elections Council Chair


Ms. Wren said she distributed some literature about SB 24, which they'll move to amend. It included the
final text of the bill and the final numbers about the costs of polling locations, poll by poll. She would
like to thank Sen. Law for meeting with her to discuss SB 24. Hopefully people read the e-mail about
that. They came to a lot valuable conclusions she would share when the Senate discussed the bill. They'll
also discuss the bill to remove impediments to online elections. That evening the Senate would hear from
Stephen Huber, her nominee for Poll Coordinator. He was incredibly enthusiastic and competent, and
was a licensed bartender. Also, Cal had a very impressive win that evening over the University of British
Columbia in their rugby game. She called for any questions.
Report from the Elections Council Chair (cont'd)                                                       - 11 -
Appointments


Mr. Law asked if she’s had a chance to speak to the GA about closing polls. Ms. Wren said she hasn't.


Mr. Gupta said the Chair would entertain a motion to move into Appointments. It was so moved and sec-
onded by Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Averbach and passed with no objection.


APPOINTMENTS


Mr. Gupta said the only appointment that evening was Stephen Huber, for Poll Coordinator, with a sti-
pend of $750. He asked Mr. Huber to introduced himself and speak a little about why he wanted the
position.

Mr. Huber introduced himself and said he wanted to get involved in the elections that year and find out
how they worked. He had experience with training people and was in Ballroom Dancing and in charge of
training some of the newer members. He was also Fundraising Coordinator and helped raise money. He
called for any questions.

Mr. Averbach asked what year he was. Mr. Huber said he was a third year.

Mr. Gupta asked if his resumé was submitted to the Senate. Mr. Huber said he did not submit a resumé.

Ms. Avelino asked which student groups she was affiliated with. Mr. Huber said he currently wasn't in
any student groups. He was previously in the Berkeley College Republicans and in Ballroom Dancing.

Mr. Wasserman asked why he felt he was qualified for this position and what real-world experience he
had that would actually contribute to doing this position well. Mr. Huber said he read through all the Poll
Coordinator’s duties and responsibilities, and it involved basically getting all the equipment for the polls,
training poll workers, organizing all that. He had plenty of experience with computing and has worked on
that with several jobs in the past, just organizing different people and different categories. He’s been
involved in doing inventory tasks, and in previous jobs he’s done a lot of visual sales, and was an EB
Games advisor.

Mr. Manassero asked how he heard about the position. Mr. Huber said he heard about it through Ms.
Wren the other night. She said she was looking for a Poll Coordinator and a Publicity Coordinator, and
he was interested in being Poll Coordinator.

Mr. Law asked how he knew the Elections Council Chair. Mr. Huber said he met her through a friend,
Ed Martinez.

Mr. Gupta said that seeing no further questions, the question was automatically called. THE MOTION
TO APPROVE STEPHEN HUBER FOR THE POSITION OF 2007 ASUC ELECTIONS COUNCIL
POLL COORDINATOR, WITH A STIPEND OF $750, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE.
Mr. Gupta said he would like to congratulate Mr. Huber. (Applause)
Consent Calendar -- SB 34, In Support of the Teo-Chew Association                                 - 12 -


CONSENT CALENDAR


The following bills and waivers were up for consideration that evening under the Consent Calendar: SBs
34; 36, 37; 38; 39, 41, as amended; 42, as amended; 44; and 45; and SW 10.

Mr. Gupta said the Chair would entertain a motion for a three-minute recess. It was so moved and sec-
onded by Ms. Ang and Mr. Manassero and passed with no objection. This meeting was recessed. The
following bills were removed from the Consent Calendar: SBs 38 and 39.

Back in session, the following bills and waivers remained under the Consent Calendar: SBs 34; 36, 37;
41, as amended; 42, as amended; 44; and 45; and SW 10.

Mr. Gupta called for any other changes to the Consent Calendar, and seeing none, said the Consent Cal-
endar was approved. THE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS APPROVED WITH NO OBJECTION: SB
34; SB 36; SB 37; SB 41; AS AMENDED; SB 42, AS AMENDED; SB 44; AND SB 45; AND SW 10.


The following Resolution, SB 34, was approved under the Consent Calendar and was authored by Diana
Ung, Mr. Law, and Mr. Asuncion, and was co-sponsored by Ms. Nankin:


RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE TEO-CHEW ASSOCIATION

WHEREAS, the Teo-Chew Association (henceforth TCA) is a ethnic and cultural student group devoted
         to explore Teo-Chew culture and advocate for its preservation; and

WHEREAS, the Teo-Chew community resides in a small province in South China and a large population
         immigrated to Southeast Asia during the rise of communism in China; and

WHEREAS, because of the dispersion of the Teo-Chew community, many members of the community no
         longer identify with the Teo-Chew culture, causing a great loss in its history, language, cul-
         ture, and traditions; and

WHEREAS, the Teo-Chew culture is also becoming lost due to a big generation gap in the community;
         and

WHEREAS, TCA aims to engage other students in the networking and developing of their community,
         on and off campus, to address the social, political, and educational issues surrounding the
         greater Teo-Chew, Chinese, and Southeast Asian populations; and

WHEREAS, TCA holds culture and language workshops to education students about the Teo-Chew cul-
         ture, social events to bring the community together; and

WHEREAS, TCA is in close contact Gaginang [http://www.gaginang.org/], a world-wide, nonprofit
         organization dedicated to preserving the Teo-Chew culture, which supports and mentors
         TCA; and
Consent Calendar -- SB 34, In Support of the Teo-Chew Association (cont'd)                       - 13 -
                 -- SB 36, In Opposition to the Second Response Ordinance Amendments
                 -- SB 37, On Reducing Impediments to Online Voting


RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE TEO-CHEW ASSOCIATION (cont'd)

WHEREAS, there are other chapters of TCA, namely at UCLA, but also starting in UCSB; and

WHEREAS, TCA's projected expenses for 2006-2007 are as follows: Total, $509;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC recognizes TCA as a first-year student activities group
        (1 SAG).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC allocate $150 (one hundred and fifty dollars) from the
          Senate Contingency Fund to TCA.



The following Resolution, SB 36, was approved under the Consent Calendar and was authored by Ms.
Allbright and IFC President Nikhil Bhagat, and was co-sponsored by Mr. Rizzo, Mr. Wasserman, Mr.
Nguyen, Ms. Ang, Ms. Jauregui, Mr. Averbach, Mr. Manassero, and Ms. Mitchell:


RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE SECOND RESPONSE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

WHEREAS, the proposed Second Response Ordinance Amendments fail to address the unique consid-
         erations of student living situations; and

WHEREAS, students move frequently, and the residents of a particular communal situation change every
         semester; and

WHEREAS, the proposed 180-day probation period would label new residents a "public nuisance" when
         all they have done is move to a new home; and

WHEREAS, these amendments could encourage residents to throw large parties so as to "go out with a
         bang", particularly if they are about to change residences; and

WHEREAS, upon reception of a warning or censure, hosts currently do not have the right to request a
         decibel reading in order to document the noise violation; and

WHEREAS, the ASUC is the voice of the UC Berkeley student population;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC opposes the Second Response Ordinance
        Amendments.


The following Resolution, SB 37, was approved under the Consent Calendar and was authored by Elec-
tions Council Chair Jessica Wren and Mr. Manassero, and was co-sponsored by Mr. Averbach:
Consent Calendar -- SB 37, On Reducing Impediments to Online Voting (cont'd)                        - 14 -


A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REDUCING IMPEDIMENTS TO ONLINE VOTING

WHEREAS, respectively. Title IV §3.7.3, §3.7.4, and §3.7.6 of the ASUC By-Laws currently read:

             Access to the ballot must be delayed by five minutes after logging on from an unsupervised
             polling location.

             The Elections Council shall be charged with ensuring that voting via all unsupervised per-
             sonal computers shall only be allowed between the hours of 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. Pacific Stan-
             dard Time.

             Unsupervised private computers will be limited to one vote per computer. The Elections
             Council will be charged with the task of enforcing the one vote per unsupervised personal
             computer rule by regulating the Media Access Control (MAC) addresses; allowing only one
             vote per Media Access Control address. (One unsupervised private personal computer, one
             MAC address, one vote); and

WHEREAS, both §3.7.3 and §3.7.6 were suspended for the Spring 2006 ASUC elections because of the
         logistical impossibility of implementing these two requirements within the six-weeks
         allowed to organize elections; and

WHEREAS, the suspension of both §3.7.3 and §3.7.6 did not result in situations where fraudulent voting
         was considered to have occurred; and

WHEREAS, implementing §3.7.6 would prevent more than one vote to be cast from a single computer in
         on-campus computing facilities; and

WHEREAS, accessing a computer's MAC address requires the voter to download, install and run an
         application prior to voting; and

WHEREAS, implementing §3.7.3 and §3.7.6 would do more to discourage voting than it would discour-
         age fraudulent voting; and

WHEREAS, restricting the time period for voting from unsupervised personal computers reduces the
         ability of certain students to participate in ASUC elections to the extent of certain other stu-
         dents, creating an unfair atmosphere inconsistent with the spirit of the ASUC and its
         Constitution;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, Title IV §3.7 of the ASUC By-Law shall be amended to read:

             7. Unsupervised public and personal computers via Internet access

                1. Definitions

                   a. Unsupervised public computers shall be defined as computers permanently located
                      on University property and available for student use (i.e. library computers).
Consent Calendar -- SB 37, On Reducing Impediments to Online Voting (cont'd)                     - 15 -
                 -- SB 41, In Support of the Southeast Asian Student Coalition: Summer Institute


A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REDUCING IMPEDIMENTS TO ONLINE VOTING (cont'd)

                  b. Unsupervised private personal computers shall be defined as computers belonging
                     to a student and used to vote in an unsupervised location.

               Online voting can occur from IP addresses not belonging to one of the following
               categories:

            a. On-campus wireless networks, such as AirBears & Res Comp.

            b. ASUC- and GA- controlled properties, including Anthony Hall, Eshleman Hall, and the
               Martin Luther King, Jr. Student Union.

            The Elections Council shall be charged with ensuring that voting via all unsupervised per-
            sonal computers shall be allowed between the hours of 9 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on the
            first day of elections to 11:59 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, on the third day of elections.

            The Elections Council shall be charged with ensuring that voters shall click "I agree" on a
            window with the words "I understand that, as a voter, I have specific rights of confidential-
            ity. I understand that candidates may be disqualified if they or their agents campaign to me
            while I am voting, and that I have the right to vote from a supervised on-campus location if I
            so choose. If I feel that I am being campaigned to illegally, I understand that I have an obli-
            gation to report it to [an address provided by the Elections Council Chair] prior to being
            allowed to vote from any legal unsupervised online network.

            The Elections Council shall be charged with creating the option for a printable receipt with
            confirmation/tracking number for every vote cast.



The following Resolution, SB 41, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Mr. Nguyen:


RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDENT COALITION: SUMMER
INSTITUTE

WHEREAS, the Southeast Asian Student Coalition is an organization dedicated to the advancement and
         unity of the Southeast Asian community; and

WHEREAS, the SASC - Summer Institute brings low- income and underserved high school students from
         all across the United States to come to UC Berkeley for a week of workshops, activities, and
         personal development; and

WHEREAS, SASC-SI promotes unity, cultural, and political awareness among Southeast Asian youth in
         their pursuit of higher education; and
CC -- SB 41, In Support of the Southeast Asian Student Coalition: Summer Institute (cont'd)      - 16 -
   -- SB 42, In Support of the Chinese Student Association's Culture Show

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDENT COALITION: SUMMER
INSTITUTE (cont'd)

WHEREAS, the success of SASC-SI can be seen in the numerous students inspired to be active in their
         communities and pursue higher education, as well as the several students who have attended
         UC Berkeley after their experiences at SASC-SI;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the ASUC Senate allocates $1,250 dollars from the ASUC Contin-
        gency Fund to the Southeast Asian Student Coalition - Summer Institute.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that SASC-SI is an ASUC-sponsored event. [Budget attached in agenda
          packet]


The following Resolution, SB 42, as amended in committee, was approved under the Consent Calendar
and was authored by Mr. Lee:

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CHINESE STUDENT ASSOCIATION'S CULTURE SHOW

WHEREAS, the Chinese Student Association is one of the largest clubs on campus that emphasizes col-
         lective unity between the different Chinese ethnicities; and

WHEREAS, the Chinese Student Association has hosted a culture show for the past 15 years, and this
         year's theme is recognizing and taking advantages of opportunities as shown through the tri-
         als of three different generations, and their experiences as youth in a changing America; and

WHEREAS, even though the Culture Show grows every year, the Chinese Student Association's budget
         has decreased substantially from years past, from $5,337.00 ('04 - '05) to $3,333.25 ('06 -
         '07); and

WHEREAS, the Chinese Student Association holds many worthwhile events every year, regardless of
         budget shortfalls, and is continually expands the scope and size of its upcoming culture
         show; and

WHEREAS, the Chinese Student Association will be holding the culture show in Wheeler Auditorium on
         April 14th at 7 p.m.; and

WHEREAS, the following is the budget with the exact figures from last year's culture show; and

WHEREAS, the Spring 2007 Culture Show's estimated costs are approximately $2,500 to $2,700;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC recognizes the Chinese Student Association's Culture
        Show as an ASUC-sponsored event.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC Senate allocate $1,000 (one thousand dollars) from the
          Senate Contingency Fund to the Chinese Student Association.
Consent Calendar -- SB 44, In Support of Eshleman Safety                                        - 17 -
                 -- SB 45, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for the Turkic Student Association at
                           Berkeley (TSAB)


The following Resolution, SB 44, was approved under the Consent Calendar and was authored by Ms.
Ang and was co-sponsored by Ms. Allbright:


RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ESHLEMAN SAFETY

WHEREAS, Eshleman Hall contains offices of not only the ASUC, but many other student organizations
         and facilities; and

WHEREAS, students are often in Eshleman Hall very late at night working on programs and events that
         benefit people on and off this campus; and

WHEREAS, the hours during which UCPD CSOs can monitor the building is severely limited by the low
         numbers of CSOs that are currently employed; and

WHEREAS, Lower Sproul Plaza is a very poorly lit area through which many people walk; and

WHEREAS, Lower Sproul Plaza is the location of many dance and performing arts practices, especially
         during the night; and

WHEREAS, a budget for creating sufficient lighting in Lower Sproul is forthcoming;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that $10,000 (ten thousand dollars) from Carryforward be allocated
        towards increasing Lower Sproul lighting.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC President write a letter, with this bill attached, to the
          Director of the ASUC Auxiliary, Dr. Nadeson Permaul, the UCPD Chief, Victoria Harrison,
          and UCPD Representative to the ASUC, Sergeant Tucker, asking for both a larger quantity
          of, and longer hours of, CSO staffing in Eshleman Hall.



The following Resolution, SB 45, was approved under the Consent Calendar and was authored by Uldouz
Berenjforoush, Ms. Moon:


RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ASUC SPONSORSHIP FOR THE TURKIC STUDENT ASSOCIA-
TION AT BERKELEY (TSAB)

WHEREAS, the ASUC exists to serve the needs of student groups, and one way in which this duty is ful-
         filled is by providing sponsorship for student groups; and

WHEREAS, the mission of the Turkic Student Association at Berkeley (TSAB) is to bring together stu-
         dents of Turkic backgrounds and students interested in Turkic cultures and to celebrate vari-
         ous Turkic cultures and discuss current events; and
Consent Calendar -- SB 45, In Support of ASUC Sponsorship for the Turkic Student Association       - 18 -
                           at Berkeley (TSAB) (cont'd)
                 -- SW 10
Items for Immediate Consideration, SB 39, In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions


RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ASUC SPONSORSHIP FOR THE TURKIC STUDENT ASSOCIA-
TION AT BERKELEY (TSAB) (cont'd)

WHEREAS, the budget for Turkic Student Association at Berkeley (TSAB) for the year is as follows:
         Total, $286.00; and

WHEREAS, the soft cap for first-year sponsored groups set by the current Finance Committee remains at
         $150;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC recognize the Turkic Student Association at Berkeley
        (TSAB) as a first-year ASUC-sponsored Student Activities Group (SAG).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC shall allocate $150 (one hundred fifty dollars) from the
          Senate Contingency Fund to the Turkic Student Association at Berkeley (TSAB).



The following Senate Waiver was approved under the Consent Calendar: SW 10: $575.00


ITEMS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION


Mr. Gupta said the first bill was SB 38. Mr. Manassero moved to table the bill. The motion was sec-
onded by Mr. Nguyen. THE MOTION TO TABLE SB 38 PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION.


The following Resolution, SB 39, was authored by Judicial Council Chair Marisa Cuevas and Mr.
Manassero:


RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF 2007 JRP REVISIONS

WHEREAS, according to Article III, Section 3 of the ASUC Constitution, the Judicial Council shall for-
         ward their revised Judicial Rules of Procedures to the Senate for approval; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Rules shall not be open to amendment by the Senate, except for the deletion of
         individual clauses; and

WHEREAS, this bill has been written to bring the revised Judicial Rules of Procedures before the Senate
         for consideration;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the revised Judicial Rules of Procedure shall be accepted by the Sen-
        ate as attached and submitted on February 2nd, 2007. [See Appendix]
SB 39, In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                               - 19 -
Old Business, SB 24, In Support of Promoting Online Elections While Reducing Election Expenditures


Mr. Manassero said the bill deals with JRP revisions submitted February 2. He hoped Senators were
able to review them. The bill itself was just a mechanism in order for the Senate to officially review and
consider the revisions to the Judicial Rules of Procedure. He would defer time to EVP Gupta to explain
the process they'd go through.

Mr. Gupta said that evening they'll consider JRP revisions submitted to them by former J-Council Chair
Banerjee on February 2. The process would be as follows. He will project the JRP revisions on the
screen as they appear on the document from Chair Banerjee. Any Senators who wanted to talk about a
specific clause in the JRPs may do so, and move to debate a specific clause, or move to debate on the
revisions as a whole. If a Senator would like to move to strike a clause, they would only be allowed to
strike the entire clause listed behind the number that it sat behind. If there was a revision that was three
sentences long, they would not be capable of striking out one of those three sentences. If they didn't like
the sentence for whatever reason, they would have to move to strike the entire clause. It would take a
majority vote to pass an amendment to a specific clause. If at any point they chose to strike the entire
JRP revisions, all of them that were sent, a Senator may make a motion to do so. That would also
require a majority vote of the entire Senate. Any clauses that were not stricken from the JRP revisions
would automatically be passed once they were done with this process. He asked if the procedure were
clear. He would strongly encourage them to open up the JRP revisions they received. Text will be pro-
jected on the screen at the front, so when they talk about specific clauses, they could refer to them on the
screen. He’d go down the JRPs, and Senators should note any revisions they wanted to discuss.

Mr. Chen moved to strike out 4.7.5.

On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Manassero said that as they go through this process, he thought it
would be beneficial to have J-Council Chair Cuevas present. He was under the impression she would be
there, and he told her to come to the meeting between 8:30 and 9:00. It wasn't 8:30, and he would rather
wait for her before they started this process. But he didn't know how everyone else felt about that.

Mr. Gupta said that if Senators would like to lay the JRP revisions on the table, they may do so at that
time. Mr. Manassero said he would apologize for not bringing this up before.

Mr. Nguyen moved to lay SB 39 on the table. The motion was seconded by Ms. Allbright and passed
with no objection. Mr. Gupta said SB 39 was tabled.


OLD BUSINESS


Mr. Gupta the first bill under Old Business was SB 10, as amended in committee. Mr. Wasserman
moved to table the bill because Ms. Nankin was supposed to explain things about it. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lee. THE MOTION TO TABLE SB 10, AS AMENDED, PASSED WITH NO
OBJECTION.


The following Resolution, SB 24, as amended in committee, was authored by Elections Council Chair
Jessica Wren Mr. Manassero:
SB 24, In Support of Promoting Online Elections While Reducing Election Expenditures (cont'd)        - 20 -

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PROMOTING ONLINE ELECTIONS WHILE REDUCING ELEC-
TION EXPENDITURES

WHEREAS, Title IV §3.2 mandates a total of 17 on-campus polling locations; and

WHEREAS, the total cost for running these 17 on-campus polling locations is at least $18,009; and

WHEREAS, only ~34% (3,067 votes) of the total votes (10,863 votes) cast in the 2006 ASUC Elections
         were cast at on-campus polling locations; and

WHEREAS, reducing the number of on-campus polling locations to 12 would save at least $3,645 (7.3%
         of the total elections budget); and

WHEREAS, reducing the number of on-campus polling locations will promote online elections;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Title IV, Article III should be amended to read:

            3.2 Poll Locations

                 During any Regular ASUC Election, polling places shall be located at the following
                 locations:

                 1. Campus Polls

                   1. Upper Sproul Plaza (Lower Sproul Plaza in case of repair/construction on Upper
                      Sproul Plaza)
                   2. Dwinelle Plaza
                   3. Wurster Hall, West Entrance
                   4. Evans Hall, East Entrance
                   5. Lower Campanile Plaza

                 2. Extended Hour Polls

                   1. Moffitt Undergraduate Library, South Entrance
                   2. Recreational Sports Facility

                 3. Residence Hall Polls (Located at the dining commons, or no more than fifty (50) feet
                    away from the perimeter if a polling place absolutely cannot be installed at the dining
                    commons.)

                   1. Crossroads Dining Facility
                   2. Unit III Residence Hall Dining Commons
                   3. Clark Kerr Campus Residence Hall Dining Commons
                   4. Foothill Residence Hall Dining Commons
                   5. International House (immediately inside the West Entrance)
SB 24, In Support of Promoting Online Elections While Reducing Election Expenditures (cont'd)           - 21 -


Ms. Wren said she hoped they looked at the information she just gave them a few minutes ago, and
understood the contentions surrounding it. She would like to begin by responding to the issues brought
up by the GA at last week’s Senate meeting. Ms. Wren said she would reiterate the GA’s qualms and
react to them appropriately.

Ms. Wren said she would first like to bring to the Senate’s attention the important distinction that GA
President Daniels made last week when he said that removing the four polling locations that the bill
removes would impact graduate students’ ability to vote at those polling locations. While people would
be unable to vote at polling locations that would no longer exist, that wouldn't impact their ability to vote
overall. She thought they could have faith in grad students to use the Internet to vote online, or to walk
two minutes from Boalt Hall or Haas to the polling location at Kroeber Hall, which would still be in
place.

Ms. Wren said that Ms. Cementwala also brought up a concern she had with special-needs students being
unable to vote at these polling locations, and that it might be impossible or impractical to expect them to
walk to a different polling location on campus. Ms. Wren said she would like to let the Senate know that
special accommodations, or requests for accommodations, were made last year by students with special
needs. Ms. Wren said she has hypothesized that students with special needs were more comfortable
using their own special resources and facilities to vote online. There were also paper ballots that could
be provided on Upper Sproul for anybody who didn't feel comfortable using their own resources, or the
resources that the Elections Council provided at other polling locations.

Ms. Wren said the main argument the GA made last week was that participation in the elections would
decrease because polling locations were removed, and Ms. Wren said she didn't see that connection. Just
because physical polling locations were removed didn't mean people would be unable to vote. She
thought having a visible polling location did not necessarily empower students to vote any more than,
say, informing students of their right to vote and the ability to vote online. She thought the best way to
get people enthusiastic about voting was to educate them and make them aware of their rights as voters
to vote on any computer in the world, within the constraints of the By-laws, or to vote at polling
locations that would be available on campus.

Ms. Wren said the GA offered a very creative solution, to instead of removing the four polling locations,
to reduce the number of computers at those locations to just one computer. Ms. Wren said the amount of
money that would be saved by using that creative solution would be a mere $720, or $90 per computer
per polling location for the entire week. That was $720 saved versus over $3,600 that would be saved if
the bill passed as it was put forth.

Ms. Wren said she would also like to the Senate know that part of the reason she was qualified to run the
elections and was enthusiastic about applying for the position was because she had a very innate under-
standing of the elections and the ASUC, and had a vision for ASUC elections. She understood the evo-
lution that needed to take place in order for the ASUC to be competitive in the future and to remain a
valuable resource for the student body. The vision included moving towards completely online elec-
tions. That will only take place if they slowly remove polling locations from campus. They need to cre-
ate an atmosphere that embraced online elections and educates people about their ability and right to vote
from online locations anywhere in the world. The amount of money they'd save by passing SB 24 as it
came out of committee, without further amendment, they'd save over $3,600, and would put that towards
publicity. That amount of money would do a lot more in paper, fliers, and e-mails than it would do in
tables, chairs, and computers.
SB 24, In Support of Promoting Online Elections While Reducing Election Expenditures (cont'd)         - 22 -
Report from the Graduate Assembly Representatives


Ms. Wren said she thought long and hard, as Sen. Law could assure them, that SB 24 was the most
financially reasonable solution to the problem of polling locations. And it was also the best solution for
the ASUC moving forward with online elections. She called for any questions.

Mr. Rizzo yielded time to GA President Daniels. Mr. Daniels asked if the goal was to save $3,600, or if
the goal was for more advertising, or if that was the amount the Elections Council Chair came up with
after cutting the four polling locations. Ms. Wren said it was the amount that would be saved by
removing the polling locations. Mr. Daniels said that since advertising was so important, he asked if it
would make sense to cut more than four polls to save more money. Ms. Wren said it would. As it cur-
rently stood, she decided on the four locations because they were the four with the lowest voter turnout,
and a nice, even number would be created, 12 locations. It would also create enough additional revenue
for publicity. She would be very hesitant to cut more than four locations because for the voter turnout at
the next location, they had 60 more people than Etcheverry, which had the highest voter turnout of the
four that would be removed. So she thought the increase in turnout was significant enough to disincline
her from cutting them. Mr. Gupta said speaking time had expired. Ms. Nankin moved to extend speak-
ing time by five minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nguyen and passed with no objection.

Ms. Nankin asked how many computers would be at each polling location. Ms. Wren said that if people
had the spreadsheet in front of them, she’d go down it. For Upper Sproul and Dwinelle Plaza, they each
have six computers. Wurster Hall, Evans Hall, and South Hall, (Lower Campanile) will have two;
Moffitt Library and the RSF will have six; and the five other locations will have two.

Ms. Nankin asked why she chose to cut the number of computers at dining commons from six to two.
Ms. Wren said it was to save money, and also because the majority of people who use the dining com-
mons were lower division students, freshmen and sophomores, and she thought it was really important to
instill an atmosphere of online voting from the very beginning. If they got them young, those students
would continue that trend throughout their careers. Mr. Manassero said he would like to add that most
DCs, or at least the I-House, had below 75 votes each. So they were the lowest.

Ms. Moon yielded time to Ms. Cementwala. Ms. Cementwala said it was mentioned that no accommo-
dations were requested last year. She asked what accommodations were advertised/available last year
for students with special needs. Ms. Wren said no accommodations were advertised. They have com-
puter programs for students with visual disabilities. She wasn't the technical coordinator, but she under-
stood this was a program that read the information on the screen, a typical program for those with visual
disabilities. That was the only one they had, to her knowledge.


Mr. Ansary moved to go back to Reports from Representatives to the ASUC. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Nguyen and passed with no objection.


Report from Graduate Assembly Representatives


Mr. Daniels said he would mention some things and then move back to the debate they were just having.
Regarding Lower Sproul referenda, they were moving forward. Also, they're still on for the March 13
GA Delegates/ASUC Senator social mixer. They could forget about politics and have fun.
Report from the Graduate Assembly Representatives (cont'd)                                            - 23 -


Mr. Daniels said that at the end of last semester, he talked about how there would be times for disagree-
ment; and they were there. The GA certainly appreciated and respected all the hard work of the Senate,
and the hard work of Ms. Wren on this issue. Obviously, the GA wished the procedure had been a little
different. But everyone had the best of intentions. So even though the GA and the Senate may disagree,
and the Senate may pass a bill the GA didn't like, that was how democracy worked. So while they might
disagree pretty strongly that evening, there was nothing personal about it. He respected all of them in
terms of their positions and why they were voting for or against the proposal, and he hoped the Senate
respected the GA reps’ positions when they came to the Senate representing their constituents.

Ms. Cementwala said she hoped they had a nice Valentine's Day last week. Echoing Mr. Daniels, if they
disagree strongly that evening, it was not personal. This was a significant issue that mattered to the GA
and to other grad students who were affected by this. She was basically bringing their voices to the
Senate.

Ms. Cementwala she had feedback from a quick e-mail the GA sent out. Because they didn't want to
send anything out at the end of the week, and because Monday was a holiday, they waited until Tuesday
to get a note to graduate Delegates, who forwarded the message to their departments. One interesting
comment they got back about the message they sent out was that they didn't mention there would be
other polling locations people could go to, and that they didn't mention there would be the possibility of
online voting. But part 2 of their three-fold questionnaire was, “I am not affected by this because I will
vote online.” So people were aware that there was online voting. As far as the point about other polling
booths, they didn't think it was important to raise that point at this time because they were asking spe-
cifically about the four polling locations proposed to be removed, GPB, Haas, Boalt, and
Etcheverry/Soda, which most affect graduate students.

Ms. Cementwala said 28 people replied to her, and at least six of them say that they would either not be
able to vote or would be less likely to vote if the bill was passed and polling booths were eliminated.
That was about 25%. Last year a significant number of people voted online, but there was also a per-
centage of people who voted in polling booths. A Boalt student wrote that they would be very affected
and wouldn't be able to vote if the booth at Boalt was cut. “People at Boalt don't leave Boalt.” Another
comment was from Mechanical Engineering student, who said the Soda/Etcheverry location was very
isolated from the campus, which was made worse because of construction. A voting booth near these
buildings would also serve the Goldman School of Public Policy. The student said that people don't eas-
ily walk to other places. Ms. Cementwala said she also believed Etcheverry had the most votes of the
four locations proposed to be cut. A student in Molecular and Cell Biology asked to please not eliminate
the GPB location and said he would not be able to vote if that booth was removed. Other people said
they did vote online, and thought it was great, as long as there was universal access to University voting
because that’s what mattered, access. Ms. Cementwala said that was a question for the Senate, whether
they could guarantee University access to voting if they cut these locations. She didn't think they could.
Another student from MCB said having polling places at these locations would definitely encourage a
higher rate of participation.

Ms. Cementwala said there was a lot of concern about these cuts, and they would impact people in a real
way, and would affect participation and grad students’ needs. The Boalt Hall Class President for third
years said he thought this would disproportionately impact grad students. So the question was, why cut
these four places. If the ASUC was about online voting, she asked why they shouldn't cut all the polling
booths, if that was the real concern. Secondly, in the wording of the Memorandum of Understanding,
Report from the Graduate Assembly Representatives (cont'd)                                             - 24 -


the ASUC and the GA agreed that the GA would be pay 12% of elections costs, which was more than
they've given in the past. She said that Ms. Wren gas stated that the need for the bill was to save money.
But if the GA was giving the ASUC more money for elections, and if the proposed cuts would affect
grad students, she would ask what the need was to save more money. The math didn't quite add up. She
didn't think it would sit well with other grad students. Mr. Gupta said speaking time had expired. Mr.
Nguyen moved to extend by ten minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Law and passed with no
objection.

Ms. Cementwala said the ASUC Constitution has limited the Senate’s role and restricts them from cut-
ting polls from the dining commons, which she understood were the least utilized of all the polling
places. So the question was, why they should cut polling places that were more utilized, albeit utilized
primarily by graduate students. She understood the problem, and understood the desire to save money
and increase efficiency, but the solution was absolutely, fatally wrong. The solution was to amend the
Constitution so that they could cut out the dining commons. The solution wasn't, as a lot of grad stu-
dents would see it, to take it out on them.

Ms. Cementwala said she wanted to state the GA’s request, that the Senate not pass this bill that would
limit polling places, and instead have the GA work with them. And the notion of universal online access
was an interesting point, because she was not aware of any accessibility accommodations made for stu-
dents with disabilities. But when the ASUC was able to go online with universal access for all students,
the GA would be with them to support online elections. She thought the bill sent the wrong message to
grads. They realize the Senate’s intentions weren't malicious, but this didn't make them sit easily in their
relationship with the ASUC and with working together.

Mr. Daniels said that at the beginning of the year at the GA he was all about making moderate change to
how things were working. He brought something to the Executive Board, which turned his proposal
down, after he’d worked on it for a month over the summer. It was really frustrating for him. So they
were coming to the Senate with a request to not approve this bill, knowing that a lot of work has gone
into it. Ms. Wren did an excellent job with the elections last year and he was sure that she would do an
excellent job this year. So this request was, in no way, a criticism of anyone’s job or intentions. He
wanted to underscore the point that the GA appreciated Ms. Wren’s efforts.

Given that many Senators might still be inclined to favor the changes, Mr. Daniels said he wanted to give
them two very concrete alternatives. One would be to cut funding for Boalt, Haas, and Plant Biology,
but not for Soda/Etcheverry, and instead, cut funding for Dwinelle. If all of the polling places were in
the north or south of campus, the Senate might decide they didn't want to disenfranchise half the stu-
dents, and might decide to remove the most underutilized polls and add a location where there were
none. They would make accommodations for reality and the fact that a certain group of students was
being more disadvantaged than another group. So one alternative was to ensure that the entire burden
didn't fall on grad students.

Option number two would be to require that some percentage of all money saved from, say, Boalt, would
go back to advertising the elections in that building, and not at other locations. If they make it more
difficult for Boalt students to vote, at least they would be made as much aware of the elections as any
other students.

But Mr. Daniels said the GA’s main preference was to not pass SB 24, and then next year, to consider
cutting either all the polling places, or the vast majority. He called for any questions.
Report from the Graduate Assembly Representatives (cont'd)                                            - 25 -


Mr. Asuncion asked how much money the GA contributed to ASUC elections. Mr. Daniels said they’d
work with Pres. Gabriel on that, including the $30,000 the owed from the last few years. At a minimum,
the GA would pay 12%, or the percentage at which grad students vote if that amount was more than
12%.

Mr. Law yielded time to Ms. Wren. Ms. Wren said that Ms. Cementwala mentioned that six people said
they would be unable or less likely to vote if the four polling locations were cut. She asked how that
question was framed. Ms. Cementwala said this wasn't really a survey, and they were trying to get quick
feedback, so they asked Delegates to check among four options: 1) they didn't vote; 2) they voted online;
3) they were affected and would be less likely to vote; and 4) that one of the polls was their primary
means of voting. But she thought Ms. Wren’s question frankly missed the point of the feedback and
what they were trying to bring back to the Senate. If the goal of the ASUC was to increase participation
of all students in voting, what the GA tried to get from the feedback was whether people in the buildings
cared; and if so, why, and how much. And it seemed like a significant percentage of people care, and
care quite a bit. If a physical polling place was removed, that would decrease participation. She thought
the key was not necessarily how the question was framed, but the indication that people care. And it
didn't fit that the GA would give at least 12% to pay for the elections, but would not see physical polling
places. Mr. Gupta said speaking time had expired. Mr. Lee moved to extend by five minutes. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Law and passed with no objection.

Mr. Wasserman said that it was mentioned that the GA would be okay with online, universal voting. He
asked how the current system was not a universal method of voting and what would constitute universal
voting rights. Ms. Cementwala said they could not, of course, ensure universal participation, but they
could ensure universal access. She didn't know if the current system provided that, because she hasn't
voted online. And a significant percentage of other grads have used polling places to vote. The pro-
posed reduction was a piecemeal targeting of certain polls at which grads primarily vote. People were
likely to vote if a polling booth was there. And that helped ensure universal access. “Universal access”
required equal protection and treatment. The burden should be shared by targeting grads and undergrads,
and perhaps also cut undergrad access points, such as Dwinelle. Regarding accessibility, she didn't know
how accessible online elections were for students with physical disabilities. The first time she heard the
ASUC had any kind of access for non-visual users was when Ms. Wren mentioned it that evening. It
wasn't advertised last year. She didn't know how students with disabilities voted last year, and that was
something she’d by happy to find out. And that was something the ASUC should find out. But having
physical polling booths meant people could ask for assistance if needed. It assured universal access.

Mr. Wasserman asked if the questionnaire to grads included a question that asked if they were able to
vote online. Ms. Cementwala said that point was on the questionnaire, essentially. One choice was that
they weren't affected by cuts to booths because they vote online. Mr. Gupta said speaking time had
expired. Mr. Lee moved to extend speaking time by 15 minutes. Mr. Gupta asked if he would attach
total speaking time to that motion as well. Mr. Lee said he would. The motion to extend total time and
speaking time by 15 minutes was seconded by Mr. Nguyen and passed with no objection.

Mr. Daniels said that if the GA would have had time and resources, and if they had been more forward
thinking, they would have done a survey, and asked these questions people were raising. They don't
have a list of grad students who couldn't vote because of a disability, but it was reasonable to assume
those people exist.
Report from the Graduate Assembly Representatives (cont'd)                                           - 26 -
SB 24, In Support of Promoting Online Elections While Reducing Election Expenditures (cont'd)


Mr. Ansary asked how they would feel if the ASUC had a commitment for a constitutional amendment
to remove polls from the three dining commons and the I-House. Mr. Daniels said that if the need was to
cut costs and put the money towards advertising, and at the same time move towards online elections,
then at least they shouldn't do that mainly focusing on grad students. If the lowest eight or nine polling
locations were cut, and those just happened to not focus solely on grad students, the GA would be more
in support of the changes. In general, when they cut a physical polling place, they make it difficult for
certain students, for various reasons, to vote. That was a tradeoff.

Mr. Averbach moved to go to IC to debate the bill. The motion was seconded by Ms. Moon and passed
with no objection.


ITEMS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION (cont'd)


Mr. Gupta said they were back under consideration of SB 24, In Support of Promoting Online Elections
While Reducing Election Expenditures.

Mr. Averbach asked if they would be willing to move into Old Business, so it was Old Business. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Nguyen and passed with no objection.

Mr. Law moved to recess for ten minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wasserman and passed by
voice-vote. This meeting was recessed.

Mr. Averbach asked for a straw poll of people in favor of removing Boalt Hall, Haas, South Hall, and
GPB, but still keeping the polling booth at Soda/Etcheverry. The request was seconded by Mr. Law. A
straw poll was taken. Mr. Gupta said the result was 10-2-4, and that motion would fail.

Mr. Law asked for a straw poll to trade removing Etcheverry Hall with South Hall, and also allocating
30% of the savings from locations that were removed to be used for publicity at those locations. The
request was seconded by Mr. Wasserman. A straw poll was taken. Mr. Gupta said the straw poll would
remove South Hall instead of Etcheverry/Soda, and allocate 30% of savings for publicity in the buildings
that were removed. A straw poll was taken. Mr. Gupta said the result was 3-6-7 and the motion would
fail.

Mr. Ansary asked for a straw poll on keeping Etcheverry, GPB, cutting South Hall, Haas, and Boalt, and
amending the bill to have a Resolved Clause saying that money saved from cutting these locations would
be used for making in those areas for the election, up to the discretion of the Elections Council Chair.
The request was seconded by Mr. Asuncion. A straw poll was taken. Mr. Gupta said the result was 6-6-
4, and the motion would fail.

Mr. Gupta said he would strongly recommend that they find a different process for coming to an
agreement.

Mr. Nguyen moved to recess for ten minutes. Mr. Gupta said he would offer an alternate solution, to
move into a committee of the whole. It was so moved and seconded by Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Averbach
and passed with no objection. This meeting entered into a committee of the whole.
SB 24, In Support of Promoting Online Elections While Reducing Election Expenditures (cont'd)       - 27 -


Back in regular session, Mr. Law asked for individual straw polls on removal of each location, to include
Boalt, Haas, South Hall, Soda/Etcheverry, and GPB. The request was seconded by Mr. Averbach. Straw
polls were held. For Boalt, the vote to remove the polling location was 13-4-0, and the motion would fail;
for Haas, 14-2-0, and the motion would pass; for Etcheverry/Soda, 0-16-2, and the motion would fail; for
GPB, 2-12-3, and the motion would fail; and for South Hall, 18-0-0, and the motion would pass.

Mr. Averbach moved to recess for three minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wasserman and
passed with no objection. This meeting was recessed.

Back in session, Mr. Gupta called for any motions. Mr. Manassero said he would like to ask for one more
straw poll. Considering Boalt came so close to passing, and being removed, he would ask for a straw poll
on removing Boalt Hall. The request was seconded by Mr. Law. A straw poll was taken to remove Boalt
Hall’s polling booth. Mr. Gupta said the result was 15-4-1, and the motion would pass.

Mr. Manassero moved to amend SB 24, the Resolved Clause, to add to campus polls, 3.2.1.6
Etcheverry/Soda, and 3.2.1.7 Genetics & Plant Biology.

The amendment would also add a Resolved Clause to read:

“Further Resolved, that a portion of savings from each removed polling location shall go towards voter
                   awareness and publicity in the building and/or adjacent area at which the polling
                   location was removed, in whatever form was deemed appropriate by the Elections
                   Council.”

The motion to amend was seconded by Mr. Averbach. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMEND-
MENT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE.

Mr. Averbach moved to call the question on SB 24. he asked to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Manassero said that 3.2.1.5 was stated as “Lower Campanile Plaza.” He would light to strike that,
and renumber the locations accordingly.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Title IV, Article III should be amended to read:

             3.2 Poll Locations
                 1. Campus Polls
                    1. Upper Sproul Plaza (Lower Sproul Plaza in case of repair/construction on Upper
                       Sproul Plaza)
                    2. Dwinelle Plaza
                    3. Wurster Hall, West Entrance
                    4. Evans Hall, East Entrance
                    5. Etcheverry/Soda
                    6. Genetics and Plant Biology
SB 24, In Support of Promoting Online Elections While Reducing Election Expenditures (cont'd)     - 28 -
SB 10, In Support of Cal Lobby Day 2007


The motion was seconded by Mr. Lee. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE.

Mr. Averbach moved to call the question. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nankin and passed with no
objection. THE MOTION TO APPROVE SB 24, AS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE AND ON THE
FLOOR, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PROMOT-
ING ONLINE ELECTIONS WHILE REDUCING ELECTION EXPENDITURES. (Applause)


The following Resolution, SB 10, as amended in committee, was authored by Ms. Nankin and was co-
sponsored by Ms. Allbright, Ms. Mitchell, and Ms. Avelino:


RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CAL LOBBY DAY 2007

WHEREAS, traditionally, Cal Lobby Day is meant to voice student concerns regarding issues that per-
         tain to UC Berkeley as well as the students themselves; and

WHEREAS, Cal Lobby Day is looking to recruit 200-300 students to lobby legislators in Sacramento on
         March 15, 2007 to voice their opinions; and

WHEREAS, the ASUC Office of External Affairs has endeavored to provide students with an opportu-
         nity to actively participate in California government by diligently planning for Cal Lobby
         Day; and

WHEREAS, the ASUC Office of External Affairs has permitted various student organizations to partici-
         pate and voice their opinions to legislators; and

WHEREAS, a rally will commence at noon during which notable Cal alum, legislators, and distin-
         guished speakers will address the students, motivating them to continue performing their
         civic duty; and

WHEREAS, before and after the rally, students, in small groups and by appointment, will discuss rele-
         vant issues with legislators; and

WHEREAS, the ASUC Senate is an institution that serves the students first; and

WHEREAS, the ASUC Office of External Affairs budget for those line items that are to receive alloca-
         tions from the Senate Contingency Fund stands as follows: $2,000 for two buses with 55-
         seat capacity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that ASUC recognizes that Cal Lobby Day is an ASUC-sponsored
        event.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ASUC shall allocate $575 from the Senate Contingency Fund to
          the Office of External Affairs.
SB 10, In Support of Cal Lobby Day 2007 (cont'd)                                                     - 29 -


Ms. Nankin yielded time to Lindsay Bailey, Cal Lobby Corps Director in the External Affairs Office.
Ms. Bailey said there were concerns about the bill passing, as to what added or unexpected expenses
came up. Her answer was that got $1,000 less than they expected from the Chancellor, which was a
huge deal. Also, they went over budget last year in the line item that the Senate presented the office
with. What they had was not adequate to fully fill the gap they were missing. So they have about $1,200
of added expenses that they hadn't initially expected. The office was covering most of those expenses.
They're also getting grants to cover most of those expenses. But there was still an amount to cover just
the basic Cal Lobby Day budget, without anything extra added on. They've adapted it to fit 350 students.
That didn't include additions they'll have, such as an entertainment budget that they hadn't expected to
come up. This was for entertainment booths to entertain students between lobby visits. It will be a very
long day, with students participating in 20 to 40 lobby visits, depending on how many they get in. So an
hour of entertainment will be provided so students wouldn't be bored. She called for any questions.

Mr. Lee asked how many people have signed up for Lobby Day, and if she could compare it to last year.
Ms. Bailey said she didn't know last year’s number and she didn't know what this year’s number will be.
She tried to get in contact with Student Outreach, and the last count she had was 92, and they have three
more weeks. Last year most people signed up the week before, and they plan on doing outreach. A lot
of people have done club raps. They've had a lot of PR problems recently, but PR should be stepped up
within the next week or so. They expect a lot more people to sign up.

Mr. Chen asked how much they would save if they didn't have the entertainment. Ms. Bailey said they
haven't actually talked with the entertainment yet, and they've been pursuing different options. But the
most they'd offer was $100.

Mr. Wasserman said aside from issues with funding, he asked what other unforeseen consequences were
involved in Lobby Day, considering that they were asking $600 from the Senate. Ms. Bailey said she
didn't see how not getting $1,000 from the Chancellor wasn't a good enough reason to ask for another
$600 from the Senate. It was an unexpected funding issue.

Mr. Nguyen asked what the total budget was for the EA office. Ms. Bailey said the Lobby Corps’
budget was around $5,900. She didn't know the total EA office budget. But she’s been told she needed
to cut back on PR because the office budget was dwindling, and if they spend more, they wouldn't be
able to afford to continue the Neighborhood Watch Program and Telegraph Day as strongly as they'd
like, and if they continued to do PR in the manner they had expected to do.

Mr. Wasserman asked about the grant the EA office got recently from the Vice Chancellor, and if that
was an amount the office was expecting to receive, or something the office sought, and how many of
these issues that were up in the air had been planned out in spring budgeting. Ms. Bailey said she didn't
know the answer to the last question. When she first came to the Senate, she asked for $1,500, and the
Senate tabled the bill to see how much they'd get from the Chancellor. They got half as much as they
expected. She didn't know about grants. Mr. Gupta said speaking time had expired. Mr. Lee moved to
extend by five minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Law and passed with no objection.

Mr. Wasserman asked if she could attest whether or not Cal Lobby Day will go through successfully in
terms of the lobbying aspect of the event if the Senate didn't allocate $620 to Lobby Day. Ms. Bailey
said she didn't know, because the $620 still would probably start going towards PR efforts, which would
either add or subtract from the number of participants, and would have an overall affect on the actual
lobbying done for the day.
SB 10, In Support of Cal Lobby Day 2007 (cont'd)                                                        - 30 -


Mr. Wasserman said he thought that part of the budget shortfall was that the office was trying to provide
entertainment, and if that wasn't it, he asked why the office hasn't diverted its resources from finding
entertainment to publicity, so entertainment made up the budget shortfall. Ms. Bailey said that, again,
entertainment would not cost more than $100. They have two different departments working on enter-
tainment and publicity, and two people in her office were working on publicity. Connie Yip, the Chief-
of-Staff, has taken on the responsibility of PR, in addition with their Campus Mobilizing Department.
So if they diverted their efforts from entertainment to PR, and the entertainment people were doing PR, it
wouldn't make that much difference.

Mr. Nguyen asked if she could clarify the money the ASUC allocated to Cal Lobby Day that would go to
publicity and PR. Ms. Bailey asked if he was talking about from the Contingency Fund. Mr. Nguyen
said he was. Ms. Bailey said that some of it probably would be used for them. Mr. Nguyen asked at
what point the EA office developed a budget for an event like Cal Lobby Day. Ms. Bailey said she had
to develop the budget herself. She worked off the budget from last year, which she knew was incom-
plete. So it's not necessarily a perfect budget. She didn't have all the supplies she needed to create a per-
fect budget. She created it at the beginning of the semester.

Mr. Nguyen asked if she was aware that the total budget for the EA office, Lobby Corps, and two line
items, voter registration and Cal Lobby Day, totaled $23,600. Ms. Bailey said she was not aware of that.
However, she knew that the voter registration money was not going towards the EA office and the actual
office budget was only $1,000, and the rest was disbursed among the other departments.

Mr. Ansary asked how much the current budget was for Cal Lobby Day. Ms. Bailey said she didn't have
the budget on her. She just came from a previous meeting and didn't have that information.

Ms. Park asked if she believed the fact that it wasn't an election year would affect the number of partici-
pants on Cal Lobby Day. Ms. Bailey said she didn't, because the issues they focus on were not necessar-
ily election issues, but education issues that applied year round. What especially helps them was having
just come out of an election, because the Assembly was entirely new, as well as one-third of the Senate.
So representatives were the more susceptible to listening to students because they're new. Mr. Gupta
said that seeing no further questions, he would like to thank Ms. Bailey for her presentation.

Ms. Allbright moved to amend the amount to $150 from the Contingency Fund. The motion was sec-
onded by Ms. Mitchell. Objections were raised.

The motion to amend SB 10 to $150 failed by voice-vote.

Mr. Lee asked for a straw poll to approve SB 10 as it currently stood. The request was seconded by Ms.
Nankin. A straw poll was taken. Mr. Gupta said the result was 11-7-1 and the motion would fail.

Mr. Law moved to recess for ten minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lee and passed by voice-
vote. This meeting was recessed.

Mr. Gupta said he would remind them that under the Senate’s rules of order, they were able to fill in the
blank, which would require a majority vote. A Senator could move to fill in the blank. Senators would
suggest dollar amounts, and they would then take straw polls on each of them, from highest to lowest,
until one figure received a majority. So they understood the process, the challenge of that was that once
SB 10, In Support of Cal Lobby Day 2007 (cont'd)                                                          - 31 -


a number received a majority, it still required 14 votes to pass the bill itself. But filling in the blank was
an option.

Ms. Park moved to fill in the blank. Mr. Gupta said that Senators were more than welcome to throw out
numbers. Ms. Park suggested $350. Ms. Allbright suggested $150. Mr. Law moved to recess for five
minutes. The motion was seconded. Ms. Nguyen objected. The motion to recess passed by voice-vote.
This meeting was recessed.

Back in session, Mr. Gupta called for any other amounts for Cal Lobby Day. Mr. Wasserman suggested
$200; Mr. Law suggested $623; Ms. Nankin suggested $500; Ms. Moon suggested $625; Mr. Manassero
suggested $0; Ms. Nguyen suggested $400; Mr. Lee suggested $250; Ms. Nankin suggested $300. Mr.
Gupta said they would take votes on the amounts, starting with the highest and going down. The number
that received the majority of those present would be approved, and that would be the amount that was
amended on the bill. The assumption was that once they vote for a number, they'd keep their hands up
for all succeeding votes. Mr. Law asked if they could lower their hands if they felt the numbers were too
low. Mr. Gupta said they could.

Ms. Moon asked to remove the $625 amount.

Straw polls were taken. Mr. Gupta said there were 8 votes for $623; 11 votes for $400. Mr. Gupta said
the bill was amended to $400.

Mr. Law asked for a straw poll on the bill at $400. The request was seconded by Mr. Lee. Mr. Gupta
said the result was 13-7-0 and the motion would fail.

Mr. Law moved to recess for one minute. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lee and failed by voice-
vote.

Ms. Allbright moved to continue filling in the blank, but to suspend the rules so they base the decision
on a two-thirds vote, rather than a majority vote. The request was seconded by Mr. Wasserman. The
motion to suspend the rules passed by hand-vote 18-0-0.

Mr. Gupta said the rules were suspended and they would continue to fill in the blank until an amount
received 14 votes.

Mr. Gupta said they stopped the straw poll at $400 and would continue it at $350. Straw polls were
taken. Mr. Gupta said there were 11 votes for $350; 7 votes for $250; 4 votes for $200; 11 votes for
$150; 7 votes for $0.

Mr. Gupta said the bill at that time remained amended at $400.

Ms. Nankin moved to amend the bill to $200. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nguyen.

Ms. Nankin moved to amend the bill to $200. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nguyen. THE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE.

Mr. Nguyen moved to call the question. The motion to end debate was seconded by Ms. Nankin and
passed with no objection. THE MOTION TO APPROVE SB 10, AS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE
SB 10, In Support of Cal Lobby Day 2007 (cont'd)                                                      - 32 -
Report from the External Affairs Vice President


AND ON THE FLOOR, PASSED BY VOICE-VOTE, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CAL LOBBY
DAY 2007.

Mr. Gupta said that completed Old Business. The Chair would entertain a motion to move back to IC. It
was so moved and seconded by Ms. Ang and Ms. Mitchell and passed with no objection.


ITEMS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION (cont'd)


Mr. Gupta said they would move back to SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions. They
would hear an authorship speech from Mr. Manassero.

Mr. Manassero said that Mr. Gupta already explained the process the Senate would follow. J-Council
Chair Cuevas was present to answer any questions.

Mr. Law moved to go to Executive Officers’ Reports. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ansary and
passed with no objection.


Report from the External Affairs Vice President


Mr. Chu said he would apologize for the drama of SB 10, In Support of Cal Lobby Day 2007. On a
lighter note, 18 people confirmed that day that they were going to the UCSA Lobby Conference. So
they'll get two vans, and he’d be driving. He looked forward to that. Regarding Safety Week, they'll
work with Academic Affairs for one of the days. They're going to have a professor to do a meditation
workshop on one of the days. Regarding the BART pass, Mr. Chu said they were working on that with
Mr. Permaul, but they'll need help from the Senate. There have been previous attempts to get a BART
pass, but the BART Board has been non-responsive. They're planning to bring everyone together,
including the City, the ASUC, and people from BART, and probably have them come to campus, and try
to pressure them. So Senators should look for updates on that.

Regarding Telegraph Day, Mr. Chu said that was also in the works. For AirBears, the AirBears Advan-
tage from last semester was at the point of being tested at Sufficient Grounds and Peet’s, and the results
will help to see whether they need to expand AirBears to different locations. Regarding Cal Lobby Day,
they're continuing to advertise for that. Also, the UCSA Board meeting will be on Friday, and he’ll be
attending. He called for any questions.

Mr. Nguyen asked if his office was sending anyone to Washington, D.C. Mr. Chu said that Andy Kelly,
from the office, was the only one who was going for sure. Mr. Wasserman has also expressed an inter-
est. Those were the only two people.

Mr. Chu said that he was supposed to write letters regarding SB 1, In Support of Removing Impediments
to Students’ Education, the RISE Scholarship. Mr. Wasserman just had to sign them and they'd be sent
out.
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                                                         - 33 -


ITEMS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION (cont'd)


Mr. Gupta said they would move back to SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions. Any
Senator who wanted to strike any clause of the highlighted JRP revisions should state the wording they
wished to strike and make a motion. It would require a second and would require a majority to pass. If
any revisions were not struck by the end of this process, they would automatically be approved and
would become permanent in the JRPs. The Senate could strike all JRP revisions at once if it wished to
do so.

Mr. Gupta said he would like to point to one specific stipulation that he would require. If a Senator had a
problem with one of two sentences, e.g., or part of a sentence, they were required to strike the entire
clause and would not be able to strike specific wording, replace words, or strike certain parts of one sec-
tion. Any wording that was connected was considered one section.

Mr. Gupta called for any motions. Mr. Lee moved to recess for one minute. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Nguyen and passed with no objection. This meeting was recessed.

Back in session, Mr. Gupta said that based on their recess, he would change the structure of this a little.
He would walk down the document, calling out each specific revision. Once he reached that revision,
any Senator with a concern about the wording could raise their hand and express their concern. Any
Senator had the liberty to make a motion to strike that clause. Once all the concerns were heard, they
would allow J-Council Chair Cuevas to speak on behalf of the change and the intention of the Judicial
Council in making the change, and she could field questions based on concerns Senators had. Once
those concerns were heard and questions were completed, Senators could vote to strike the clause or
debate its removal. But there had to be a motion to strike, or debate. He asked if the procedure was
clear.

Mr. Nguyen asked if they could go into a committee of the whole in order to go through this. Mr. Gupta
said the problem with that was that he couldn't take formal motions for debate or votes.

Mr. Gupta said he would go through the revisions. No objections were raised to 3.6.1.4.2.1; 3.6.2.5;
3.10.7; 4.2.3.10; 4.4.1.1; or to 4.6.3.1.

Regarding 4.7.5, Mr. Chen moved to strike the clause:

       “4.7.5. In cases regarding elections disputes, the spokesperson designated to represent the
               candidate(s) shall be considered acting as the designated representative on behalf of
               the candidate(s) as per Title IV of the By-Laws1. As a result, candidate(s) can be held
               accountable for the actions taken by their spokesperson during a hearing. This desig-
               nated representative is held to the same standards of knowledge and has the same
               responsibilities as the candidates themselves (Title IV of the By-Laws Article 7
               Section 4).”



1
 Title IV Article 13.8 of the ASUC By-Laws: “A candidate, but not his/her party, shall be considered guilty of a violation of the Campaign
Rules by an agent of that candidate acting within the scope of his/her delegated authority.”
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                             - 34 -


Mr. Chen said he thought it was problematic in cases regarding elections disputes. Mr. Rizzo said this
went back to what happened last summer, trying to make a candidate responsible for the actions of their
spokesperson during a hearing. A candidate may designate a spokesperson, but it was unfair to punish a
candidate for something their spokesperson did, 100 percent.

Ms. Nguyen said she thought candidates should be accountable, but in the spirit of due process, she
thought it would be exceptionally biased to be held accountable for a spokesperson during a hearing.
She felt it was necessary to have a separate hearing. If a spokesperson said or did something, they still
had to be held accountable, and there should be a separate hearing for that. It would take a lot of time,
but that would follow due process.

Mr. Garcia said he thought the clause was a little overboard as far as putting the penalty on an entire
group of people, candidates, based on someone who was deemed a spokesperson.

Mr. Averbach said he felt this clause could harm candidates after the fact for things that had nothing to
do with the election. And in a separate hearing, it wouldn't even necessarily be their own voice that was
heard in the case.

On a point of clarification, Mr. Ansary asked if Senators who supported the wording could express why
that was the case. Mr. Gupta said he would allow comments of support, but would prefer that they not
go down the line. People could go into debate to express comments of support.

Ms. Cuevas said that with this clause, the J-Council was in no way trying to make a finding at that trial.
That would not happen, and there was no way the J-Council would be able to get enough evidence to
make any findings. Plus spokespeople wouldn't be on trial, so the Council would not be able to simply
issue a decision. If someone was acting in a manner to try to mislead the J-Council, there would be a
hearing, as there was over the summer.

Ms. Cuevas said that to answer the concern about a candidate being punished for something done by
their representative, that went back to the agency clause. That’s why the amendment specifically said
that this would deal with cases involving elections disputes. If they had a representative as their spokes-
person, candidates should make sure their representative also knew the rules of procedure and of the
ASUC. She spoke earlier about having a list of rules and rights that the J-Council would hand out to
spokespeople, witnesses, and the like, and she thought that would be fine. It would state that they were
still allowed to have a trial because that was their constitutional right, and the J-Council wasn't trying to
take that away. So she didn't think that should be a concern. If people were reading it differently, the J-
Council wouldn't try to issue a judgment at that point. That’s not the way they interpret it, and not the
way they plan to interpret it. But they feel there should be some sort of punishment for a candidate if
their spokesperson tried to mislead the Council on purpose.

Ms. Cuevas said she and Sen. Chen were talking earlier about how perjury worked. It wasn't necessarily
that someone told the Council that they believe something was one way, and if they tell the Council “I
believe in such and such,” the Council would get to interpret whether that’s correct or not. But if some-
one tells them “It is this way,” and they knew it actually wasn't, and there was proof it wasn't, then that
was perjury. So she didn't think this would be a problem as long as everybody knew the rules prior to
coming to hearings. Hopefully, people wouldn't perjure themselves at all, but if that occurred, that pun-
ishment could be a response.
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                           - 35 -


Mr. Garcia asked if she knew of any other precedent where one’s representative, or a lawyer for a party,
if they broke a rule or made a mistake, unwittingly or knowingly, would cause the penalty to the client or
the person they were representing. He asked if there was a precedent for that in the legal system. Ms.
Cuevas said they would be held in contempt, and if there was a problem with misleading someone, usu-
ally lawyers would have some evidence to try to indicate if someone was actually telling the truth. In
case of perjury, the lawyer was not usually the one who was testifying, because it would be witnesses
testifying, offering up information lawyers were trying to gain. So she didn't believe this was a problem
in the legal system because there was someone else giving information, so the lawyers wouldn't end up
perjuring themselves.

Mr. Chen said that although the rules say that during a hearing, the J-Council will interpret and there
would be a separate trial, he asked what was to stop future J-Council from interpreting the wording liter-
ally and issuing a decision at the actually hearing. Ms. Cuevas said they could decide to go with prece-
dent. People were on the J-Council for two years, so they would be able to pass on the information they
had and tell people they're not supposed to find at that hearing. She didn't think anyone on the J-Council
would really see it that way, and think they'd issue a judgment at that time. They simply would not have
enough information to do so.

Mr. Chen asked if it would be simpler, instead of assuming the J-Council would teach the newer mem-
bers about this, to just strike it out and rewrite it in language that made things very clear. Ms. Cuevas
said she herself wouldn't strike the language, and if the Senate decided to strike it, the J-Council would
definitely go ahead and rewrite it. If it would help to have some clarification, that was fine. Mr. Gupta
said speaking time had expired.

Mr. Manassero moved to strike JRP revision 4.7.5. The motion was seconded by Mr. Averbach. THE
MOTION TO STRIKE JRP REVISION 4.7.5 PASSED BY HAND-VOTE 12-7-1.



Mr. Gupta said he would continue to go through the JRP revisions. There was no objection to 4.10.1.



Mr. Chen moved to strike 4.11.1:

      4.11 Pre-Hearing Oath

           1. Before the Judicial Council Chairperson or Acting Chairperson begins the hearing
              they must read the following statement and ascertain affirmative verbal answers
              from all participants in the hearing:

               All participants in a hearing, who knowingly provide untruthful testimony, or
               attempt to mislead the Council with statements that are untruthful, may be found to
               have committed perjury, and declared in contempt of Council. The Council may
               issue such a finding at any time. Do you understand this statement and the implica-
               tions of the contempt of Council ruling?
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                           - 36 -


Mr. Chen said that the proposed amendment states that for participants in a hearing who were knowingly
untruthful or misleading, the Council could issue a finding of perjury or declare a contempt of Council.
He thought it would be an injustice to do so without giving the party a separate trial.

Ms. Cuevas said that this situation was similar to the previous debate. The point of “at any time” meant
they would not give a certain timeline, like with elections cases, where people have seven days to file,
because many times, they don't have the information to file a perjury case immediately afterwards. They
need time to get information, and it would definitely take at least a couple of days after the original
hearing. The J-Council was not looking to disqualify candidates already in office who have been sworn
in. The Constitution says an Executive slate and Senate candidates could only be removed by a vote of
the students. So the court would therefore be going against the Constitution if, six months later, some-
one found that one of them perjured themselves, months ago, and tried to remove them. The Council
wouldn't necessarily be able to remove them because the Constitution would not allow that. So it was
not “at any time,” and there was definitely a time limit in which they're allowed to hear these types of
cases. Also, there's a good faith clause in the JRPs as to whether the Council was allowed to take a case
or not. If the Council felt someone was filing a long time later, they may not necessarily be doing that in
good faith. If someone filed against a candidate now, it would probably be because of some personal
vendetta, and the J-Council wouldn't try to get rid of anybody at that point. The wording was to try to
get people to say that they understood that they were not supposed to perjure themselves, say things that
were incorrect, or try to mislead. This was in no way a full outline of everything the J-Council went
through, but a condensed version of what the hearings were, and their actions and how they go about
hearing cases.

Mr. Averbach said he felt they should have an oath, but he wasn't comfortable saying the J-Council
should issue rulings at any time. He asked how they would know how future J-Councils might interpret
this, and perhaps have a finding at any time. Ms. Cuevas said it might be more difficult in reading this
amendment. If they didn't only read this section, and read the entire section, they'd have a better idea of
what the J-Council did. She didn't think J-Councils in the future would interpret this that they could hear
something six months later. It's a shortened and condensed version of the oath, of what hearings would
entail. “At any time” was saying it wasn't necessary to have a specific timeline. They understand time
restrictions and when they shouldn't hear cases any more. The Constitution trumped the By-laws.

Mr. Law asked if there was a portion of the JRPs that stated that all perjury findings were a result of a
perjury case. Ms. Cuevas said she didn't believe so. But if there's a charge of perjury, that automatically
entailed a case.

Mr. Wasserman asked if the J-Council could arbitrarily decide people have committed perjury, or if it
required evidence. And if evidence was presented at a trial, he asked if the J-Council could take action
and find a charge of perjury at that trial. Ms. Cuevas said that made complete sense, and that’s how
perjury was found last time. They need evidence to prove there was perjury, and they don't just issue
judgments based on a Charge Sheet. So she didn't think they could find perjury except at a trial. Mr.
Gupta said speaking time had expired. Mr. Lee moved to extend speaking time by five minutes. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Law and passed with no objection.

Mr. Law asked if it was technically possible. All the Ms. Cuevas said it was not likely to happen, that a
finding of perjury could be issued without a trial. Ms. Cuevas said it wasn't.
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                            - 37 -


Mr. Chen said that if the Council could not issue such a finding at any time, he asked if the statement, “at
any time,” was inherently a contradiction. Ms. Cuevas said it wasn't. Mr. Chen asked if it was
misleading. Ms. Cuevas said it wasn't, because they're not giving themselves a timeframe past the
hearing. There were rules as to how long people had to prepare a case. So automatically, there's at least
seven days. She didn't feel people would have their time taken away from them as defendants and their
rights were still being preserved. So she didn't believe the wording was necessarily contradictory.

Mr. Chen asked if she thought it would be beneficial to rewrite the clause in a way that was clearer as to
what was meant by “at any time.” Ms. Cuevas said that because this was a pre-hearing oath, she didn't
believe they'd be able to give an outline because they don't outline a time for perjury in any other part of
the JRPs. So to outline it here wouldn't make sense. If they wanted to outline it at some other point, and
say how long someone would have to file a perjury charge, that was fine. But in this clause, it was just
an oath that didn't have that much to do with how they would hold proceedings.

Mr. Gupta said he would like to ask a question, if appropriate. He and Ms. Cuevas sat down that day and
talked about the JRP revisions. Based on his experiences over the summer, he wanted to understand the
changes that were being proposed. They talked about the longevity of a statement. If the Council was to
find someone had committed perjury and then attempted to punish a Senator or Executive already in
office, and the J-Council issued a judgment that punished that individual by kicking them out of office,
or by slashing their budget, or doing something else, he asked what that individual would do, when
Council’s action contradicted two separate parts of the Constitution. In one part of the Constitution, it
states that all decisions of the J-Council were final, unless reversed by subsequent Council action. But it
was also unconstitutional to punish an individual once they were sworn in. He asked what the situation
would be. Ms. Cuevas said that in order to accept a case, the J-Council would need to perform the
remedy that was given to them. If they couldn't perform that remedy, there was no reason to take the
case. So there wouldn't be a case.

Mr. Gupta asked if there was any provision in the JRPs that afforded that specifically, or if it was possi-
ble to add somewhere in the JRPs that in terms of elections violations cases, the J-Council could not
punish a candidate entering office, or that no case could be filed following the swearing in ceremony, or
the certification of that candidate’s election. Ms. Cuevas said she believed that could be added in some-
where. They couldn't add it at that time, but that could go under a few different sections, such as “rem-
edy,” or “good faith.” Mr. Gupta said speaking time had expired.

Ms. Avelino moved to strike 4.11.1. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nankin. THE MOTION TO
STRIKE 4.11.1 PASSED BY HAND-VOTE 12-7-1.



Mr. Gupta said the next revision was 4.13.2. There was no objection to the clause.


Mr. Garcia moved to strike 3.6.2.5. Mr. Gupta said they would consider the revisions in order. If any
Senator would like to go back to another section, they could do so at the very end.


Mr. Gupta said they would continue going through the revisions. The next revision was 4.13.2. There
was no objection.
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                       - 38 -
Report from the Solicitor General


Mr. Gupta said the next revision was to 4.13.7. Mr. Rizzo raised an objection to the clause.

             4.13.7. Evidence that is shown to have been tampered with by the party attempting to sub-
                     mit it to the Council shall not be permitted and the party shall be subject to
                     4.17.3.6 of this document.

Mr. Rizzo said it seemed to be vague, “evidence that was shown to have been tampered with.” He
thought “proven” was much different than “shown.”

Ms. Cuevas said she believed “shown” was the same as “proven,” but she could see how some people
might feel it wasn't strong enough. They have to be “shown” something was true all the time, and that
was how they made their decisions.

Mr. Wasserman said that to be “shown” that something was tampered with required that it be proven that
it was tampered with. Otherwise it wasn't “shown” to have been tampered with.

Mr. Chen said that when they get an e-mail, the format might be different. If someone showed one e-
mail from one server, and compared the same e-mail from another server, they would look different.

Mr. Manassero moved to strike 4.13.7. The motion was seconded by Ms. Avelino. THE MOTION TO
STRIKE 4.13.7 PASSED BY HAND-VOTE 11-7-1.


Mr. Nguyen moved to recess for five minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Law and passed with
no objection. This meeting was recessed.


Back in session, Mr. Law moved to go to reports. The motion was seconded by Ms. Avelino and passed
with no objection.


Report from the Solicitor General


Mr. Kozak said he would apologize to Con-Review, and said he couldn't make the meeting. The
Impeachment Procedures Committee met and didn't have quorum, but they had a good discussion.
They'll talk more about procedures at the next meeting. He’ll meet with J-Council Chair Cuevas, Attor-
ney General Upshaw, and Ms. Wren about elections enforcement. The season was almost there. They'll
enforce the rules pretty hard. A trial was going on regarding the clause in the By-laws about voting
incentives. If people had strong feelings about that, he would ask them to please e-mail him or Ms.
Upshaw. Regarding the job description for Solicitor General, he would get that out.


Ms. Jauregui moved to go to Appointments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wasserman and passed
with no objection.
Appointments (cont'd)                                                                                  - 39 -
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)


APPOINTMENTS (cont'd)


Mr. Gabriel said he would like nominate an appointment, Stephanie Lee, as the Ethnic Studies Fifth
Account Chair. Mr. Gabriel said he would like to thank Chair Gupta for finding this person, and also
thank Ms. Jauregui and others, who were also very helpful.

Mr. Wasserman asked where he could find an application of the Fifth Account to send to people to
apply. Mr. Gabriel said they could get an application from Lavonia Wade, on the 4th floor.


ITEMS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION (cont'd)


Mr. Gupta said they would move back to SB 39, the JRP Revisions, and he would go through the
changes in the order they appeared. There were no objections to 4.14.2; 4.14.3.1; 4.14.5; 4.14.5.1;
and 4.14.6.1.


Mr. Rizzo raised an objection to 4.14.6.2.

      4.14.6.2. Hearsay evidence is not admissible unless: (1) the presenting party has made a sincere
                and conscious attempt to get more direct evidence and has failed, (2) the hearsay evi-
                dence is demonstrated to be sufficiently trustworthy and (3) the hearsay evidence is
                relevant to the proceedings.

Mr. Rizzo said he was under the impression that hearsay evidence was generally not admissible. He
thought “sincere and conscious attempt” and “sufficiently trustworthy” seemed really subjective.

Ms. Cuevas said this was poorly written, and she didn't know how it got by all of them, because it didn't
make that much sense. There were cases where hearsay was admissible, and she would like to clarify
this. She understood how there could be concern the way it was worded and she herself would have
concern with this, so she had no problem with this being stricken.

Mr. Chen moved to strike. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nguyen. THE MOTION TO STRIKE
4.14.6.2 PASSED BY HAND-VOTE 20-0-0.



Mr. Chen raised an objection to 4.14.7.2.

      4.14.7.2. At the top of the affidavit the witness must state: “I understand and accept my
                responsibility to provide only truthful testimony in this affidavit. I also understand that
                knowingly providing untruthful testimony may lead to a perjury ruling by the Judicial
                Council, which can be issued at any time, and I understand the ramifications of this
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                             - 40 -


                 ruling on the parties to the hearing and on myself.” If this statement is not included in
                 the affidavit, the Council will not allow the affidavit to be submitted as evidence in the
                 hearing.

Mr. Chen said that it states that the J-Council could issue a perjury ruling “at any time.” Ms. Cuevas said
she had the same comment as she had the last time that phrase arose. Ms. Avelino moved to strike. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Manassero. THE MOTION TO STRIKE 4.14.7.2 PASSED BY HAND-
VOTE 12-6-2.



On 4.14.7.3, Mr. Wasserman said this relates to the previous section that was struck.

       4.14.7.3. Affidavits must be created in accordance with Section 4.12.1 of this document and must
                 include the clause in 4.14.7.2.

Ms. Cuevas said she would add this again when she amends the previous clause, 4.14.7.2.

Mr. Manassero moved to strike 4.14.7.3. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nankin. THE MOTION TO
STRIKE 4.14.7.3 PASSED BY HAND-VOTE 12-0-8.



Mr. Chen raised an objection to 4.17.1.1.

       4.17.1.1. All participants in a hearing, who knowingly attempt to mislead the Council, for exam-
                 ple by providing untruthful testimony, may be found to have committed perjury, and
                 declared in contempt of Council. The Council may issue such a finding at any time.

Mr. Chen said this was the same argument, that the Council may issue such a finding at any time. Ms.
Cuevas said this clause was the original wording and it should not have been highlighted. She thought it
was made to clarify, but she believed it was in the original JRPs, and she would like to see if that was the
case. They could not strike it, since it should not be highlighted.

Mr. Gupta said the Chair would entertain a motion to recess for five minutes. It was so moved and sec-
onded by Mr. Chen and Mr. Ansary and passed with no objection. This meeting was recessed.

Back in session, Ms. Cuevas said this was not a new clause and it just sounded like the witness clause
they already have. It's almost exactly the same thing as the witness wording that was already in the
JRPs. This was a participant, but not a witness. She thought it was more encompassing, so if people
wanted, they could redo this. It wasn't that different, and 4.17.1.1 just dealt with “participants” instead
of “witnesses.”

Mr. Garcia asked if Ms. Cuevas was saying this wording was highlighted but there was actually no
change. He asked why this clause was highlighted. Ms. Cuevas said it was a separate section because it
was all encompassing and dealt with perjury. It sounded almost identical to the clause about witnesses’
behavior. It was just an addition. It was not accidentally highlighted.
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                           - 41 -


Mr. Manassero said that if there were witnesses, he asked whom the “participants” were who could per-
jure themselves. Ms. Cuevas said that would be spokespeople.

Ms. Avelino said they talked about spokespeople earlier. Ms. Cuevas said this dealt with witnesses and
spokespeople. Ms. Avelino said there was, however, a clause for witnesses.

Mr. Wasserman said that what they addressed earlier was defendants and plaintiffs being responsible for
people’s actions, not whether or not spokespeople themselves could be charged.

Mr. Chen moved to strike 4.17.1.1. The motion was seconded by Ms. Moon. THE MOTION TO
STRIKE 4.17.1.1 PASSED BY HAND-VOTE 11-7-2.



Continuing with the revisions, Mr. Gupta said there were no objections raised to 4.17.4.1. Mr. Gupta
said that completed the revisions.


Mr. Manassero said he would like to go back to 4.14.2.

      4.14.2. All participants in a Judicial Council hearing shall truthfully, accurately, and concisely
              answer any question addressed to them.

He thought that more adjectives led to more complications and were unnecessary. He thought they
should consider all those adjectives.

Mr. Chen asked about opinions people had, and who would be able to say if they were truthful and
accurate.

Ms. Cuevas said she understood how people might question “concisely,” but she believed this clause was
as concise as it needed to be. In terms of how they know whether something was truthful, the Council
took people’s statements, and if there was evidence, people don't have to prove they're truthful. She
didn't see a problem with the wording. The clause was to keep people from rambling on.

Mr. Averbach asked if people should be allowed to give long explanations, to be truthful, and if that
would be hostile. Ms. Cuevas said that would be trying to get away from answering a question. It
applied to not simply answering the question at hand.

Mr. Manassero asked how the J-Council would enforce the rule if people weren't being concise. Ms.
Cuevas said most of them could tell when someone was just trying to talk for the sake of talking, or to
get around an answer; and they understand how frustrating that could be. At that point the J-Council
could hold them as hostile. But for the most part, that never comes up. They want people to answer to
the best of their ability, as quickly as they could.

Mr. Averbach moved to strike 4.14.2. The motion was seconded by Ms. Avelino. THE MOTION TO
STRIKE 4.14.2 PASSED BY HAND-VOTE 11-6-3.

Mr. Gupta called for any further concerns.
SB 39, Resolution In Support of 2007 JRP Revisions (cont'd)                                         - 42 -
Report from the Executive Vice President


Ms. Cuevas said she was confused as to what would have made 4.14.2 acceptable, because she didn't see
how taking out “concisely” would make that much of a difference. This was definitely something she
wanted in there. She wanted participants at a hearing to answer truthfully, accurately, and concisely.
She asked if removing the word “concisely” would make this acceptable, or if it was the entire clause.
Mr. Gupta said it was just the word “concisely.” The JRPs were up to the interpretation of the J-Council.
The current J-Council may not interpret something the same way future Councils do. People might put
limits on answers. Mr. Chen said he thought “to the best of their ability” was appropriate.

Mr. Gupta called for any further changes to the JRPs. Seeing none, he said the Chair would entertain a
motion for a two-minute recess. It was so moved and seconded by Mr. Lee and Ms. Nankin and passed
with no objection. This meeting was recessed.

Back in session, Mr. Gupta said the Chair would entertain a motion to amend the bill as revised, to
amend the Resolved Clause, to add, at the very end, “except for those clauses which have been stricken,”
to read:

"Resolved, that the revised Judicial Rules of Procedure shall be accepted by the Senate as attached and
           submitted on February 2nd, 2007, except for those clauses which have been stricken.”

It was so moved and was seconded by Mr. Averbach. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMEND-
MENT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE.

Mr. Chen moved to call the question on SB 39. the motion was seconded by Ms. Avelino and passed
with no objection. THE MOTION TO APPROVE SB 39, AS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE AND ON
THE FLOOR, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF 2007
JRP REVISIONS.


Mr. Gupta said SB 38 was moved to Old Business and was tabled, and all other bills had been considered.


Report from the Executive Vice President


Mr. Gupta said he would pass the gavel to Assistant Chair Tariq. With Ms. Tariq chairing the meeting,
Mr. Gupta said he would like to thank the Senate for its support, encouragement, and cooperation that
evening. He would apologize, but he was still getting over a cold/voice loss. His Hindi Film Dance
Team took 3rd in the competition that past weekend. The video was up on Google. The lighting was bad.
He hoped they enjoy it, as it was something he’s been committing his time to.

Regarding EVP news, he, Mr. Gabriel, and Mr. Daniels, had a really good meeting with Ron Coley, the
Associate Vice Chancellor for Business Administration. They talked about the fee referendum, which
was the biggest thing on their agenda that week. They're looking at language and making sure they pre-
sent it to the Senate on time. They're talking to the Student Health Fee Committee. It was very compli-
cated, and they'll present it to the Senate properly.
Report from the Executive Vice President (cont'd)                                                    - 43 -


Regarding cage space reorganization, Mr. Gupta said he would apologize to Sen. Wasserman for not
having the e-mail prepared. But he’ll distribute it to the Senate. He would ask Senators to please distrib-
ute it as widely as possible. On Sunday they'll completely empty out the cages and then completely clean
them, and then fill them again. That hasn't been done in a few years, or possibly ever. It will result in a
lot more space for groups. If anyone was willing to help, they're going to be there on Sunday from 12:00
to 8:00. They'll be using the Senate Chambers, so people could bring their work. He called for any
questions.

Mr. Ansary asked if things left in cages on Sunday were up for grabs. Mr. Gupta said anything his staff
felt was salvageable they'll keep on the 2nd floor and hopefully make them into ASUC resources. Any-
thing that wasn't salvageable or not worth keeping, they'll obviously discard. If Senators wanted to par-
ticipate, they could potentially save things for the ASUC to use later on.

Ms. Jauregui asked when the next Multicultural Center Programming Board meeting will occur. Mr.
Gupta said he hasn't called a meeting for it yet. Lyman Mower and Mr. Permaul were asking him to
schedule the a meeting of the Programming and Oversight Boards. He’ll send out an e-mail with the
meeting time by Friday. It will probably be next Thursday afternoon or Friday. He could talk to Ms.
Jauregui about that after the meeting. He would like to thank Ms. Jauregui for reminding him about that.

Mr. Ansary asked if T-shirts were available for Bears Breaking Boundaries. Mr. Gupta said they were.
They're upstairs in his office. Senators were more than welcome to a free T-shirt, so long as they wear it
around campus and encourage people to visit contest.berkeley.edu. They'll be doing a lot more publicity.
They're still collecting judges.

Mr. Gupta said the From All Perspectives Show has potentially 16 groups to fill 12 slots. Groups were
still being selected, so if Senators knew groups that were willing to perform, they should let them know.
They're still trying to contact two groups from last year, including Alpha Phi Alpha. He would ask people
to please send out contact information. There was a lot of positive feedback about their act last year, and
they would love to have them back again. He thought it would make for a well-balanced show.

Ms. Ang asked if he knew how groups will be chosen for the From All Perspectives Show. Mr. Gupta
said they haven't selected a formal process, but of the 16 groups, three of them were primarily South
Asian-performance based, so they'll group those together, because the elements of performance they dis-
play were similar in style. People were watching every act being proposed, and it was basically at the
discretion of the organizers. But he has requested that they put together a formal procedure to select
groups, to make it as fair as possible.

Mr. Wasserman asked if other NPHC organizations were reached out to for this event, versus last year.
He thought if Alphas went last year, Deltas and Kappas should go this year. Mr. Gupta said the commit-
tee said they ran into difficulty. He told them to target that umbrella group specifically and to target
Facebook, but they only got one response. And that person never followed up. If Mr. Wasserman would
be willing to help them get an act, that would be appreciated.


Mr. Manassero moved to go back to Reports. The motion was seconded by Ms. Moon and passed with
no objection.
Report from the Judicial Council                                                                     - 44 -
Elected Official Committee Reports


Report from the Judicial Council


Ms. Cuevas said that weekend they're hearing Azadivar v. ASUC, dealing with the “voter bribe” issue for
getting discount coupons to the ASUC Store for voters. The hearing will be at 2 p.m., presumably in the
Senate lounge. They'll also discuss another charge, a refilling of a previous charge that was amended.
They'll also discuss the Assistant Chair position and filling that.

Mr. Gupta asked if she’s had the opportunity to get voice recorders. Ms. Cuevas said she hasn't bought
them yet, and needed to pay off her credit card bill to have enough money to pay for it. She’ll do that as
soon as she could. Mr. Gupta said he could help.


Elected Official Committee Reports


Reporting for the Advocacy Agenda Issue Committee on Campus Safety, Ms. Allbright said their next
meeting will be on Monday night at 8 p.m., possibly in the Senate lounge.


Reporting for the Advocacy Agenda Committee on Sustainability, Ms. Jauregui said they'll meet on
Monday during TGIF at 115 Barrows at 8 p.m.


Reporting for the Advocacy Agenda Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Ms. Ang said they'll
meet Monday morning in the Senate lounge at 10 a.m.


Ms. Avelino and Mr. Law reported for the Selection Committee for the Outstanding Student Recognition
award. Ms. Avelino said they met with Dean Poullard and they talked about dissolving the program and
instead, sponsoring the Oski Awards, a bigger event, and another way the ASUC could recognize stu-
dents. The ASUC would sponsor different awards, such as Senator of the Year, or Student Group of the
Year. She and Sen. Law will work on the bill. Mr. Law said they'll work on it on Friday at 4:00. If peo-
ple would like to contribute to its writing, they should let them know.


Reporting for the Committee on Reforming the Elections By-laws, Mr. Averbach said he would request
all bills that Senators plan to write to amend the Elections By-laws be submitted by next week at the latest
so the By-laws could be in order and the Elections Council could operate.

Mr. Averbach moved to strike the Committee from the agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Ang.
THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE REPORT OF THE TEMPORARY COMMITTEE ON REFORMING
THE ELECTIONS BY-LAWS PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. Mr. Gupta said the Committee was
stricken.
Elected Official Committee Reports (cont'd)                                                          - 45 -
Reports from ASUC Representatives


Reporting for the Berkeley Student Foundation, Mr. Manassero said they met last week and had a good
discussion about a lot of things. Three more scholarships have been made, and a bill will be written.
There's been confusion about recipients of BSF scholarships, who help run the program, do the outreach,
and do a lot of work people don't see or acknowledge, which the BSF addressed at the meeting. The
recipients have a meeting on Friday and have invited them. If anybody would like to go, he would for-
ward the e-mail. This was an important time to build a bridge, and he would encourage Senators to do
that. Mr. Manassero said they're continually looking at eligibility requirements and different ways of
doing outreach. He would like to thank Mr. Wasserman for working with them.


Reporting for the RISE Scholarship Committee, Mr. Wasserman said they have yet to schedule a meet-
ing time. People should check their e-mails.


Reporting for the Committee to Create Senate Procedures for ASUC Impeachment Proceedings, Mr.
Wasserman said they met earlier that week, but didn't have quorum. They had an informal discussion.


Reports from ASUC Representatives


Reporting as the representative to the GA, Ms. Allbright said the next meeting will be a week from
Thursday. There will be food and the Chancellor will attend. The meeting was from 5:00 to 7:30.

Reporting as the ASUC representative to the Academic Opportunity Fund, Mr. Law said they'll meet on
Friday at 1:00 and they'll interview huge amounts of applicants.

Reporting as the ASUC representative to the Culture Shows Fund, Ms. Avelino said the application was
available and was due March 15, she believed and they'll consider all of them as a whole.

Ms. Ang moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mitchell and passed with no objection.

Roll call was taken for attendance. Members present were:

 Taylor Allbright                  Dmitri Garcia                        Ilana Nankin
 Lisa Ang                          Carolina Jauregui                    Van Nguyen
 Ali Ansary                        Vince Law                            Vivienne Nguyen
 Dwight Asuncion                   Curtis Lee                           Jane Park
 Jen Avelino                       Jeff Manassero                       Donald Rizzo
 Sammy Averbach                    Victoria Mitchell                    David Wasserman
 Brandon Chen                      Eunice Moon

This meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.

                                       These minutes respectfully submitted by,
                                       Steven I. Litwak, Recording Secretary
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure                                                                              -i-


JUDICIAL COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE


ARTICLE       1.0    Validity

              1.1    Purpose

                     The purpose of these Judicial Council Rules of Procedure is to establish guidelines for the conduct
                     of the ASUC Judicial Council, and members of the Association, and to provide for the proper
                     execution of its duties laid forth in Article IV of the ASUC Constitution.

              1.2    Equal Protection

                     These rules of procedure ensure that the ASUC Judicial Council provides every person or group
                     with an equal opportunity to receive fair and just protection under the ASUC Constitution, and
                     under all other rules and regulations of the Association.

ARTICLE       2.0    Jurisdiction

              2.1    The Council shall have the power to hear and adjudicate the following types of cases:

                     1.         All cases arising under the ASUC Constitution.

                     2.         All questions of interpretation of the ASUC Constitution.

                     3.         Charges of violations of the Constitution, or of the rules and regulations of the ASUC.

                     4.         Charges of violations of the duly approved by-laws of the subordinate organizations of the
                                ASUC.

                     5.         Charges of violations of the rights of the individual in the ASUC.

              2.2    The Council shall have the power to issue orders to ensure the proper execution of its
                     responsibilities and authority derived from the ASUC Constitution and from the rules and
                     regulations of the ASUC.

ARTICLE       3.0    Pre-Hearing Procedure

              3.1    Initiation of Actions

                     1.         The Judicial Council may summon any body of the Association that seeks to affect the
                                Judicial Council or its actions to a hearing to determine the legality of the body’s actions.

                                1.       Should the body refuse to appear, the Judicial Council may continue to behave
                                         according to these rules or the status quo.

                     2.         A written request for judicial action or remedy may be brought to the Council by any
                                member or employee of the Association. Such written materials will be considered from
                                the time they are submitted and reviewed in a regular Judicial Council meeting.

                     3.         Failure to abide by the guidelines for the filing of documents set forth by these rules of
                                procedure may result in a Default Judgment at the time of the hearing (see JRP 4.1).

              3.2    Justices of the Judicial Council will be available for consultation on procedural matters.

              3.3    If at any time a Justice recognizes that they possess a conflict of interest, he/she shall recuse
                     themselves from all matters concerning the hearing.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                              - ii -


              3.4    Advisory Opinion

                     1.       An advisory opinion is a formal opinion of the Council on questions of the law within its
                              jurisdiction.

                     2.       A petition for an advisory opinion must be filed in writing with the Council. Copies of the
                              petition must also be filed with the Attorney General and with the ASUC Auxiliary. The
                              petition should include a description of the matter requiring clarification, as well as the
                              portions of the Constitution and/or other rules and regulations of the Association that
                              pertain to the matter. The advisory opinion will be issued as soon as Council arrives at a
                              decision.

                     3.       An advisory opinion has no binding force on any persons or organizations within the
                              ASUC, including the Council.

              3.5    Types of Hearings

                     1.       Trials are used to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant brought before the
                              Council. Trials will take the form in one of the following manner.

                              1.       General Hearing
                                       For a general hearing, the hearing shall take place no sooner than seven days after
                                       the case is accepted and no later than is reasonable.

                              2.       Allocution Hearing
                                       If the Council orders an allocution hearing, the defendant will appear before the
                                       Council to give a full account of the infraction. The Council will also take
                                       statements from interested parties regarding the appropriate remedy.

                     2.       Questions of Interpretation

                              For hearings in which the Council is asked to clarify a question of the law, the hearing
                              shall take place no sooner than seven days and no later than is reasonable. The hearing
                              will take place according to procedures for Interpretative Hearings.

                     3.       Expedited Hearing

                              Any form of hearing may proceed according to an expedited schedule if the Council deems
                              it necessary. The hearing will take place after all parties have been notified and have had
                              an appropriate amount of time to prepare arguments.

              3.6    Initiating the Hearing Process

                     1.       Charge Sheet

                              1.       To request a hearing, a charge sheet must be filed in writing with the Council.
                                       Copies of the charge sheet must also be filed with the Attorney General, and with
                                       the ASUC Auxiliary. The Council requests nine copies of the charge sheet.

                              2.       Public Records

                                       1.       Charge sheets are accessible to the public once they are filed.

                                       2.       Charge sheets are not accessible to anyone other than the Justices if the
                                                plaintiff files the sheet under seal. The Council may unseal the charge at
                                                anytime.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                               - iii -

                             3.      Charge sheet forms will be made available at the Judicial Council’s office and on
                                     the ASUC website, if at all possible.

                             4.      The charge sheet shall include:

                                     1.       The names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of
                                              the person(s) filing charges.

                                     2.       The list of persons charged, along with e-mail addresses and phone
                                              numbers when available.

                                              1.   For all cases - list all parties that could be directly affected by the
                                                   outcome of the hearing

                                     3.       All specific violations the plaintiff complains about.

                                     4.       All relevant supporting evidence, or detailed descriptions of such
                                              evidences.

                                     5.       Statements as to the constitutional, statutory, and/or regulatory
                                              provisions allegedly violated.

                                     6.       The type of judicial relief sought.

                                     7.       Requests for Preliminary Injunctions and the rationale (regarding
                                              irreparable harm) for the request.

                                     8.       Requests for an expedited hearing, and the rationale for the request.

                                     9.       Requests for Gag Orders, and the rationale for the request.

                                     10.      Whether the Charge Sheet is being filed under seal.

                     2.      Review of Charge Sheets

                             1.      After the filing of a charge sheet, the Council shall meet as soon as possible to
                                     determine if the case should be accepted.

                             2.      In order to accept a case, the Council must find that four conditions are met:

                                     1.       The case is within its jurisdiction.

                                     2.       The factual allegations constitute violations of the Constitution, statutory,
                                              and/or regulatory provisions stated on the charge sheet.

                                     3.       The constitutional, statutory, and/or regulatory provisions cited provide
                                              adequate grounds for the remedies requested.

                                     4.       The case is filed in good faith. The following are non-restrictive
                                              guidelines for determining this condition:

                                              1.       Election violation cases are considered filed in good faith if they
                                                       are originally filed before 4 p.m. on the Tuesday following the
                                                       close of polls.

                                              2.       Appeals for election violation cases are considered filed in good
                                                       faith if they are filed within seven days following the release of
                                                       the original decision.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                                 - iv -


                                                3.        Cases to invalidate an election are considered filed in good faith
                                                          if they are filed within seven days after the election count.

                                                4.        A case is not filed in good faith if it can be shown that the
                                                          petitioner has a malicious intent to delay or interfere with the
                                                          judicial process.

                              3.       A majority vote of those Justices participating at a meeting shall determine if the
                                       case is accepted.

                              4.       The Council shall review the charge sheets in closed sessions.

                              5.       In the extreme event the Council does not believe a hearing will provide any
                                       substance to its consideration of the controversy brought to its attention, the
                                       Council may issue a summary judgment directly after considering and accepting
                                       the case. The Council may issue such a judgment without prior consultation with,
                                       or consent from, either party involved in the case.

                     3.       Notification

                              1.       If the Council rejects the case, the plaintiff(s) shall be notified of the decision.
                                       Explanation shall be given in writing.

                              2.       If the Council accepts the case, all parties shall be notified of the time and place of
                                       the hearing.

                                       1.       The Chair shall assign a Justice to consult with the participants in a
                                                hearing regarding procedural matters and aid in the smooth progression
                                                of pre-hearing matters. The Chair or the assigned Justice may delegate
                                                these pre-hearing responsibilities to a Council Clerk.

                              3.       If the defendant does not wish to contest the charge, they must so indicate to the
                                       plaintiff and the Justice assigned to oversee their case.

                              4.       When not inconvenient, notice shall be given of the hearing by posting in a
                                       conspicuous location such that parties with interest in the hearing will be notified.

                                       1.       As hearings are not motions brought by members of the Council, they are
                                                not main motions subject to the public posting requirements in the ASUC
                                                Constitution.

              3.7    Gag Orders

                     1.       A Gag Order may be issued by any Justice at any time a Justice believes the situation
                              merits such an order.

                     2.       Once a Gag Order has been issued, the parties involved with the matter may not discuss the
                              matter publicly, or with individuals not directly involved in the matter.

              3.8    Preliminary Injunction

                     The Council will issue a Preliminary Injunction when there is adequate reason to believe irreparable
                     harm will be done prior to a formal hearing of the Council. Such an order will preserve the status
                     quo of the situation at the time of filing, and shall be rescinded upon a decision of the Council.

                     1.       Emergency Preliminary Injunction
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                             -v-


                             1.       Any Justice may order an Emergency Preliminary Injunction if there is adequate
                                      reason to believe irreparable harm will be done before the Council can meet.

                             2.       Before issuing such an order, a Justice must consider, in his/her best opinion, that
                                      the four criteria for accepting a case are met by the plaintiff’s charges.

                             3.       Before issuing such an order, a Justice will make a good faith attempt to contact
                                      the opposing party and offer the opportunity, within the applicable time
                                      constraints, to issue rebuttal to argumentation for irreparable harm against the
                                      plaintiff and/or to offer their own argumentation for irreparable harm against the
                                      defense.

                                      1.       The Justice will not wait longer than the maximum time before, in
                                               his/her best opinion, irreparable harm would be done.

                             4.       Before issuing such an order, an Associate Justice will attempt to contact the
                                      Chair and/or Assistant Chair for consultation. The Assistant Chair will attempt to
                                      contact the Chair.

                             5.       An Emergency Preliminary Injunction is considered to be an order of the Judicial
                                      Council en banc if it is not rescinded at the meeting immediately following its
                                      inception.

              3.9    Summons and Subpoenas

                     1.      Summons

                             Any Justice may issue a summons, which is an order compelling the appearance of
                             defendant(s) at a hearing. A summons shall serve as a subpoena for all elected officials of
                             the Association and in all election matters.

                     2.      Subpoena

                             Any Justice may issue a subpoena, which is a writ issued under the authority of the Council
                             to compel the appearance of a witness or any relevant evidence at a judicial proceeding.

                     3.      Requests for Subpoenas

                             Counsels for both sides are responsible for providing the Judicial Council with names and
                             contact information of the people and a list of all relevant evidence they wish to introduce
                             at the hearing.

              3.10   Depositions

                     1.      Witnesses shall be deposed at the request of either the plaintiff or defendant prior to a
                             Council hearing.

                     2.      If it is impossible for a requested deposition to take place before the time in which briefs
                             must be submitted, the Council will have the option of barring the witness’s testimony at
                             the time of the hearing.

                     3.      Depositions will be presided over by a Justice assigned by the Chairperson.

                     4.      An audio recording or transcript of the testimony given during a deposition shall be made
                             available upon request to the Justices, the plaintiff, and the defendant.

                     5.      Depositions shall be conducted in the same manner as a regular Judicial Council hearing.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                                  - vi -


                     6.       Plaintiff and defendant are encouraged to be present at the time of the deposition.

                     7.       The plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) are responsible for informing their witnesses and
                              spokespersons about their rights and responsibilities under the ASUC Constitution, By-
                              Laws, and the Judicial Rules of Procedure.

              3.11   Witnesses and Evidence

                     1.       Witness Lists

                              A list of all witnesses testifying in a hearing shall be submitted to the Council and
                              opposing parties forty-eight hours prior to the time briefs are due.

                     2.       Evidence

                              1.         All evidence relevant to a hearing must be submitted to the Council and opposing
                                         parties forty-eight hours prior to the time briefs are due.

                              2.         If it is not logistically feasible to submit the actual evidence to the Council and the
                                         opposing parties prior to the hearing, a list with detailed descriptions of the
                                         evidence may be submitted instead.

                                         1.       Individual Justices may compel the parties in a hearing to submit the
                                                  actual evidence prior to the brief’s due date if the Justice believes it is
                                                  logistically feasible to do so.

                     3.       Subpoena Requests

                              A list of all subpoenas requested shall be submitted to the Council and opposing parties
                              forty-eight hours prior to the time briefs are due.

              3.12   Briefs

                     1.       A brief shall include a summary of the party’s arguments and all relevant evidence

                     2.       A written brief must be filed and e-mailed to the Council by both the plaintiff(s) and the
                              defendant(s) no later than forty-eight hours before a general hearing (note JRP 4.1).

                     3.       Ten copies of the brief must be filed with the Council, and a copy delivered to the
                              opposing party(ies).

                     4.       An amicus curiae brief may be submitted by an interested party before the hearing only if
                              these briefs are also submitted to both parties twenty-four hours before the hearing.

              3.13   Judicial Remedies

                     1.       Hearings

                              1.         The following remedies may follow as the result of a hearing:

                                         1.       Direct Judgment

                                                  The direct judgment states the rights of the parties or expresses the
                                                  opinion of the Council on a matter of law.

                                         2.       Restraining Order
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                                 - vii -


                                                  A restraining order is a preventative order of the Council ensuring that
                                                  any action the Council deems illegal does not take place.

                                         3.       Writ of Mandamus

                                                  A writ of mandamus is a writ issued from the Council to an official of
                                                  the Association compelling performance of an act that the Constitution
                                                  recognizes as a duty.

              3.14 Plea Agreements

                      1.       If a defendant does not wish to contest the charge, they must notify the plaintiff and a
                               Justice of their decision. The Justice will then forward the notification to the rest of the
                               Council for judicial consideration and approval.

                               1.        The Council may schedule a hearing to have the defendant give a full account of
                                         the infraction, and take statements from other interested parties in order to decide
                                         an appropriate remedy.

                      2.       In the event the plaintiff and defendant come to an agreement regarding a remedy for a
                               legal controversy, they may present it to the Council for judicial consideration and
                               approval. Such presentation may take the form of briefs or a hearing, or any other forum
                               the Council deems fit.

              3.15 Official Means of Submission

                      1.       The official means of submission or filing with the Council are restricted to e-mail or
                               physical delivery.

                      2.       E-mail deliveries should be made to the Council Chair, the Assistant Chair, and the
                               Council Clerks.

                      3.       Physical deliveries should be made to the Judicial Council drop-box on the 2nd floor of
                               Eshleman Hall.

                      4.       In the case that the document for filing is a Charge Sheet, the plaintiff is advised to submit
                               with the Auxiliary on the 4th floor of Eshleman Hall, as a copy will be forwarded to the
                               Council.

ARTICLE       4.0     Hearing Procedure

              4.1     Default Judgment

                      If either party to a hearing fails to meet any of the requirements set forth in Article III of these rules
                      of procedure, or fails to appear at the hearing, the Council may declare a Default Judgment against
                      the delinquent party if a majority of the Council determines that the violation prevented the
                      opposing party from receiving a fair hearing. In applying this rule, the Council shall first consider
                      all other judicial remedies.

              4.2     Order of Pre-Oral Arguments Motions

                      1.       Pre-Oral Argument motions must be made prior to Oral Arguments, and when possible
                               shall be written and submitted to the Council before the Council convenes a hearing.

                      2.       Pre-Oral Arguments motions may be made by any concerned party until the Council has
                               recognized a Spokesperson for a party.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                             - viii -


                     3.       The order of Pre-Oral Arguments motions shall be as follows:

                              1.       Motion alleging conflict of interest for an individual Justice.

                              2.       Motion for Joinder of Party.

                              3.       Motion for Severance of Party.

                              4.       Motion to consider the Judicial Council’s jurisdiction.

                              5.       Motion for the Council to recognize a Spokesperson for a Party in the hearing.

                              6.       Motion for a Default Judgment.

                              7.       Motion to dismiss charges.

                              8.       Motion to suppress evidence.

                              9.       Motion to suppress a witness.

                              10.      Motion to sequester a witness.


              4.3    Conflict of Interest

                     1.       A charge of conflict of interest may be brought against a Justice participating in the hearing
                              by a concerned party before the Oral Arguments. Any concerned party may enter
                              arguments on the question of whether a Justice should be dismissed from the case for
                              conflict of interest.

                     2.       In order for a Justice to be dismissed from a case for conflict of interest, it must be
                              demonstrated to the Council that the Justice has personal or financial interests that would
                              lead to personal concern over the outcome of the case.

                     3.       The Justice in question shall have an opportunity to speak to the allegations.

                     4.       A motion for dismissal on the grounds of conflict of interest shall be decided by a majority
                              vote of all Justices present, excluding the Justice in question. The charged Justice shall not
                              sit as a member of the Council during consideration of the motion and shall not participate
                              in the Council’s deliberations concerning their alleged conflict of interest. The Council
                              shall not be subject to quorum requirements in considering such a motion.

              4.4    Joinder and Severance of Party

                     1.       A motion for joinder of party must be made by the concerned parties before the beginning
                              of oral arguments. The party seeking joinder must demonstrate to the Council that there is
                              sufficient mutual interest with one of the existing parties to warrant the uniting of the
                              parties into a single suit.

                              1.     Once a joinder of party has occurred, the spokesperson for the joined parties is
                                     considered their designated representative. More than one spokesperson may be
                                     allowed if the requirements of 4.7.3 are met.

                     2.       A motion for severance of party must be made by the concerned parties before the
                              beginning of oral arguments. The parties must demonstrate to the Council that there exists
                              a sufficient difference in the alleged violations against each member of one party such that
                              it would adversely affect the outcome if severance were not granted, or that the individual
                              interests would not be substantially protected by the overall interests of the entire party.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                                              - ix -



                             3.        Any recognized party or member of each may enter into arguments on the question of
                                       whether a joinder or severance of a party should be granted.

                             4.        If severance of party is granted, a separate hearing shall be established by the Chairperson
                                       at a time convenient for all parties concerned, not to exceed the usual time limit for that
                                       type of hearing from the time severance is granted.

                   4.5       Motion for a Default Judgment

                             1.        A motion for a Default Judgment, in accordance with Article IV Section 1 of the Judicial
                                       Rules of Procedure, may be made if it can be shown before the Council that any judicial
                                       procedure was not followed as articulated in Article III of these Judicial Rules of
                                       Procedure.

                   4.6       Motion to Dismiss Charges

                             1.        A motion to dismiss charges may be made if at any time material witnesses or evidence
                                       that was proffered in the Charge Sheet, Witness List, or brief cannot be produced.

                             2.        A motion to dismiss charges may be made if it can be shown that at least one of the
                                       conditions for accepting a case no longer qualifies.

                             3.        A motion to dismiss charges may be made if it can be shown that the effective outcome of
                                       the case is moot.

                                       1.   If the case involves a matter of interpretation that may be applied later to similar
                                            circumstances, the Council may choose to deny the motion.

                   4.7       Spokesperson for Each Party

                             1.        The official spokesperson for each party must be designated and duly recognized by the
                                       Council before the opening of oral arguments.

                             2.        Only those designated and recognized spokespersons may address the Council during oral
                                       arguments to make arguments, present evidence, examine witnesses, and raise objections.

                             3.        Each party shall have one spokesperson, unless the requesting party can demonstrate to the
                                       Council a compelling need for more than one spokesperson. The Chairperson of the
                                       Council shall rule on the request.

                             4.        Spokespersons for the various parties in a hearing will be registered students of the
                                       University of California, Berkeley.

                             5.        In cases regarding elections disputes, the spokesperson designated to represent the
                                       candidate(s) shall be considered acting as the designated representative on behalf of the
                                       candidate(s) as per Title IV of the By-Laws2. As a result, candidate(s) can be held
                                       accountable for the actions taken by their spokesperson during a hearing. This designated
                                       representative is held to the same standards of knowledge and has the same responsibilities
                                       as the candidates themselves (Title IV of the By-Laws Article 7 Section 4). [Struck by the
                                       Senate.]

                   4.8       Motion to Suppress Evidence



2
 Title IV Article 13.8 of the ASUC By-Laws: “A candidate, but not his/her party, shall be considered guilty of a violation of the Campaign
Rules by an agent of that candidate acting within the scope of his/her delegated authority.”
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                               -x-


                     1.      A motion to suppress evidence may be made to bar the submission of evidence to the
                             Council if it can be shown that such evidence is objectionable according to JRP 4.13.

              4.9    Motion to Suppress a Witness

                     1.      A motion to suppress a witness may be made to bar the submission of testimony before the
                             Council if it can be shown that such testimony is objectionable according to the rules of
                             objections or JRP 4.15.

                     2.      Witnesses that are found before the Council to have committed perjury are automatically
                             suppressed unless all parties in a proceeding agree to allow the witness’ testimony.

              4.10   Motion to Sequester a Witness

                     1.      A motion to sequester a witness for the duration of the hearing may be made if it can be
                             reasonably shown that the witness’s testimony may be influenced by listening to other
                             witness testimony or by the hearing’s proceedings. This motion can be made by
                             spokespersons or by Council members.

              4.11   Pre-Hearing Oath

                     1.      Before the Judicial Council Chairperson or Acting Chairperson begins the hearing they
                             must read the following statement and ascertain affirmative verbal answers from all
                             participants in the hearing:

                             All participants in a hearing, who knowingly provide untruthful testimony, or attempt to
                             mislead the Council with statements that are untruthful, may be found to have committed
                             perjury, and declared in contempt of Council. The Council may issue such a finding at any
                             time. Do you understand this statement and the implications of the contempt of Council
                             ruling? [Struck by the Senate.]

              4.12   Order of Oral Arguments and Presentation of Evidence

                     1.      General Hearings

                             1.         The defendant will have an opportunity to enter a plea.

                                        1.       If the defendant pleas guilty, then argumentation will be restricted to any
                                                 questions of interpretation and the appropriate remedy.

                                        2.       If the defendant pleas no contest (either verbally or by not attending the
                                                 trial), then the defendant will offer no defense and entrusts the Judicial
                                                 Council to make a fair judgment.

                             2.         The plaintiff will present oral arguments, testimony of witnesses, and other
                                        evidence.

                                        1.       The time allotted is twelve (12) minutes.

                             3.         Cross examination of a plaintiff’s witnesses by defendant.

                                        1.       The time allotted is ten (10) minutes.

                             4.         Examination of plaintiff and plaintiff’s witnesses by the Council.

                             5.         The Defendant will present oral arguments, testimony of witnesses, and other
                                        evidence.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                             - xi -

                                      1.       The time allotted is twelve (12) minutes.

                             6.       Cross examination of defendant’s witnesses by plaintiff.

                                      1.       The time allotted is ten (10) minutes.

                             7.       Examination of defendant and defendant’s witnesses by the Council.

                             8.       Closing arguments by the plaintiff followed by the defendant.

                                      1.       The time allotted is five (5) minutes for the plaintiff and five (5) minutes
                                               for the defendant.

                             9.       Final examination of all parties and witnesses by the Council.

                             10.      With the approval of the Chairperson, presentations may be modified in any way
                                      that allows the plaintiff and the defendant equal time to present their arguments.

                     2.      Questions of Interpretation

                             1.       The plaintiff shall be given thirty (30) minutes to present oral arguments on the
                                      matter before the Council.

                             2.       The defendant shall be given thirty (30) minutes to present oral arguments on the
                                      matter before the Council.

                             3.       The Attorney General shall be given thirty (30) minutes to present the position of
                                      the Association in the matter when the Association is not otherwise involved.

                             4.       The Justices may ask questions of the speakers at any time.

              4.13   Rules of Evidence

                     1.      Evidence is anything offered to the Council to prove or disprove an alleged fact

                     2.      All evidence presented to the Council must be relevant to the proceedings. Relevant
                             evidence is that which tends to prove or to disprove the factual issue in the complaint.

                     3.      Evidence shall be submitted with the brief, or at any time prior to the brief’s due date. Any
                             evidence not submitted by deadline for brief submission may be suppressed by the Council
                             if the opposing party has not had sufficient time to prepare cross examination or counter
                             evidence.

                     4.      Evidence that violates a defendant’s rights (Art XI, ASUC Constitution) may not be
                             submitted unless the defendant waives such rights.

                     5.      All parties have the right to examine all evidence once submitted to the Council.

                     6.      All evidence presented is admitted if there are no valid objections.

                     7.      Evidence that is shown to have been tampered with by the party attempting to submit it to
                             the Council shall not be permitted and the party shall be subject to 4.17.3.6 of this
                             document. [Struck by the Senate.]

              4.14   Rules of Witnesses

                     1.      A witness is any individual other than a spokesperson who provides testimony before the
                             Council in a hearing.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                             - xii -


                     2.      All participants in a Judicial Council hearing shall truthfully, accurately, and concisely
                             answer any question addressed to them. [Struck by the Senate.]

                     3.      Witnesses may be questioned by either spokespersons or Justices.

                             1.       If a witness is uncooperative or vague in response to questioning, the witness may
                                      be declared hostile. Upon such declaration by the Chair, the witness may be
                                      asked questions in such a manner that constrains their responses to specifically
                                      answer the question addressed to them by the questioner.

                                      1. Witnesses who violate any part of 4.14.5 and its subsection may also be
                                      declared hostile witnesses.

                     4.      Witnesses must, to the best of their ability, provide the Council with relevant and truthful
                             testimony.

                             1.       Witnesses who knowingly provide untruthful testimony may be found to have
                                      committed perjury, and declared in contempt of Council. The Council may issue
                                      such a finding at any time.

                     5.      Witnesses who are testifying may not speak, or be spoken to, except to answer questions
                             directed to them through direct examination, cross examination, or Council questioning.

                             1.       Witnesses must be physically separated from all other individuals at a hearing
                                      while they are testifying. It is up to the discretion of the Council to separate
                                      witnesses for the duration of the hearing.

                     6.      Hearsay Testimony

                             1.       Hearsay evidence is defined as evidence of a statement made by someone other
                                      than a witness testifying at the hearing that is offered to prove or to disprove the
                                      truth of the matter stated. The statement may be oral or written, and includes non-
                                      verbal conduct intended as a substitute for words.

                             2.       Hearsay evidence is not admissible unless: (1) the presenting party has made a
                                      sincere and conscious attempt to get more direct evidence and has failed, (2) the
                                      hearsay evidence is demonstrated to be sufficiently trustworthy and (3) the
                                      hearsay evidence is relevant to the proceedings. [Struck by the Senate.]

                     7.      If a witness is unable to attend the hearing, they may submit an affidavit for the Council’s
                             consideration. Prior to the affidavit’s submission to the Council, all parties in a hearing
                             must be notified and have their questions addressed in the affidavit.

                             1.       If all parties in a hearing have not had their questions addressed by the witness’
                                      affidavit, they may request the affidavit be suppressed.

                             2.       At the top of the affidavit the witness must state: “I understand and accept my
                                      responsibility to provide only truthful testimony in this affidavit. I also understand
                                      that knowingly providing untruthful testimony may lead to a perjury ruling by the
                                      Judicial Council, which can be issued at any time, and I understand the
                                      ramifications of this ruling on the parties to the hearing and on myself.” If this
                                      statement is not included in the affidavit, the Council will not allow the affidavit
                                      to be submitted as evidence in the hearing. [Struck by the Senate.]

                             3.       Affidavits must be created in accordance with Section 4.12.1 of this document
                                      and must include the clause in 4.14.7.2. [Struck by the Senate.]
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                            - xiii -

              4.15   Rules for Raising Objections

                     1.      Objections may be raised at any time by any recognized spokesperson of either party or by
                             a Justice.

                     2.      Objections may be raised to challenge any of the following:

                             1.       The relevance of evidence presented.

                             2.       The evidence presented may be hearsay.

                             3.       A witness may be speculating.

                             4.       An allegation is not supported by the evidence presented.

                             5.       An examiner is leading a witness towards an answer.

                             6.       An examiner is badgering a witness.

                             7.       A question has already been asked of a witness, and that witness has already
                                      answered the question.

                             8.       The propriety of procedural deviation from these rules of procedure.

                             9.       A party has not had sufficient time to examine submitted evidence, or evidence
                                      submitted at a hearing

                             10.      A party has not had sufficient time to depose a witness, or otherwise prepare to
                                      examine the witness’ testimony.

                             11.      A spokesperson is being argumentative.

                     3.      The party that did not raise the objection may respond to the objection.

                     4.      The Chairperson shall rule on all objections raised.

              4.16   Rulings of the Chairperson

                     1.      The Chairperson may deviate from these rules to facilitate or ease the progress of a
                             hearing.

                     2.      The Chairperson may issue compelling orders to maintain hearing stability.

                     3.      All rulings made by the Chairperson during a hearing shall be subject to review by the rest
                             of the Council if an objection is raised. The Chairperson shall explain his/her ruling. A
                             majority vote of the Justices present is necessary to overturn the Chairperson’s ruling.

              4.17   Behavior of Participants

                     1.      All participants in a Judicial Council hearing shall truthfully, accurately, and concisely
                             answer any question addressed to them.

                                      1. All participants in a hearing, who knowingly attempt to mislead the Council,
                                      for example by providing untruthful testimony, may be found to have committed
                                      perjury, and declared in contempt of Council. The Council may issue such a
                                      finding at any time. [Struck by the Senate.]

                     2.      The participants must also conduct themselves in a courteous manner. Violation may
                             result in the removal of the party from the hearing.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                                - xiv -

                     3.         The Council may declare, either during or after a Council hearing, a participant to be held
                                in contempt of Council for any of the following actions before the Judicial Council:

                                         1.       Interrupting Justices or participants in the hearing intentionally.

                                         2.       Disrespectful behavior or disregard for the formality due the Council.

                                         3.       Defying an order of the Council, either issued by the Council en banc or
                                                  by an individual Justice.

                                         4.       Disparaging a Justice.

                                         5.       Malicious subpoenas.

                                         6.       Knowingly providing false or misleading testimony or evidence to the
                                                  Council.

                     4.         Individuals found in contempt may be asked to leave the proceedings, may be forcibly
                                removed from proceedings, may be disallowed from appearing again before the Council,
                                and a Default Judgment may be issued against the party the participant sought to benefit.

                                         1.       If the Council has already issued a direct judgment on a case, a Default
                                                  Judgment can only be issued through a re-hearing or an appeal.
              4.18   Recesses

                     Any Justice may call for a recess at any time during the hearing. The Council must then
                     immediately go into a closed session.

ARTICLE       5.0    Post-Hearing Procedure

              5.1    Judgment

                     1.         After a hearing, the Council shall discuss and consider the case in closed deliberation in
                                order to arrive at a decision.

                     2.         For the purposes of all proceedings, the defendant(s) shall be considered innocent until
                                proven guilty. In order to find the defendant guilty, the Council shall decide that the
                                following conditions have been met:

                                1.       The factual allegation(s) are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

                                2.       The conduct in question violates a stated provision in the ASUC Constitution or
                                         By-Laws.

                                3.       The remedy arrived at is proportionate to the severity of the offense and in full
                                         compliance with the ASUC Constitution and By-Laws.

                     3.         A decision is formulated at any time the Council comes to a formal opinion on a matter
                                before the Council. If a decision cannot be reached for lack of a majority opinion, the
                                Council may request advice from the legal advisor.

                                1.       In the event that the Justices cannot reach a decision that satisfies a majority, the
                                         “Marks” rule shall apply when determining the binding decision. According to
                                         the “Marks” rule, “when a fragmented [Council] decides a case and no single
                                         rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of [a majority of the Justices], ‘the
                                         holding of the [Council] may be viewed as that position taken by those Justices
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                                   - xv -


                                            who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’” In the final decision,
                                            the Council shall state the narrowest rationale for the decision. 3

                          4.       If the reason for which any hearing was held is not satisfied by that hearing, or if for any
                                   other reason the Council decides that the hearing should not have taken place, or cannot
                                   render a reasonable decision or remedy due to lack of evidence in the matter, the case may
                                   be dismissed with explanation. No consequence follows as a result.

                          5.       The judgment of the Council shall be held in strict confidence until a formal written
                                   judgment can be approved and issued by the Council.

                          6.       A copy of the Council’s decision will be given to plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) within a
                                   reasonable amount of time after a hearing.

                          7.       Copies of the Council’s decision shall also be forwarded to the Attorney General, the
                                   Senate Secretary, the ASUC Webmaster, and the ASUC Auxiliary.

                          8.       The Judicial Council shall provide a written decision to the Chair of the Senate. The
                                   written decision shall include a list of Justices who agreed with the majority opinion in a
                                   case and a separate list of those who agreed with each dissenting opinion in a case. This
                                   information shall be part of the written statement of conclusions released by the Council.
                                   Such information shall be furnished to the Chair of the Senate prior to the next Senate
                                   meeting after the verdict is released.

                                   1.       Should the ASUC Senate repeal in whole or in part the provisions in Title XXI
                                            which protect Justices from impeachment based on their vote, the Justices shall
                                            not be required to release their individual decisions.

                          9.       Decisions need not be signed at the time of their release, but must be signed before they are
                                   sent to the ASUC Auxiliary. Every Justice participating in the decision (either majority or
                                   dissenting) must read the decision and give their approval to the language for it to be
                                   released.

                 5.2      Rehearing

                          1.       To request a rehearing, a petition for rehearing must be filed in writing with the Council.
                                   A copy of the petition for rehearing must also be filed with the Attorney General, and with
                                   the ASUC Auxiliary.

                          2.       The Council will grant a rehearing for any of the following reasons:

3
  The Marks rule was applied to determine the holding of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 16L. Ed 2d 1,86 S. Ct. 975
(1966), a pornography case in which the Supreme Court reversed a state court judgment finding a book obscene. In Memoirs,
three Justices reversed on the grounds that the book had not been shown to be “utterly without redeeming social value”; two
others reversed on the grounds that the First Amendment prohibits any action by governments to suppress obscenity; and one
Justice reversed on the grounds that the book was not “hard core pornography.” In Marks the Court stated that the ‘governing
standards” of Memoirs were those announced by the three-Justice plurality because the other Justices who concurred in the
judgment did so “on broader grounds.” 430 U.S. at 193

The Court in Marks did not clearly explain what it meant by “narrow” and “broad” grounds. But in that particular case, the
plurality’s opinion was the “narrowest” in the sense that it as the most conservative reason for reversing the finding of
obscenity and it was a reason that was subsumed within the grounds articulated by the other justices who concurred in the
judgment. In Memoirs, the six Justices concurring in the judgment expressed three viewpoints which could be placed on a
continuum from narrow to broad. The narrowest would permit a finding of obscenity if the book in question is “utterly without
redeeming social value.” A somewhat broader view would permit a finding of obscenity if the book is “hard core
pornography.” An even broader view would not permit any book to be found obscene. On this continuum, the first view is
clearly the narrowest and, therefore, articulates the finding legal standard constituting the Court’s holding.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                             - xvi -


                              1.       Introduction of newly discovered evidence of a significant nature which could not
                                       have been introduced before.

                              2.       Demonstration that previously introduced evidence is false.

                              3.       Demonstration that any participant in a hearing committed perjury.

              5.3    Appeal

                     1.       When appealing, the burden of proof rests on the petitioner. Appeals may be granted for
                              any of the following:

                              1.       Demonstration that a reversible error with regard to a conclusion of law may exist.

                              2.       Demonstration that judgment was significantly influenced by a violation of due
                                       process, as set forth in these rules of procedure.

              5.4    Appeal to the Legal Advisor

                     When the Council denies a petition for rehearing or appeal, the petitioner may then appeal the denial
                     to the Legal Advisor, who may then make appropriate recommendations to the Council.

ARTICLE       6.0    Council Administrative Rules

              6.1    Quorum

                     For the conduct of a proper hearing, or a proper meeting, a quorum shall consist the majority of the
                     eligible Justices.

              6.2    Orders

                     1.       Orders issued by the Council as a whole may only be rescinded by the Council as a whole.

                     2.       Orders issued under the authority of the Council by individual Justices are subject to
                              review by the Council. Such orders may be rescinded by the Justice who issued the order
                              or by the Council as a whole.

                     3.       The Chair may stay an order issued by another Justice. Individual orders issued by the
                              Chair may be stayed upon an agreement of the Assistant Chair and the senior Associate
                              Justice.

              6.3    Permanent Record of the Council

                     1.       A written, audio, or video recording will be made at all official hearings for the future use
                              of all Justices.

                     2.       A Permanent Record of hearing material for all hearings shall be kept including the charge
                              sheet, briefs, decisions, and all other relevant material.

                              1.       The Chair and Assistant Chair shall both maintain separate copies of the
                                       Permanent Record, beginning with the start of the academic year, and ending at
                                       the next academic year.

                              2.       When the Permanent Record for an academic year is complete, one copy will be
                                       held in the Association’s archives (or succeeding organization), and one copy will
                                       be retained by the Chairperson of the Council such that the records will be
                                       immediately available to the Council.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                           - xvii -

                     3.      The permanent record shall be available to all members and employees of the Association.

              6.4    Decisions

                     1.      Justices must have been participating during oral arguments and deliberations in order to
                             participate in a judgment.

                     2.      No decisions may be handed down without a written statement of the Council’s
                             conclusions.

                     3.      Those participating Justices in disagreement are entitled to write a minority or dissenting
                             opinion(s), which shall be included along with the majority decision for distribution.

              6.5    Chairperson

                     1.      The Chairperson is responsible for calling all meetings, arranging all hearings of the
                             Council, conducting all meetings, maintaining order at hearings, and is generally
                             responsible for all administrative functions of the Council. These duties include
                             maintaining attendance records of the Council, proposing the Council’s budget to the
                             Senate, reporting the Senate on the status of pending cases, and any other duties within
                             these Rules of Procedure.

                     2.      The Chairperson may delegate any of his/her responsibilities to any other Justices.

                     3.      The Council shall elect a Chairperson by majority vote, to serve for one year, reckoned
                             from the date of election in which he/she is elected.

              6.6    Assistant Chairperson

                     1.      The Assistant Chairperson shall assume the responsibilities of the Chairperson in the
                             absence of the Chairperson.

                     2.      The Council shall elect an Assistant Chairperson by majority vote, to serve for one year,
                             reckoned from the date of election in which he/she is elected.

              6.7    Mentoring

                     1.      Sitting Justices who have served for at least one election cycle will be mentors to newly
                             appointed Justices.

                     2.      All Justices who have served more than one election cycle must be mentors before a
                             Justice may act as a mentor to more than one newly appointed Justice.

                     3.      The Chair will determine which sitting Justices will mentor each newly appointed Justice.

                     4.      Mentors will be responsible for training their apprentices in the Association’s Constitution,
                             the By-laws, these Judicial Rules of Procedure, and overall jurisprudence.

              6.8    Legal Advisor

                     The Council shall select a Legal Advisor. The Legal Advisor shall be available for consultation to
                     Council Justices. He/She shall also be available at his/her discretion for consultation with other
                     members and employees of the Association.

              6.9    Resignation

                     A Justice is considered resigned from the Council when they provide verifiable documentation of
                     their resignation to the Chair or the Council en banc.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                            - xviii -


              6.10   Judicial Council Clerks

                     1.        Judicial Council Clerks shall assist the Justices with the functions of the Council. Such
                               duties shall include any tasks delegated to the Clerks including, but not limited to:
                               delivering subpoenas, contacting participants in Judicial Council proceedings, collecting
                               briefs and charge sheets, and making copies of Judicial Council documents.

                     2.        The Judicial Council shall have the option of selecting as many Clerks as the Council
                               deems necessary.

                     3.        Clerks will be accepted and released upon a majority vote of the Council.

                     4.        Clerk’s responsibilities will be expanded or limited at the discretion of the Council, by
                               majority vote.

ARTICLE       7.0    The Emergency Second Court of the Judicial Council

              7.1    Purpose

                     1.        The purpose of the Emergency Second Court is to ensure due process to all parties when
                               members of the Judicial Council are party to the controversy.

                     2.        The Judicial Council shall delegate its constitutionally granted powers of judicial remedy
                               upon the Emergency Second Court whenever the appropriate jurisdiction is established.

                     3.        The Emergency Second Court is not a standing body. It shall only be formed when
                               jurisdiction is established.

              7.2    Jurisdiction

                     1.        The Emergency Second Court shall only be called in regard to election disputes.

                     2.        The Emergency Second Court may only hear and adjudicate cases in which members of
                               the Judicial Council are plaintiff to the charge.

                     3.        The Emergency Second Court shall not hear matters of judicial interpretation.

                     4.        If jurisdiction for the Emergency Second Court cannot be clearly established, the Court
                               will not be called.

                     5.        The Judicial Council shall not hear appeals from the Second Court if the appeal materially
                               affects the Judicial Council as a party to the dispute. In this case, the Second Court will be
                               initiated again.

              7.3    Composition

                     1.        The Emergency Second Court shall consist of a jury of peers, all being members of the
                               Association.

                               1.   The jury shall have seven jurists. If seven cannot be produced, then the jury will have
                                    five jurists.

                               2.   The jury will decide on the guilt or innocence of the defendant as a matter of fact.

                               3.   Upon a conviction, the jury will decide on the appropriate remedy according to the
                                    ASUC By-Laws as a matter of law.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                                - xix -


                     2.       The Attorney General shall preside as judge of this Court.

                              1.   While presiding, the Attorney General is vested with the responsibility of pre-hearing
                                   logistics and maintaining procedural order during the hearing.

                              2.   The Attorney General will brief the jury on the details of the case, but he/she shall
                                   make no findings of fact or law.

                              3.   The Attorney General may delegate any responsibilities to the Solicitor General.

                     3.       Attorney General Conflict of Interest

                              1.   If the Attorney General or Solicitor General is named in the lawsuit, then he/she shall
                                   not carry out any of the assigned functions in the Emergency Second Court.

                              2.   In the case of such conflict of interest, the Chair of the Senate shall be vested with all
                                   responsibilities assigned to the Attorney General.

              7.4    Initiation of Action

                     1.       The Emergency Second Court is a subsidiary of the Judicial Council. In order to request a
                              hearing by the Second Court, an official charge sheet declaring such must be filed through
                              the Judicial Council.

                              1.   The petitioner must establish the Second Court’s jurisdiction.

                     2.       The Judicial Council’s pre-hearing procedures shall be followed in considering the case. If
                              the case is accepted, the Council will consider the Second Court’s jurisdiction. When
                              jurisdiction is established, the Judicial Council shall call upon the Attorney General to
                              initiate the Emergency Second Court.

              7.5    Jury Selection

                     1.       The Attorney General shall seek out potential jurists who are unconnected to the
                              government.

                     2.       The Senate Constitutional Review Committee may interview these potential jurists and
                              approve five or seven.

                     3.       If either party can show that a jurist has a conflict of interest, that jurist shall be dismissed
                              and replaced. The Attorney General shall rule on such motions.

                     4.       If either party is found guilty of tampering with any jurist(s), the Second Court shall issue a
                              Default Judgment in the opposing party’s favor. The Attorney General shall rule on such
                              motions.

                     5.       Each time the Emergency Second Court is called, the jury selection process starts anew.

              7.6    Procedure

                     1.       The Emergency Second Court shall use the Judicial Council’s pre-hearing, hearing, and
                              post-hearing procedures.

                     2.       The Emergency Second Court shall use the Judicial Council’s appeals process. In the case
                              that the Judicial Council is materially affected by the dispute, the Attorney General shall
                              decide on the appeal request.
Appendix -- Judicial Council Rules Of Procedure (cont'd)                                                                 - xx -


                         3.       In the case of ambiguities, the Emergency Second Court shall refer to these rules of
                                  procedure.

ARTICLE          8.0     Amendments

                         As proposed amendments to these Rules Of Procedure are brought by members of the Judicial
                         Council, amendments are considered main motions, and as such are subject to the public posting
                         requirements of the ASUC Constitution.

Last revised on January 27, 2007 by Chair Sonya Banerjee.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:6/8/2012
language:
pages:65