The Agrinautica

The ASUCD Gulag
   After a 2+ hour debate in which two people cried, the ASUCD Senate finally came to an agreement: they would fork out $1,000 to send the controversial Steven Ostrowski to do hard labour in another country.


Indictment Act
   Judicial Proposal 7 was finally passed (12-0-0) as Senate Bill 35. To have the ASUCD Senate consider the removal of a Justice:
   Formerly required a motion by a Senator (no need for a 2nd even), Justice would be told 24 hours in advance that they were being considered for removal (they need not be told (and usually weren't) anything more specific about the charges than that it is a "personnel matter") & that they have a right to make the closed session on them open;
   Henceforth (assuming President Holloway signs the Bill) a motioning Senator will have to write up charges citing (i) the specific bylaw or subsection of the judicial code of ethics allegedly violated, (ii) the specific action or inaction the Defendant Justice allegedly committed and the specific time and place if applicable, (iii) the general evidence or witnesses who would be able to attest that it is reasonable to believe these allegations, and (iv) an argument or explanation that if believed these allegations would render the Defendant Justice unfit for their position; and the validity of these charges must be confirmed by the Internal Affairs Commission; if approved by the IAC, the motioning Senator then may proceed as before (24 hour notice etc), but the defendant Justice shall of course be given the approved charge sheet and may only be charged in accordance with such.
   Unfortunately, when I think about the spurious charges made against ASUC Berkeley Chief Justice Sonya Banerjee earlier this quarter, they might have slipped through even the new indictment process here,* but at least for example the spurious "just to talk' impeachment hearing Sen Birdsall called against Justice Harney & myself last year would have been right out.

   Anyway, needless to say the passage of SB35(2006) should actually make a huge improvement in the independance of the ASUCD Judiciary. It was a very positive note for my last ASUCD meeting, ever.


Using E
   Every time Sen Alexandra Frick's name is called I think my name is being called since "Frick" is a very very common mispronouncement of "Fricke." In fact, our names are in all probability etymologically linked and we share a 16th century Prussian ancestor. I am rather disappointed, however, that Alex's ancestors gave up the fight to explain that the "e" is not silent. (Though my own ancestors missplaced an accent mark that was over the "e" somewhere in Brazil)


Advising Advisor: Rein in Reign or Resign
   The Aggie ran an editorial yesterday supporting Elections Chairman Leathers' call for ASUCD Advisor Tucker to change his behaviour or resign. This comes a day after a front page article reporting on the situation, which was initiated the day previous by a livejournal post on the subject by Leathers.
   Article ends with "Tucker has little ASUCD experience and would do well to pay some respect to those students who have been active members of the association longer than he has."
   On any account, rumour I'm hearing is that Tucker was never planning on being the advisor for more than two years, before scampering off to law school. I think its kind of silly to hire an advisor for so short a period of time that they'll never have more experience than the senior student leaders (previous advisor Eric Sanchez was around less than a year). I have a brilliant idea for our next advisor though: former Sen Lamar Heystek.
   I'd be available to take the job presumably, but I'm in no need for such a demotion ;) (For Heystek though it would be an appropriate "day job" to support him while on city council (which does not pay I believe)). But really I plan on not being around here for the rest of eternity ... though on the plus side it would be the ultimate last laugh on Vicki Swett if I ended up with her job.

Quote of the Day: "I bet you never thought I'd be contemplating filing two back-to-back cases!" - Kai "No Need for a Judiciary" Savaree-Ruess.


Year Ago Today: Unqualified Candidates Scandal Breaks - News of the Unqualified Candidates Scandal first breaks. Also, I'm quoted in a student government court opinion in Texas.

   So on Thursday afternoon I parked at the end of Oak St --since it is the closest free parking (after five) to the Memorial Union, at a distance of about a furlong)-- to go to Senate & give them the recent case opinion.
   I'm taking Intro to Public Speaking right now. People think its tedious to make a speech on some topic of their choosing to 20 or so people in the discussion group? Well try addressing a room full of Senators & other officers on a subject that (A) is kind of tedious to explain, & (B) is something they disagree with. Not that I stressed about it, I'm used to the senate, but it was a bit awkward that I was basically telling a room full of people that they were wrong on several important points.
   Anyway, I thought the issue was pretty clear when you got down to it, but some such as former senator Darth Lloyd say "to say that i disagree is an understatement my friend," so I've been meaning to once more try to lay out the issues in easily understandable terms. (see below)

   After Senate I was to play intertube waterpolo with Lyrakeet & others, so I left as local legislation enthusiast Brent Laabs was giving a presentation about why we should secede from the union University of California Student Association (UCSA) ("Their charter says 'Student Association,' but their webpage and a number of other documents say 'students association' -- it appears they don't even know their own name").
   Next I needed to get my swimtrunks which I thought were at Kristy's place in The Colleges, about four furlongs across campus -- I could drive there to have my car with me, but since there's only ten "guest" spots for the several hundred people that live there, the odds of getting one are slim and the closest free parking spot would probably still be Oak. So I walked over there.
   Only, they weren't there! I was supposed to be at the pool in fifteen minutes, yet I was half a mile from my car and it was hot and I wear wearing a suit & tie! )=
   Lyric & Kim picked me up and we made a mad dash to my place for my togs and back to the pool.... but the other team hadn't shown up anyway so it was all for nothing.

   Friday morning I toured McGeorge Law School with Φ A Δ, and then that evening Kritsy & I went to see the Yeah Yeah Yeahs at The Warfield in SF.
   I'd never been to the Warfield before. It was pretty awesome. Looked like an Opera-house or something. Kitten-princess & I were only four rows back from the front of the balcony, which means we had an excellent view -- though Krispy Kritter would have liked to prance about on the floor.

   This morning I took a mock LSAT over at the UCD law school (BTW, I mentioned a bit ago that Sara Henry was running for president of the Law Student Assn -- well she lost). Before and after this I made an appearance at the dry run Davis MUN was doing for the upcoming conference we put on here. I started to take the "UberCAT" test (CAT = Chair Aptitude Test, but really it was megalomaniacally backronymed to be named after SG Catherine, who created them)to test out of chair training but then I had to leave for the Mock LSAT.


Picture of the Day

Bailey & Kristy slumber

Van Schoelandt v. ASUCD Senate
   Since its long and tedious to explain it in any more understandable terms than it already is in the opinion, I think I might address specific parts of the case in different entries. For now, an outline of the arguments:
   Of course the case regards a closed session that occured on 01/12/06 in the midst of a constitutional crisis. No reason for the closed session was announced, but after it was over the Senate had a Bill written to retroactively change the requirements for Senate office. The codes state that notification in various forms is to be given for closed sessions, and that these sessions can only be called for specificly listed reasons.
(1) Defence asserts the session was called as a "personnel matter." Does it fulfill the requirements for a personnel session?: (A) can a personnel closed session be called "in general" about nothing (and no one) specific? (B) Can Senators-elect be considered subject personnel? (Can the outcome of an election be considered a "Personnel Matter?")
(2) (A) Can a personnel closed session be called on people without their knowledge? (B) Can a personnel closed session be called without notifying the public?
(3) How can this situation be remedied in light of the potential privacy concerns of hypothetical subject parties who may hypothetically have been discussed?

   Once you are familiar with the discussion of these subjects, I believe you, like me, will be completely at a loss as to on what grounds Lloyd completely disagrees.


Current Music: I dedicate the song Hefner - To Hide a Little Thought to the Closed Session of 01/12/06 and everything that ensued. (= Dl it while its hot!

Previously on Emosnail
   Two Years Ago Last Wednesday: Getting Shafted By Airport Security - A chair my first PAXMUN conference down in San Diego. Mara talked me into it. This girl Swati was in my committee, two years later she's introduced to PAXMUN as a staffer for the San Diego conference 2006.
   Two Years Ago Yesterday: Day Before the Pixies Show - Which was followed by the day OF the Pixies day, incidently, which was a lot more exciting.

   At the time, running on promises to end ASUCD corruption and shadiness, the Friends Urging Campus Kindness facebook group accrued an unprecedented 2,000+ subscribers. Since then, official leaders of the group have one by one been guillotined until only three of the original seven remained: Pete Hernandez, Kristen Birdsall, and Rob "Robespierre" Roy. For fear that the mighty banhammer would be used to squash further dissent, leadership of the group was placed under a Protection Committee and Roy was temporarily relieved of bannorizing privileges.
   I then sent out the following message: (title: F.U.C.K. Officers to be Removed by ASUCD)

Friends Urging Campus Kindness was founded in opposition to the corruption and shadiness that had been prevelent at the time within the ASUCD Senate.

Last Thursday the Senate passed legislation retroactively eliminating requirements for office so they could seat certain people. This Thursday the Senate has placed on its agenda the removal of four long-time Friends Urging Campus Kindness supporters for having expressed dissent over this.

Senators Roy and Birdsall, elected via F.U.C.K. themselves, are poised to support this action.

I urge you to tell Roy and Birdsall yourselves whether you feel this represents what F.U.C.K. stands for.

Message Kris Fricke for more ways you can help keep the F.U.C.K. in ASUCD and prevent Senate from fucking F.U.C.K.

   So as you may have gathered we had a bit of a debacle in Senate on Thursday. The novel-length account of the situation can be found on daviswiki, or a shorter summary can be found in someone's livejournal here (though note that the candidates are allegedly on disciplinary probation, not grade-related academic probation -- see my comment if you read the entry for further explanation).

Prologue
   Basically, though it was discovered that some candidates were on disciplinary probation (ie plead guilty before SJA for some kind of ethical or criminal lapse), once they'd been elected but before taking office, they had survived what was supposed to be a verification of disciplinary probation earlier because due to some kind of miscommunication they weren't reported as on probation. The question came to the Court to decide whether or not the verification had taken place, or should be done again.
   The seating of senators was delayed while everyone waited for the Court to hear the case, and the outgoing Senators remained in office for two additional meetings because Senate met on the last day of fall quarter and first day of winter -- and the Court needed three days notice to have a hearing. When the Court did meet, it was discovered that quorum could not be met because Justice Johnson had neglected to inform anyone that he no longer attends UC Davis. Anyway, I decided to hold the Hearing and then have Senate decide if it was legitimate before the ruling was announced. Plaintiff and Defence did not object to this arrangement prior to the hearing; both sides objected following the hearing. Which brings us to last night:

Extraordinary Session of ASUCD Senate of 12 January 2006
   The Senate rejected the legitimacy of the hearing, insisting that quorum rules are there for a reason. They then held a lengthy closed session during which they all tried to escape through the window and determined that election rules are not there for a reason, and eliminated the requirement that candidates not be on disciplinary probation. They further removed the Elections Committee Chairman from the certification process --because he didn't agree with their actions--, thereby breaking with all precedent (all political elections in the United States are certified by the elections administrater). While they were working on this bill during the closed session, however, the Court had been convened across the hall. Once the Senate read their bill (SB 36), the Court read the order they had just completed themselves:

It has been argued that Judicial Code Three Section 301 could literally be interpreted to grant quorum during the hearing. The Court rejected this as against the Spirit of the bylaws.

Senate appears now to be seriously considering overriding bylaws to accomplish the opposite of their spirit.

If the Senate does this, the Court's objection to the literal interpretation of section 301 will be overridden. Quorum will immediately and retroactively be considered to have existed during the hearing. It's opinion will immediately be official and binding.

Thursday I hung out with Carissa and we explored local labyrinthine edifice The Social Science Building, known endearingly as "The Death Star."

   That evening I went to the ASUCD Senate meeting. It was dominated by an extensive debate about whether or not the Senate should pass a resolution urging local businesses not to accept advertising from cigarette companies (or something along those lines). I just listened for logical fallacies in the arguments and desisted from participating. I got on the speakers list during public discussion at the end, but the Senate adjourned before I could speak. I might mention some of my thoughts next week.
   Of particular note though, I was very disappointed in the way more than one senator summarily rejected the comparisons the "pro-smoking" Focite senators (particularly mini-Kalen) were making to alcohol, simply because they said the two things were "different." This you see, was "political correctness" in action. You probably don't think of being anti-smoking as being "politically correct," because it seems like an obvious thing to many people, but when one won't even listen to the arguments against alcohol because you know smoking is condemnable but drinking isn't so much, thats where you're letting PC guide your actions. PC makes taking certain stances condemnable and leads to less intelligent discussion and a generally undesirable political environment (though at the time one will probably not notice if one is themself on the PC train). Don't get me wrong, I am for the gradual elimination of smoking from society, and am against similar treatment of alcohol, but the summary refusal to entertain the Focite proposal offended me.
   Eventually the resolution passed with Rob Roy flipping a coin to decide the crucial vote (video footage!).

Friday I went to Murder Burger for lunch with Roxie and her friend (Molly?). We saw turtles in Putah Creek and Kalen Gallaghers at Murder Burger (along with Kalen's "hetero lifemate," Behzad).

Friday night: see Pledging. Also saw The Motorcycle Diaries with Kritsy and Sashie. Its about Che Guevara before he became a radical revolutionary.

Saturday morning I took the Foreign Service Written Examination (FSWE). A six hour test designed to see if your hand has the endurance necessary to process paperwork while under fire in third world kleptocracies while advocating US policy (from a cubicle). Also Azver was there.


Pledging
   Monday night we had our first pledge meeting and informed of everything about the process. Wednesday night we met our "big sibs." Mine is a girl I've known for awhile, she was a Senate reporter for KDVS like two years ago I think. I escaped early though because I needed to put together a presentation in Swedish that I had to give the next morning.
   Friday night we had casino night, which I thought was cool because I have no idea how to play poker but would like to learn where money isn't on the line - as in this case. I've found my lack of understanding can almost be advantagious, since obliviousness to the value of ones cards leads to a perfect poker face. At one point I beat someone who had a flush with a better flush, causing them to exclaim "he plays a flush just like a low pair, its insane!!" Fact is though, that I hadn't even looked at my cards until I turned them over. (=
   After a glorious winning streak however, people nickle and dimed me to death until I was only up 12 points.


Picture of the Day

Weekly ASUCD Report
   A bill was passed unanimously by the ASUCD Senate two weeks ago which would allow Court members to write legislation. Currently the judicial codes forbid Court members from writing legislation, making them the only nine members of ASUCD who cannot write legislation (Aggie employees can't either but thats their rule, not an ASUCD one).
   I'm told by Senator Thomas Lloyd, though independant confirmation hasn't been successful yet, that President Gallagher vetoed the legislation. Lloyd claims that I tricked everyone (all of IAC, all of the Senate) because it didn't explicitly say that Court members could only write legislation on the Judicial Codes and Article VII of the Constitution (the judicial article). I think this is preposterous considering the legislation is only like five lines. If they interpreted it to be wildly different than it actually was, its certainly not my fault they failed to read and interpret FIVE FREAKING LINES.
   Consequently, Lloyd has authored a bill which went through Internal Affairs Commission on Monday which very explicitly removes the rights of Court members to write legislation on things other than the Judicial Codes or Article VII. Incidently there is no precedent anywhere in the world outside ASUCD for abridging our ability to write legislation, nor is there any reason that holds any water. The one that continually comes up is "whats to stop them then from abusing their power and writing legislation giving them more power," to which the obvious answer is that it has to go through the entire process of IAC, Senate and President. Additionally, wouldn't that same argument make for a much more realistic reason to ban the president from writing legislation? And what about the Senate??
   If the previous legislation was really vetoed, I say the Senate should override the veto this Thursday. If one really wants to push the argument that the Court is going to go mad with power with the ability to write legislation, I urge that one at least be consistent and similarly ban the executive office from writing legislation other than for the Government Codes and Article III of the ASUCD Constitution.

   Otherwise, the new Senators were sworn in last Thursday, ushering in an era of unprecedented diversity of affiliation on the Senate. Previously dominated by the two parties, Lead and Focus, the Senate now consists of four Leadite senators, three Focite senators, three independant senators (two republicans and the president of the davis college democrats), and two Urger senators. Also IAC Chairperson Kahliah Laney has become the most recent in a string of resignations.

[Poll #451234]

Rating Elections
   Polling here has indicated that Emosnail readers consider the ASUCD Election to have had a Shadyness Rating of 9.42, with 83% of the respondants indicating a 10.0. Incidently, once the issue could no longer be appealed to us (after the Senators were sworn in), we discussed the topic on the ASUCD Supreme Court. Fortunately most of them knew little about the case, so I gave them the relevant facts while avoiding leading them to any particular conclusion. The members of the ASUCD Supreme Court all found that Roy's actions did not constitute falsification, and furthermore, finding so after having verified the information oneself sounds suspiciously like one is "gunning for him." I would concur: what is listed are possible examples of falsification, but that does not mean they are in all occurances falsification. Clearly, the information was not falsified. Also if they found on the high end of their discretion in this case, what the crap would constitute less severe falsification??

   The MUN election occurred today. In lieu of rumours that there had been intended elections fraud, Dana Davies-Shaw, former ASUCD Senate candidate, Campus Judicial Board member, and Canadian, was brought in to observe the ballot counting.
However, former Secretary-General Catherine Myung (who appears to still be planning everything two weeks after resigning) instructed those wishing to cast their ballots via email to email them to her. I pointed out to her that they ought to be instructed to at least cc these to Davies-Shaw as well. Her response as "I was just planning on printing out all the email ballots, and have them mixed into with the regular ballots. But if Dana is okay having ballot's cc'ed to him, I will send out another email about it. Or I could forward all the ballots to him as well." She never sent out another email. We are therefore depending entirely on Myung's word alone that she faithfully forwarded all the emailed ballots and didn't make any up. I don't mean to say that she did use the opportunity to conduct elections fraud, but its just a huge blow to the legitimacy of the election.

   I've never really understood people who boycott elections, like the Shiites in the recent Iraqi election. Aren't you mainly just screwing yourself over? However, I found myself not voting in the MUN election. It wasn't a boycott in the same way -- I didn't publicize my abstention to any of the relevant parties as a political statement. Rather, it was more for myself. I couldn't in good conscience participate in this election -- any candidate that the current leadership didn't like had been intimidated out of running (I myself would have considered running I think if I didn't feel it would just result in a concerted slander campaign against me and being the victim of completely unfair and fraudulent tactics just like last time). I couldn't grant it the credence of legitimacy without making myself feel sick, so I abstained from participating.

   The amendment to the MUN bylaws I wrote last week to eliminate the Secretariat's ability to expel people from the club without consulting the membership was not voted on today because it was placed sixth our of seven agenda items, and by that point in the meeting we had lost quorum. I have written another amendment that will require amendments to the bylaws to be considered first on the agenda, because otherwise they could be put off indefinitely, as regularly a good third of the members present at the beginning of a meeting are gone by the end.


Shady Quote of the Day
amazonjedimaster: you have no morals of any sort to hold you back
amazonjedimaster: ^_^
PrzemekP: ha! I do
PrzemekP: I have morals, they're just weird and skewed

Previously on Emosnail
   Two Years Ago Today: Another Party on Loyola - and one next door, to which I believe Shemek showed up.
   Year Ago Today: Dancing in the Kitchen - Four months for Kristy and I. Today it has been 16 months of the strongest sauce and heartred.

   Internet has been down again for the last two days or so (currently I'm taking refuge in the study lounge again). Additionally winamp sometimes refuses to work for an hour or so, paintshop like to crash while I'm working on pictures, and my phone even joined in, inexplicably refusing to operate at all for three or four hours the other day.

   Parents are coming to visit this weekend and bringing the car back for me.

   Senate passed the Judicial Reform Act about five hours into their Thursday meeting. The majority of the preceding five hours was spent discussing whether spending $80 on a vinyl sign to advertise the ASUCD Senate was a good idea in light of the fact that vinyl is extremely toxic and bad for the environment; previous signs for the same purpose have been discovered behind cabinets in the senate office, where they are believed to have been forgotten for at least four years; and signs have been successfully made by other ASUCD units for free. Most overrated argument: "other subsidiary units such as Ethnic and Cultural Affairs Commission have nice vinyl signs, we should have one at least as good as them" (paraphrased) -- yeah well the Aggie Student Store (AKA "ASS") has a neon sign but that doesn't mean the Senate should have a neon sign too.

   Currently it is pouring yet bright outside. I find this excellent.


Picture of the Day

To the ASUCD Senate
   Firstly I thought I would note in contrast to what one of you said, I did not have any part in writing the Court bill you saw today. As such I let him take all the questions about the bill. I was on the speakers list to speak and tried to get people's attention to get a deferment of my own, but neither of those tactics was successful. As such I have some things to say.
   ASIDE to everyone who wasn't at the senate meeting: the bill would have enabled Court members to author legislation pertaining to the function of the Court, as currently they cannot write any legislation.
   Firstly I'd like to point out that the major argument put up against the bill is a logical fallacy. The argument was that if we could write legislation about the Court, then (A) we could do whatever we want "even remove people," and (B) then if the legislation came before the Court we'd all be biased and it would be an unacceptable situation.
   Now see, unless you are arguing that the judicial branch should NEVER be reformed, presumably judicial legislation WILL be written, and presumably the SAME situation could occur where it gets challenged to teh Court and we would have the SAME conflict of interest - in that we were considering our own powers. The fact of who wrote the legislation is miniscule compared to the "conflict of interest" problem of evaluating ones own power. Basically the situation would be the same either way, and interpretations of "judicial review" in western law theory generally accept that supreme courts must be considered capable of evaluating even things that affect themselves.
   As to the argument I've identified as (A) above, I need hardly point out that this legislation would go before a commission and Senate just like any other legislation, and I'd like to further point out that nowhere does it state at this time that we cannot remove people from positions. That limit on our behaviour exists in my mind alone, and you are fortunate that the rest of the Court happens to agree with me.
   As to the concern brought up by Senator Jessica Engel, that Court members writing legislation creates an ethical problem related to conflict of interest, I'd like to explain the ethical argument for conflict of interest once again (one may recall I did so once already not too long ago). "Conflict of interest" does not exist on its own, it exists from a specific situation in which one's interest may be suspected to conflict with another interest in an unacceptable way. If I were to express a strong opinion on a controvercial bill in ASUCD, I would be setting myself up for a potential "conflict of interest" in that if it comes before the Court one could argue that I have already made up my mind against the legislation and am thus unable to render a fair consideration of the legislation on other merits. Now the reason this wouldn't apply to judicial legislation, is that one cannot rationally argue that I do not have an "interest" in judicial legislation from the start. It by definition affects me, as head of the ASUCD judiciary. My expressing an opinion about the legislation is small potatoes compared to the fact that I already have a vested interest in whether it passes or fails. As such I'd like to respond to the statement made that "I think it is unethical that [these Court members] are even here lobbying for this" with: no it is not unethical for the reasons above. I do not conduct myself in unethical ways.


   So yeah I just came from the ASUCD Senate meeting. They spent a significant amount of the time arguing about "sex toys." Our bill passed after some strong opposition. There's an irregularly scheduled Senate meeting TOMORROW (?!?). 5:30, Mee room. I don't know why it is occuring but I plan on being there.


EMOSNAIL - Your Source For Judicial News Worldwide - Spotlight on Ecuador!
   The Congress of Ecuador has dismissed ALL 31 members of the Ecuadorian Supreme Court. President Gutierrez, who called the special session of the Congress, stated that the Court had become "too close to the opposition." The motion passed by a narrow 52/48 margin. (source)
   Some of the dismissed Justices plan on appealing the situation to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica.
   "Such sauce!" one may well exclaim. I would like to note however, that in the Supreme Court of Ecuador, new justices were appointed by the Court itself. This seems to me to be a Bad Idea, as it does allow the Court to be completely unchecked by the other branches and potentially drift away in some crazy direction.
   New justices are set to be sworn in next Thursday. But with no one on the Court to choose them, how will they be chosen?


Wiki Articles of the Day - read wiki - its good for you
Tiqula Bledsoe - self-proclaimed "Black Caeser of ASUCD"
Igor Birman - Patron saint of legal uprightness in ASUCD.
Gunrock - Blue psychotic whale of Davis. (seriously someone needs to take a picture of this thing)
   As you can see, UC Davis is an interesting place filled with mystical beings and extraordinary persons. I'm told this LJ is now a major referrer for the daviswiki site. Go team!


Previously, On EMOSNAIL
   Year Ago Yesterday: IHOP Revisited - And in the comments, more joke headlines, including another removal hearing against me.


In Other News: Kritsy made stew in the crock-pot the other day. It was awesome.