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.

A Day in the Life of ASUCD Senate
   Still in Senate, Senator Zamora just cited "hearsay" about what a business manager allegedly said about a financial bill, which I thought was funny. Anyway, we're talkign about about a bill to spend $11,500 on security cameras for the Bike Barn. For unclear reasons this bill didn't formally go through Business & Finance Commission (B&F) so people are talking about it at great length here.
   Earlier the Senate discussed spending $1,600 so people can go to the "Reaffirming Ethnic Awareness & Community Harmoney" conference. The Bike Barn bill just passed 9-?-? over the B&F Chair's mild objections.
   Bill for $300 for World AIDS Day shirts. Later we'll be discussing the Justice-Impeachment-Indictment Bill (formerly Judicial Proposal 7, now Senate Bill 23), and the bill to change the wording of the Senate agenda item under which the Chief Justice makes reports. Then a constitutional amendment and a bill placing it in the bylaws regarding the proposed "Outreach Assembly" will be discussed. That should be interesting, its gone through every commission, and it would kind-of create a lower-house of the Senate.

   8:36 - senate is now debating whether "miseducated" is a word
   8:51 - Senator "Tiny" Sanders: "I'm disappointed none of these t-shirts are in extra large. Big people also believe in fighting AIDs! But if it costs more don't worry about it, I'll go work out so I can fight AIDs, or wear a tight shirt!
   8:55 - The passing of the t-shirt bill puts the Senate budget in the red!
   9:38 - a bill reallocating the money formerly given to UCSA just passed, so the budget is no longer in the red. Now the Office of External Affairs is proposing we hire a professional lobbying firm for $15,000 a year (a company that usually charges $30,000 a year). This will of course be coming from the money that formerly went to the UCSA. This company will research education related legislation for us, lobby for us, and train 20 students a year for us. Sounds like it really kicks the ass of our former use of the money.
   10:37 - Kevin Powers (Executive Staff) - "I feel like its Mount Olympus up here ... and some people just can't claim it" (talking about the Outread Assembly now)
   11:07 - Senator Deepek "I want to include some kind of clause or.. quasi-clause..." (it was even funnier at first because I thought he said "clausie-clause")
   11:21 - Senator Higgens "The corruptability of this proposed body will . be . the . downfall . of . this . association." (still talking about the Assembly.)
   12:32 - The Bill & Constitutional Amendment to create the Assembly have passed.
   12:50ish - JP7/SB23 finally comes up, which is the bill I've been waiting for. Things start out good, with two senators speaking very favourably of it, and Ostrowski speaking against (which is in fact a good thing, as Senators tend to rally against whatever he's saying). Then two senators spoke skeptically and Max Mikolanis, who's the author since I am one of nine people in the world who can't be,* got cold feet and withdrew the bill. Next time I'm putting Jabba the Hutt as the author and myself as the author-designee.
   01:10am - Meeting over. I've spent 17 of the last 29 hours at student government meetings.

*ASUCD Justices are forbidden from writing legislation, but non-ASUCD members aren't. Saddam Hussein could write an ASUCD bill, but I can't. At the time they made this rule I tried to point out that it is NOT a violation of seperation of powers if I can write legislation since its the ability to PASS legislation that is unique to the Senate (again, since even Augusto Pinochet can write ASUCD legislation), and that unless they think I could unfairly cause them to pass it through some kind of jedi mind tricks, there's absolutely no reason to prevent me from writing legislation. This was part of the origin of the "jedi mind tricks" epitaph which eventually got stuck to my name (for example I was put on the fake election ballot as "Kris 'Jedi Mind Tricks' Fricke").

   Anyway, this entry is about my farewell address.

( My Farewell Speech )

   In the spirit of the Impeachment Fever that has been sweeping through society of late, I have decided to propose a solution. It will be discussed in Internal Affairs Commission tomorrow (Monday 11/13)(at 5pm, MU Garrison Rm). The only problem, despite the fact that the background section is only two paragraphs long, I can't seem to get it to look right. Specifically, I can't seem to find a satisfactory replacement for the word "spurious." I do like the word, but it found its way into just about every sentence and the harder I try to get it out the more entangled it gets.

   So help me fix this problem. The current Background of the proposed bill reads:

   In order for the Judicial Branch to function properly, it must be protected from political influence. A major threat to this is the prospect of justices being removed over political disputes. Over the last four years there have been impeachments (removal hearings) against ASUCD Justices directly following unpopular court decisions at an average rate of once a year. This also occurs at other schools with similar student governments. Sometimes, however, there are legitimate reasons to impeach Justices, such as failure to attend meetings. The Bylaws should seek to allow impeachments for legitimate reasons while protecting the judiciary from those that are spurious.
   The Internal Affairs Commission currently reviews legislation submitted to the Senate and vets out that which is spurious. Spurious removal hearings however are significantly more troublesome than spurious legislation, being inevitably accompanied by more drama, stress, and a significant disruption of the meeting by having a closed session. It therefore is in keeping with the IAC’s existent duties, and in the interest of the ASUCD Senate, to have the IAC eliminate spurious impeachments.

   ...And the answer is indictment! (First link is the actual Bill, second is the changes in context. Underlines are additions.) And you thought the ICC "Confirmation of Charges" hearing last week was unrelated didn't you.

   Unfortunately alternative synonyms such as superfluous and specious still sound enough like "spurious" that it still sounds weird, and everything else I've thought of has a subtly different meaning. Extra points if you can work in schmaltzy (fatty, unnecessary), contravention, or some other saucy word.


Meanwhile at ASUC Berkeley
The illustrious Beetlebeat continues to provide insightful coverage of the impeachment of Chief Justice Banerjee.