aggienaut | Crossing the Rubicon

   From Tomorrow (Thursday)'s issue of The California Aggie, a guest opinion:

Guest Opinion in California Aggie: (original version)
   While I have nothing personal against the individual members of the Elections Committee, it has come to my attention that a great deal of injustice has been, and continues to be, perpetuated by the Committee. In my position in the judicial system of ASUCD people often come to me with complaints about Election matters. While these are not in my jurisdiction, I point them all in the right direction and am deeply saddened to see incident after incident end in no resolution. I do not believe the members of the Elections Committee wilfully intend to commit malfeasance, but I do believe a spirit of justice is chronically lacking in their operations.
   I am writing this not because I want to upset the members of the Committee or because I think that complaining about it is going to solve the problem; I am writing this because I want both the candidates and members of the Elections Committee to know that rigorous adherence to the rules and justice in ASUCD are goals that ARE attainable. I want you to know your rights, your recourses, and that you are not alone.
   Most alarming of all, I have had former members of the Elections Committee itself come to me with accounts of their erroneous handling of elections complaints. A former committee member I talked to had been under the impression that he was sworn to secrecy about the Committee’s actions and therefore never went public with his complaints. I think its most urgently important that the members of the Elections Committee itself know that not only do they have a right to speak out against perceived injustice, they have a moral responsibility. Once a complaint is formally filed with SGAO the Elections Committee is to thoroughly investigate and post their official finding within two days – including the original complaint, all evidence considered, and the reasoning behind the finding. In short: everything about the process is then public record.
   Another category of harmful misconception is that rules regulating candidate behaviour can be made AFTER a specific candidate exhibits a specific behaviour, and applied to that candidate retroactively. This is not in conformity with western law theory. Two recent examples: (1) certain candidates asked the Elections Committee for a list of words they could not say during the candidate forum. The Committee refused to provide a list. A candidate then used language the Committee deemed inappropriate and had his microphone immediately unplugged. (2) certain candidates had their statements altered, not for length or clarity or even libellous content (the statement was undisputedly true) but because someone apparently did not agree with it being there. In both these examples the Committee is failing to act impartially.
I find that most election candidates are unsure of this system, do not know that they can appeal Elections Committee decisions to Student Judicial Affairs Campus Judicial Board (if filed within three days), and most of all regard their experience as an isolated incident. These are not isolated incidents.
   In conclusion let me again stress that I do not believe the Elections Committee is wilfully obstructing justice and I mean no offence to the individual members. This is an institutional problem that has existed since before any of the current members were on the committee, it is born from a less-than-optimal spirit of rule adherence and bad advice. My only interest is the greatest justice within ASUCD. If you have a question or concern about any matter relating to justice in ASUCD elections or ASUCD at large, please do not hesitate to contact me. As elections are not within my jurisdiction I can thoroughly guide you through the complaint & appeal processes.
   Injustice breeds in silence. The truth shall set you free.

Kris Fricke
Chief Justice, ASUCD Court
krfricke@ucdavis.edu

Guest Opinion: As published

Commentary on the Aggie's Edits
   The original version above actually has two grammatical errors fixed that were wrong in the submitted version and despite all their changes, did not get fixed. The more grievous one is "...I mean to no offense to the individual..." Not only did they leave the mistake in there, but they DID find the time to change the PROPER (Irish) spelling of "offence" to the silly American "offense." But what I'm really bothered about is that they expanded SGAO, which I thought they might, but they elaborated it WRONG - Student Gov't Administrative Office they spelled out as "...Affairs Office." Though 99% of the campus no doubt will have no idea, the people I intend the message for and those I have to deal with on a regular basis are going to think I'm an idiot for a mistake I didn't make.
   Also they cut out a large part of what was the entire reason I wrote it - that I wanted anyone with concerns over the Committee's behaviour to contact me (the last paragraph).
   There are a myriad of other unpleasant edits they made which I believe are, without exception, to the detriment of the peice, but one more thing I'd like to mention specifically even if it ranks very low in the amount of substansive damage; I neglected to title the piece so they gave it a dumb title of their own imagining ("Elections Are A Serious Matter").
   Oh and they cut off "the truth shall set you free."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I would certainly write a VERY brief (and 100% error-free) letter to the editor pointing out the mistake where "to" was printed instead of "no." Leave out your other complaints; they would detract from this one, serious one.

or maybe I should write a similar letter to the editor, this time about the aggie opinion editors: "...I have watched letter after letter have major supporting points or conclusions deleted by the hypereditive staff of the opinion section. Countless innocent submission authors have been made to appear morons for arguments that were robbed of their most crucial elements..."

Is it just me or are nearly all the edits to the detriment of this piece or at the very best of extremely dubious benefit? I'm used to having my spoken quotes butchered, but when I hand them a typewritten document and they do strange things to it its a bit alarming.

Alas any corrections probably wouldn't be acknowledged until next opinion section which is next tuesday. Every day they have a small section of retractions, but the best I could get in there would be "...Affairs Office is actually ...Administrative Office, the Aggie regrets the error," and I doubt they'd even mention that it was their mistake, not mine.

SGAO is worth a correction, and you can request that they say the error was made by an editor, not the author.

alright I'm sending an email right now.. to editor@californiaaggie.com?

And, notice that the "to offense" error was corrected in the print edition.

"Thank-you for publishing my guest opinion on November 18th.

Incidently, the Aggie editorial staff mistakenly expanded "SGAO" to "Student Government Affairs Office" whereas it should be "Student Government Administrative Office." I'm told the Aggie might want to note the error and that it was made by an editor rather than the author in its retraction section.

Thanks

Kris Fricke."

Oh I didn't notice. Kickass.

In the 11/22/04 Aggie, they made SOSSS manager Anthony appear to say the exact opposite of his statement to the senate on friday. The amazing thing is that he sent the Aggie a copy of exactly what he said.

They do indeed have shocking skills.

Heck, what do you expect from the Aggie... Years and years ago they said in my Senate candidate profile that I sat on the "ASUCD International Affairs Commission."

Crossing the Rubicon

Time for a letter to the editor

Re: Time for a letter to the editor

Re: Time for a letter to the editor

Re: Time for a letter to the editor

Re: Time for a letter to the editor

Re: Time for a letter to the editor

Re: Time for a letter to the editor

Re: Time for a letter to the editor

no subject