aggienaut | Removal II

   For the second time in a week the ASUCD Senate will consider removing me from my position as Chairman of the Court tomarrow (11/20/03).

   Regarding the 14 pages of emails mentioned yesterday, I ran into Senator Paloma Perez, defendant in our current case, in the hallway. She demanded that all copies of the emails be returned to her, saying they were her property. I told her that I'd hold them confidential until I could seek legal advise on the issue. She called for my removal before I came back with an answer.
   Also at the time she said "why didn't you come to me immediately when you discovered these??" to which I responded "I don't deal with things outside the Court. Its contrary to my position to personally check with the plaintiff to see that every evidence submission is okay with her."

   Incidentally, what I was advised by my law professor and my friend in law school is that since I am the author of every email in question, they are actually MY original property and are therefore definitely valid evidence.

   Anyway, the bottem line is at tomarrow's Senate meeting I will be considered for removal for the second consequtive time.

Highlights My First Removal Hearing
   In other news: I have a transcript of my first removal hearing now.
Senator LeVale Simpson: "Through all of this, I've come to like Fricke more. ...he seems to not be the best communicator..."
Senator Caleb Hervey: "...he probably knows [the Codes] better than most of us here. ...His disrespectfulness is not the issue, it should be whether he fulfills his duties. We really need to consider if he is attempting to do the job that he is assigned to do. I think Fricke is doing that and, for the most part, he is doing a good job. Throw your personal feelings out the door. I have not heard enough evidence that Fricke is not doing his job well. He is bringing the Code back to where it should be, and we should aid him instead of cutting him off..." (Hervey voted FOR my removal)
Senate President Pro Tempore, Senator Raj Gupta: "...about him being not the best communicator, we all know that ... he is a very stern person and that is his personality. It's not wrong but not well suited for a chair."
Senator Cameron Menezes: "...I don't think he'll change his bull-headedness. ... as far as violations of the bylaws, almost all of us are in violation of the bylaws every week for not submitting reports."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But the "club" is responsible for 9.2 million dollars of UCD student fees, of which a couple hundred I believe are my own.

What they do has implications, because they claim to represent us all in resolutions regarding state and nat'l politics (Which is in violation of IRS tax code since its a non-profit organization, and consists of opinions I usually don't agree with coincidentally), make decisions involving many aspects of campus life, which are sometimes even relevant, and most importantly it in many ways constitutes a legitimate government of the students, and by that last reason alone I feel its worth some effort to have a positive effect on it.

Hmm. I suppose that's true, but how and why would a college with as much prestige as Davis allow for such widespread corruption? It seems as though this system is flawed.

Whomever gets elected into office gets elected into office. Its partially because the codes allow it; that they are not required to charge anyone with anything specific (or anything at ALL really) to have a removal hearing; and I think honestly a lot of it also comes from the culture of unprofessionalism that their advisor, Vicky Swett, permeates.

Removal II - The Sequel!

Re: I'm sorry, but...

Re: I'm sorry, but...

Re: I'm sorry, but...