In my five years of involvement in ASUCD, I have seen a lot of extremely shady antics. As I’ve mentioned before, I do not believe power corrupts, I believe power allows the already-prone-to-corruption to show themselves. There are a lot of scandals in real government, and students love to point these out – but what most people don’t realize is that its not because the people involved in our government are more prone to corruption than your average person – its that they have much greater opportunities (and are under much much greater scrutiny, thus revealing every indiscretion).
That said, I believe what ASUCD does is show us how badly your average ambitious person behaves when given a little bit of power. Or at least, when not behaving downright badly, it really exhibits how much their perspectives change to what is convenient for them.
The Good List
Unfortunately, those with exemplary good ethical standards don’t necessarily stand out the way bad ethics do. I would like to start on a good note however, by mentioning those who have impressed me with their ethics:
Surprisingly Admirable:
(ii) ( Ari Kalfayan )
(i) ( Nafeh Malik )
Exemplary Nonstudents:
(ii) ( Don Dudley, SJA & CJB )
(i) ( Mark Champagne )
Actually Exemplary:
(5) ( Go Funai )
(4) & (3) ( Justices Powers & Wheat )
(2) ( Jon Leathers )
(1) ( Aggie Editor-in-Chief Matty Jojola )
It should be noted, that I cannot account for the most EFFECTIVE people in ASUCD, since I am not in a position to judge how well people are running the busses or running GASC etc etc. The above is a list of those who have had the opportunity to show exemplary ethics (or at least, for the group above that, have more value than people give them credit for). And below, below is a list of the most lacking in ethics.
ASUCD’s Most Ethically Misguided
Mildly Annoying:
(iv) ( Paul Harms )
(iii) ( Kalen Gallagher )
(ii-i) ( Sara Henry & Paloma Perez )
Ethically Dysfunctional:(22) ( Thomas Lloyd )
(21) ( Anyone who, during their term, abandoned or defected from the platform they were elected on )
(20) ( Jamie Ackerman )
(19) ( Chris Goran )
(18) ( Mary Vasquez )
(17) ( Aggie Reporter Talia Kennedy )
(16) ( Aggie Reporter Aimee Theron )
(15-11) ( Aggie Editor-in-Chiefs Vo, Whelan, Fuller, Stone & Hamilton )
(10) ( Andrew Peake )
(9) ( Kai Savaree-Ruess )
(8-6) ( The Unqualified Candidates )
(5) ( Rob Roy )
(4) ( Kristen Birdsall )
(3) ( Chief Justice Turner )
(2) ( Vice President Beaman )
(1) ( Tiqula Bledsoe )
(BONUS) ( Bonus! )
And now… I probably have significantly more enemies. It should be noted that I think many of the people mentioned above are very nice people in general. In particular I feel a bit torn about the “Unqualified Candidates” themselves because they all turned out to be pretty nice people and kept themselves out of any further shadiness that I know of, but it would be hard to justify not including them on the list.
Anyway, my hope in posting this is that people who are just becoming involved in ASUCD will read it and keep in mind what NOT to do in the future.
Invalidating Justices
Jan. 23rd, 2006 08:18 pm I ventured up to the Third Floor today, and ran into Kristen Birdsall. She informed me that it is her belief that the four justices OTHER than me on the Court were not properly selected, and thusly should not be considered to be currently in office. Specifically, the interviewing committee which was to forward nominees to Senate was incomplete, and some justices may not have been administered the oath of office.
I am currently investigating these assertions, and will seek the advice of the 22 Chief Justices of other universities with whom I am in contact. I intend to take Birdsall's concerns seriously and maintain an unbiased position regarding this issue. As such, I will leave advocating for the involved justices up to them -- however, I must say that as a matter of universal policy, they are to be considered duly appointed until proven otherwise in some legitimate and official fashion.
Since people are always eager to blame things on me, let me say also that the two procedures that were allegedly done incorrectly, composition of the interviewing committee and administration of the oath of office, are the responsibility of the President and the presiding officer of the senate, respectively.
Previously on Emosnail
Three Years Ago Today: I am Appointed to the ASUCD Supreme Court - Sometime later I'd realize I hadn't been sworn in and go make someone administer it to me just to cover my ass. Also I meet Amy Zimmerman's twin sister Sharon and hang out with them. Also, good times as a Coffee House cashier. I was like, a CoHo cashier before it was even cool.
Anticipating the Lollercaust
Jan. 22nd, 2006 07:34 pm Someone stole the security camera from the computer lab in our complex! WTF.
Responding to Laughable Charges - Literally
Also, I'd like to speak some more about my expected fourth impeachment this upcoming Thursday. I would like to issue the following statement: LOL
I think I'll put that on a press release. The claims are so misplaced that I haven't got an ounce of fear about facing them. I'd bet money that I'm going to come out of this looking better than I went in, and it will have an inverse effect on those who called it. I'd say I'd actually be disappointed if it didn't occur, but it really is a lot of unnecessary drama and someone or other is going to unnecessarily look bad because of it (And as a matter of policy I am still going to exert the maximum pressure to prevent it from happening so don't expect my ambivalence to make it easy for you). I suppose scheduling an examination of the situation under "presentations," would still be acceptable to me and may spare Birdsall some of the shame of being utterly refuted during impeachment.
But seriously, LOL impeachment. LOL Kristen Birdsall (this is not to be taken to imply any feelings on any matters unrelated to my impeachment; I by no means intend to imply Birdsall is lollable out of this context)
The Duality Bias
Actually I think my biggest obstacle here is overcoming the media duality bias -- the urge to present both sides of a contention equally even if they're not equally valid. For example, as my media effects professor last quarter explained it, 99% of scientists agree that global warming is a fact and caused by people, but because the media feels they need to present "both sides," of the issue, the 1% of scientists (mostly on the payroll of the Evil industry) who contend global warming doesn't take place are given equal airtime.
And so, I say to the campus media, considering that she hasn't given any reason to believe the Court ever had a closed meeting on the evening of the 12th, and that there are numerous witnesses that entry to the conference room was never interrupted, that Birdsall in this case is like the argument that global warming isn't taking place. Yes some people make the assertion, but the media would be more professional not to lend imagined credibility to fanciful ideas that fly in the face of overwhelming evidence.
In other news: Saturday night Chris Bunch had another party. I brought my new flatmate Vishal as well as Jason. We ended up staying until nearly 3am, at which point we rushed Jason's sickly ass back home, then raided Jack in the Box for season fries and stuffed jalepenos.
Picture of the Day

From the archives: Just North of the Grapevine. Yeah my camera is still broken. )=
Previously on Emosnail
Three Years Ago Today: CoHo Economics - How the Coffee House magnifies the value of your money! (at least if you work there)
Two Years Ago Today: CoHo Entertainment - Free things abound in the magical land of Cohostan. ALSO a Court Order for SGAO.
Year Ago Today: Misguided Columnists, Misleading Titles - My letter-to-the-editor in response to Ian Watson is printed ... with a new title that contradicts my messege. Go team! Did the editors even read the letter before titling it? ALSO a picture of the Friends Urging Campus Kindness team --Rob Roy, Paul Amnaypayout & Chad van Schoelandt-- arguing with interim senator (now SGAO staff) Cari "I still worship Vicki Swett" Ham, as Senator Darnell Holloway (now Vice President) looks on.
The Spirit of the Brown Act (Entry # 801)
Jan. 20th, 2006 05:17 pm Not only is this the three year anniversery of this livejournal, but I happened to check how many entries had been made heretofor, and this will be the 801st. See more under Previously on Emosnail.
Yesterday's Impeachment
Yesterday the Senate was to consider my removal for the third time. Unfortunately, they failed to call the removal hearing in the spirit of the brown act and protections given by the ASUCD bylaws for accused individuals, so the removal hearing couldn't go though.
So it turns out the strongest charge against me was that Senator Kristen Birdsall thought it was suspicious and "against the spirit of the brown act" that when Elections Committee member Van Schoelandt pulled her into the ASUCD Conference room on the evening of the 12th the Court was there, along with the case plaintiff and defendant and Van Schoelandt, while meanwhile the Senate was meetings against the spirit of the brown act in a closed session that was not allowed by any of the provisions of the Brown Act OR any of the provisions of ASUCD standing rules.
It is in fact a pretty farcical charge. The fact of the matter is that, "in the spirit of the brown act" we were variously having open meeting and mostly sitting around informally. Numerous people freely stopped by, including President Caliph Assagai, Senator Ari Kalfayan, Commission Chair Gregory Russel, and Commission Chair Genna Carnes (who will recall commenting on how small the keys on my phone are .. they're pretty ridiculously small in fact). And then there's the time I walked down the hall and announced "hey if anyone else wants to join us in the conference room we have more chairs in there" to the people sitting on the floor. I don't know who was witness to that since I wasn't paying attention to whom I was near at the time. The fact is the only person excluded from the room at any point was Plaintiff Joe Harney, when we discussed matters related to his case.
And lets not forget that Kristen Birdsall and Chad Van Schoelandt burst into the room relatively unexpectedly for those of us in there. And while they were in there Caliph Assagai popped in and commented prophetically "well this looks shady." If it was a secret meeting, it was one really really badly kept secret. Fact is, it would have been "against the spirit of the brown act" for us to exclude these people, and we did not.
And while this was ongoing the Senate was meeting behind closed doors for undisclosed purposes, CLEARLY against the Brown Act (the proverbial crickets were chirping when I asked if any of the senators could explain under which allowable circumstance the Senate had met), so I don't see how you can even begin to challenge ME while you have that hanging over your head. Word of advise, it'll help your case if you bite the bullet, admit you were wrong about at least that, and formally make those minutes available to the public. The Elections Committee admitted when they were wrong. I once notified the media 2 days rather than 3 days before a hearing, and despite the fact that the media was in fact present, I had the integrity to admit I was wrong, declare a mistrial, and schedule a new hearing which was done correctly.
In summary: I am charged for violating the Brown Act by enforcing the Brown Act during a time when the Senate was in violation of the Brown Act.
Justice Dies In Silence - The Myth of Non-News
But actually most alarming of all is the fact that the Aggie decided it wasn't noteworthy to report that the head of one branch of govenment, the head of an important committee, and two other important officers were up for impeachment. A representative of the Aggie said that they couldn't confirm whether or not the Senate intended to remove us. Let there be no question, you don't call removal hearings if you don't intend to remove someone. You don't impeach a chief justice just to ask him questions. They didn't impeach Clinton because they wanted the juicy details of his illicit sex life. On top of this, Van Schoelandt had offered to Senator Birdsall that she schedule the matter under presentations and thus not hold any of us liable for removal -- Birdsall obliquely rejected this. As such, she has quite clearly reserved for herself the right to remove any of the persons she attempted to remove.
I mean, why make it needlessly contentious and hostile by notifying people that they are considering their removal if you are not in fact considering their removal. If we are not in fact being considered for removal, and Birdsall for some reason just loves impeachment hearings, I would ask that she officially waive her right to dismiss us pursuant of the upcoming removal hearing which will doubtlessly occur. I ask the media when she tells you she doesn't intend to remove us to ask if she waives her right to remove us. I believe this will cut through her equivication to the dark heart of the matter: she wishes to remove us without setting off bothersome warning flags first.
While we're on that subject, aside from the fact that none of us were conclusively notified, the notification that some of us got didn't even include our names nor any other information that Birdsall thoguht she could get away with not divulging. I would like to state that its my firm belief that the names of the accused are critical (they were all blind-CCed -- their EMAIL address didn't even appear on the inbox -- and I didn't get an email at all), and I would like to ask that all other Senators make a pledge to not endeavour to keep people in the dark until the last minute if you plan to try to remove them -- tell them what the basic nature of your charge is at the time you notify them of it. I've had to ask the Senate to consider the removal of justices who weren't coming to meetings before, and at the time I notified them I forwarded them all documents related to Court attendance keeping, and what I intended to say -- its really not that hard and furthermore keeps people from feeling like its personal.
The Governator is Watching
Justice Reed works in Governor Schwarzenegger's office. According to her, she was talking to him the other day, and mentioned she is on the ASUCD Supreme Court. To this he responded "ASUCD, they're the ones with the scandal right?"
omgwtf! I can't believe I heard that right. I suppose its not so shocking to hear that they read the paper from the nearest University over there (Sacremento being just 11 miles away). But yeah so, The Governator is watching. I submit that he probably reads this livejournal.* =D
See Also: 72% of respondants to Aggie poll disagree with Senate's recent action.
*I fear some readers are dense enough to believe I'm serious. I'm not. About him reading this livejournal I mean. The interchange with Justice Reed is true.
Random Fact of the Day
The name of the State of Idaho originated from a hoax?!?!
Picture of the Day
I saw a car in the Colleges parking lot with a boot on the wheel and a big notice on the front from TAPS. I didn't know they did that -- I'd have taken a picture for the wiki but like I said, my camera is kaput. Its in the corner by the domes if someone wants to photo it.
Previously on Emosnail
Three Years Ago Today: E.M.O.S.N.A.I.L. CREATED - After a Glam Rock party in which my bike, peacoat, pocketwatch, and gloves were stolen, I crash with a bunch of other people at Amie Gutierrez', meet Amy Zimmerman. Come home to my freezing apartment (heater was totally broken) and create this livejournal. I'm told the poloroid picture Amy took of me for her wall o' people is still there.
Two Years Ago Yesterday: Limp-Wristed Fist Shaking - Kristy and I make an expedition into Sacramento, arrive late for a party at the Loyola House. George Andrews, famous for "saying daffy things," gives me another funny quote. The next day Little Christie has her birthday and I get sick from eating most of a large pizza myself and then drinking. For her birthday this year we went to the bar at Sophia's, and Rob Roy and I had a much needed friendly chat. Most importantly though, this entry initiated a serious debate about the proper way to shake one's fist.
Two Years Ago Today: One Year - After one year I'd posted 332 entries (.91 / day). Since then I've really been slacking, with .64 per day since then for a total average of .73 per day. At this moment I've received 7.0 comments per entry and 1.221 comments to every comment I've made (4,606 / 5,625). Also, I pwn Professor Siverson. But most importantly this entry included the first "year ago today."
Year Ago Wednesday: Entertainment Council Tahoe Retreat - ASUCD Entertainment Council goes on a retreat to Tahoe. In the spirit of the Brown Act, I record our adventures in a thorough photo essay. AND
Year Ago Wednesday: Jesus Love Me, Not Ian Watson - Jesus himself tells the Bob Jones Institute that I'm cooler than them, and Aggie columnist Ian Watson gets butthurt over my aeroflot t-shirt. I write a letter to the editor in response to Watson, he makes some vague reference to it later, then plagiarizes my idea to talk shit on the "Ban Taco Bell" protestors, then gets fired for plagiarism.
Year Ago Today: Phone Post: Internet's Out - Despite living in a freaking freezer due to a broken heater (compare to two years previous), and lacking internet access, I make a phone post to commemorate the Emosnail livejournal birthday.
Related
Chairman Leathers' Account
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.
Now it is important to note that I do not state anything which is not true (Roy disputes that they actually intend to remove us, so I didn't say they intended to but that its on the agenda), nor do I add any kind of valuative judgements to the narration (its not the bad, evil, or unethical legislation, it is simply the legislation as its proponents might themselves describe it), and most importantly of all, I do not even call for the party members to oppose the action. I simply urge them to tell their senators themselves how they feel about this.
As of 5:13pm today ASUCD Senator Robert Roy announced that he and fellow senator Kristin Birdsall “have defected from the [Friends Urging Campus Kindness] party and are now independents.” They are survived by various F.U.C.K. members holding commission positions. Their first action as independants may well be to axe four former compatriots, for reasons which have as yet still not been disclosed.
Roy is also, incidently, running for City Council, and has expressed an interest in changing the name of the F.U.C.K. facebook group to something presumbably along the lines of "Rob Roy For City Council"
All four persons set to stand trial tomorrow not only request that the closed session be open to public, but maintain that there is not usually any "deliberations" during Senate, and the only privacy rights that can be invoked are those of the accused, who have waived them, and therefore the common practice of Senate retreating behind closed doors after an "open closed session" may not take place.
In conclusion, tis better to be independant than have to hear from your constituents.
Removing Me: Episode III
Jan. 18th, 2006 12:59 am Previously, proponents of the override of the qualifications for office have strongly advocated that we all put it behind us, and maintained there'd be no public outrage. Today the Aggie pwned them in three articles (Senators-Elect Take Office Due to Retroactive Legislation, Editorial: Actions Diminish Associations Credibility and ASUCD Election Never Certified (letter to editor)). This evening Friends Urging Campus Kindness Senator Birdsall notified all officers who had dissented againt the Senate actions that they will be considered for removal this Thursday...
I have no idea what I'm charged with.