The Agrinautica

   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.

   "...I hereby resign ... I was in the freshman dorms, I never lied about that. Fact is, I was told to go there by my Focus [his party] advisors ... and you all sit around smiling smugly as if you didn't do the same. Not only that but I know many of you were drunk during budget hearings..." -(former) ASUCD Senator Nafeh Malik (paraphrased here, I don't have an exact transcript), resigning in lieu of the campaigning in the dorms controversy.
   "wow um... I think we need a ten minute break now to recollect ourselves." -Vice President Paloma Perez. "actually... I resign as well... -(former) ASUCD Senator Sean Reul.
   "The word is FUBAR" -ASUCD Senator Donald Cohen-Cutler on his cell phone immediately after a recess was subsequently called.
   "I'm... not resigning..." -ASUCD Senator Brianna Haag, the third implicated new Focus senator, as an anxious silence awaits her report.
   "I'm resigning... from all my other positions" -ASUCD Business & Finance Commission Chairman Alan Pang. "So wait, you're remaining in this one?" -President Kalen Gallagher, interjecting in the subsequent confusion. "yes." Room breaths an exasperated sigh of relief, Internal Affiars Commission Chairwoman Kahliah Laney looks like she's having a heart attack.

   Also at yesterdays senate meeting they swore in former Focus candidate Cari Ham to fill the senate seat earlier vacated by Lead senator Adam Barr. Selection of senators to fill vacated seats is the sole discretion of the ASUCD president.

Aggie photographer Matt Jojola (blueliquid13) sulks after missing both resignations, having left the room right before the excitement commenced (but he got a picture of the empty seats which I tihnk was probably more poignent anyway). Orwellian party candidates Rob Roy and Chad van Schoelandt can be seen in the back right corner.

Jurisprudence in ASUCD
   President Gallagher ostensably vetoed the bill passed by senate last quarter to allow ASUCD Court members to write legislation. He justified it by saying that US Supreme Court justices don't write legislation, among other things.
   In response, I firstly pointed out that as the ASUCD president has until the next regularly scheduled senate meeting to veto legislation, and that has already transpired, his veto is unconstitutional. So what happens now is either the relevant government body can refuse to recognize his veto in light of its manifest unconstitutionality, or it can be reversed in a case. The former more convenient method is unlikely to occur so either I will be filing a case myself, or if I don't other people have said they will certainly file one. Obviously either way I wouldn't be sitting on the case though.
   Furthermore I pointed out that in the national arena, one has the Justice Department, the Bar Association, numerous other law related lobby groups, and armies of lawyers who love to tinker with the law. In ASUCD the only semblance of any of these is the ASUCD Court. To say the court can't write legislation is to say that no judicial legislation will be written in ASUCD, and that is ridiculous.
   Also I mentioned that Marberry v Madison in 1807 established that the US Supreme Court could review issues that inherently involved the Court, thus negating the opposing argument that if Court members wrote legislation it would be a conflict of interest for them. To this Commissioner Gordon "I was president of my JC" Fung responded that he didn't think Marberry v Madison applied in this situation. In response I proceeded to give a brief history of the circumstances and significance of Marberry v Madison for the Senate.
   Chairperson Jenni Beeman then asked why we were citing US Supreme Court cases as relevant to ASUCD. This prompted me to give the Senate a brief overview of legal theory and jurisprudence.
   In summary, it was altogether good times.


ASUCD Senators Keith Shively, Janine Fiel, & Darnell Holloway during Thursdays meeting.

Yesterday (Thursday) III
   Yesterday I had the misfortune of having to sit through four hours of the ASUCD Senate meeting. This was because I had to make the Quarterly Court Report, and the presiding parliamentarian, Vice President Paloma Perez and her boyfriend the Senate President Pro Tempore Chris Goran loathe me and manipulated the agenda so what ordinarily would be one of the first items on the agenda, "reports," didn't occur until four hours into the meeting.
   Perez also showed us her parliamentary skillz by speaking on substansive matters during a time when only senators, ie not her could speak, and after Senator Adam Barr called her on it, claiming she did somehow have that right.

   One major topic covered during the time I was there was whether or not ASUCD "promotes sex." Its true.
   A resolution under consideration contained the line "...while ASUCD does not promote sex..." (qualifying an endorsement of sex education for incoming freshmen) to which Senator Barr responded "I dunno about the rest of you, but I promote sex." Another senator pointed out that in order to claim that ASUCD officially doesn't support sex they'd have to have a resolution on the subject and vote on it. Eventually they concluded that ASUCD supports up to third base.
   No not really about the third base thing.

   Another major topic covered was whether or not a resolution supporting state legislation to prevent professors from indoctrinating students by requiring them to present both sides of ideological questions was inherently demeaning to students by the implication that students opinions are so easily swayed.


Today
   Today Kristy and I saw a peacock on campus. For really.

Making News Again
   THIS article about me in the aggie tomorrow (Thursday) is not altogether pleasing to me. I got rather the impression that the reporter, having already talked to Sara Henry and Paloma Perez, was already rather hostile towards me, the court, the cases, and the green party, before talking to me. I hoped that after sitting through a Court meetings and seeing that we were nice people she would soften towards us, but apparently not.

   Article Summary: Paloma Perez & Sara Henry expressed to the aggie their intention to question my ability to be unbiased on Case # 24. To avoid controversy I have removed myself from that case.

   When I first got the email monday that the aggie wanted to take my picture for an article, I knew it wasn't going to be a good thing. Over the course of the week I became more concerned about this, particularly once it was confirmed that the whole thing was about whether or not I should sit on the case.

   Court meetings always cheer me up though. I get piles of crap from everyone about court stuff, and then I finally meet with the other justices, all of whom have stood together in every major decision of my administration. It was very nice to hear them joking about how they won't be able to do cases without me and if I ever was removed they'd all resign in protest. I was hoping the respect the court members have for me would have some effect on the reporter, but apparently she was unphased by it.
   Also I agreed to do the administrative work to put on Case # 24, even though I won't be party to it. It would have been nice to get out of it, but I just cannot picture the case being put on adequately without my involvement. I'd like to work on training others to do that though so that when I'm gone things don't fall apart.

   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."