Page One

The conservative legal foundation sponsoring a lawsuit challenging race-based desegregation in Berkeley public schools is now taking aim at the UC Berkeley student government. 

Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)—at the request of the Berkeley College Republicans—is considering a suit against the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) for using compulsory student fees to fund a campaign against Proposition 54, the Oct. 7 ballot measure that would bar race-based research in California. 

“A lawsuit is a good possibility,” said PLF lawyer Greg Broderick. “Right now we’re looking into it. There’s not a lot of clarity about what happened.” 

Both university and student government officials have been tight-lipped this week as administrators continue to investigate if the Graduate Assembly (GA) and the ASUC violated university rules by earmarking $35,000 in GA funds—some from compulsory student fees—for the “No on 54” campaign operated out of ASUC offices. 

The university is reviewing the legality of its rules prohibiting student governments from funding ballot initiatives with mandatory student fees, as well as investigating if the earmarked funds were actually spent. 

Andrea Irvin, president of the Republicans, said the organization has pursued the lawsuit to send the ASUC a message. “We’re saying this isn’t right. We’re going to hold you accountable for how you use student fees.”  

Broderick said a lawsuit would seek to guarantee a refund for students who opposed the spending and require the ASUC to implement administrative safeguards to prevent future funding of partisan politics.  

He said the PLF would not seek to strip the ASUC of its nonprofit status, which would harm its ability to raise and spend funds. “We’re not interested in destroying the ASUC,” Broderick said. “We just want to make sure this doesn’t happen again.” 

He said that, depending on the evidence, a case could go before a state or a federal judge. The PLF will pursue the case free of charge to the Republicans. 

Broderick said a lawsuit would be predicated on evidence that the ASUC had spent the money allocated by the Graduate Assembly. The “No on 54” campaign bought posters, pins and stickers, but ASUC officials said that money came out of supporter’s pockets, and that the GA funds which were meant to reimburse them had not been tapped. 

The Republicans have sought access to the GA’s financial books, but Irvin said the GA has so far ignored a Freedom of Information request. She added that the Republicans might sue the GA to open their books if they refused a second request. 

GA officials did not return the Planet’s phone calls. 

The PLF filed a public records request with UC Berkeley’s Office of the Chancellor this week, Broderick said, and is awaiting a response. Any lawsuit would be based on UC’s assumption that since the ASUC is an official unit of the university, it must abide by the school’s neutrality clause that prohibits the university or any of its agents from lobbying for ballot measures or campaigns, Broderick said. 

April Labbe of the University of California Student Association (UCSA) said Broderick and university officials are misconstruing the relationship between the ASUC and the university. She said the university regents made the ASUC a unit in 1972 so that ASUC full-time employees could get the same benefits offered to university employees. 

The university, she said, has interpreted the designation strictly in this case, but in its policies has stressed that student government actions did not reflect positions held by the school. 

ASUC officials argue that they are not an arm of the university and insist that a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed the University of Wisconsin to permit student groups to use compulsory fees to fund campaigns shows that if California did the same it would not be violating any laws, as university officials have claimed. 

UC Berkeley counsel Michael Smith is reviewing the students’ arguments and will report to school administrators by early next week. He said his investigation has been hindered because the briefs offered by the students failed to say if the ASUC had spent any of the money allocated by the GA. 

Smith said he doubted that litigation would be needed to settle any issues between the ASUC and the university. “I hope they can work it out,” he said.