“”The devil’s in the details.”

The Jan. 10 meeting of the Closed Circuit TV Stations Governance Committee was more than it seemed. As reported in the Jan. 13 issue of the Guardian, the committee rejected “a proposal for campuswide guidelines governing student-run television” by a vote of 9 to 1.

The impetus for that vote is far more interesting than the vote itself.

Nick Aguilar, UCSD’s director of student policies and judicial affairs and the administration-appointed chairman of the committee, had tried to reinterpret the committee’s charter, expanding its powers beyond their original scope. The committee’s founding documents charge it with the task of “reviewing” the governing documents of each station for the sake of clarity. Any unclear parts would be “discussed” with “those responsible for each of the stations.”

According to a student committee member, Aguilar’s interpretation was different. Aguilar pushed for a set of universal rules that would be imposed on every campus station. The committee wouldn’t just review the existing rules; it would write its own rules and send them back to SRTV and the college stations for implementation.

Each station operates differently and relies on somewhat different sources of funding. SRTV has a completely different mission than the stations controlled by each college’s Residential Life Office, which operate the college stations as “learning tools” and not public forums. Identical rules would bring all stations in line with each other, probably eliminating many of the freedoms currently enjoyed by SRTV.

Aguilar’s proposal was shot down. He asked the room how many agreed with his interpretation of the charter, and found himself the only supporter. The seven student representatives and two others in the room at the time raised their hands in opposition. End of story? Not quite.

Though nothing changed, it’s important to take note of Aguilar’s attempt. Students cycle through this campus quickly, and it won’t be long before everyone who remembers last year’s twin TV station shutdowns has graduated and moved on. The co-ops used to help out, publishing all the dirty details of student battles with the administration in an annual “disorientation manual,” but it hasn’t been around for a while.

Details surrounding next quarter’s A.S. elections are just beginning to emerge.

The new elections manager, Steve York, seems a qualified candidate. He’s been a watchdog during the Student Center expansion, works for SRTV and has run for student government as an independent candidate numerous times.

But York also holds the reins of the infamous Koala newspaper as its new editor. This alone would usually turn a typical A.S. Council against anyone. When added to the charges he filed in 2003 that ended up disqualifying the Students First! party, the A.S. Senate’s 15-3-2 confirmation vote is all the more surprising. The willingness to put aside past animosities and do the right thing has not been a hallmark of previous A.S. Councils.

Even some of those who voted against York did not do so because of partisan politics but rather because of legitimate concerns about the appointment process. Other candidates did apply for the election manager spot, but only York was brought before the council. Interviews consisted of only A.S. President Jenn Pae, her assistant Jared Feldman and the candidate himself. After the interviews, only York was presented to the council.

But that’s the way it has always been done. The election bylaws let the president’s office pick the elections manager. Pae isn’t required to bring any other applicants, no matter how qualified, before the council for approval. The interview process vets the applicants, and the council’s job is to give an up-or-down vote.

Pae says her assessment included the candidates’ current time commitments as well as their previous experience, which helps to explain why eminently qualified applicants such as A.S. Financial Controller Garo Bournoutian might have been passed over. Bournoutian has more experience than most of the A.S. Council members put together, but that means he probably has hefty time commitments in other areas. Elections manager is almost a full-time job.

Estimating the amount of time it takes to be elections manager is made more difficult by the strange nature of UCSD elections. A.S. elections vary year by year, alternating between extremely competitive grudge matches to extremely lame snoozefests. Last year’s was something in between. Public discourse between the two major parties was polite, but the independent candidates made sparks fly. After the runoff results were read, students lauded the “clean election.”

It was anything but clean.

Lurking beneath the surface were threats of disqualifications and talk of “mutually assured destruction”: Should one candidate file charges, a hailstorm would be unleashed by the other candidates. Teams on all sides spent their days photographing evidence and preparing their cases, should the ammunition ever be needed. Then-Elections Manager Tom Chapman didn’t have to deal with much of that himself, since the “M.A.D.” policy succeeded in warding off most of the potential grievances.

New rules implemented during the 2004 elections under Chapman made it statistically difficult to repeat the disqualifications of the 2003 elections. Chapman assigned a “point” value to different types of rules violations: One-half point for sneezing in the wrong place, 28 points for murdering one’s opponent, etc. A candidate who reached a predetermined number of points was disqualified. There was no legal basis for Chapman’s point system; he just made it up.

This year, York will undoubtedly face a similar problem of avoiding disqualifications while keeping unruly candidates in line.

The easy way out would be to codify Chapman’s point system, asking the A.S. Council to pass it into law. A more ambitious solution would be to scrap most of the rules and deregulate the campaign. If people put posters in the wrong place, the university can deal with them as violators of the Student Conduct Code instead of turning the election manager into the poster police.

Among the illegal offenses for which students can face punishment: posting near the Price Center fountain, posting in front of UCSD Bookstore, posting without a Residential Life stamp in the colleges, posting more than two identical flyers on a single Price Center pillar, posting on the ground, chalking on the ground, using a Price Center table on Library Walk and posting on fences or trees.

The elections manager is supposed to police all of this in addition to stopping candidates from committing more electorally relevant offenses, like using university funds to campaign.

Those are the details.