Board reconsiders student role in ASUCLA

Board reconsiders student role in ASUCLA

Potential university bailout may change policy-making in the
association

By Patrick Kerkstra

Daily Bruin Staff

The roots of what eventually became the students’ association
­ and the current struggle over student control ­ can be
traced back to 1882.

Students at the Vermont Normal School Teacher’s college formed
an organization to improve student life. Eventually the college
became UCLA, and with the help of a generous philanthropist,
students built Kerckhoff Hall to house their association.

Until 1933, the association funded student government, ran the
school store and conducted its business with a large degree of
autonomy from UCLA’s administration. But the Great Depression
bankrupted the organization, and forced students to turn to the UC
Regents for help.

The regents agreed to bail the association out, but not without
a price. A board of control (later renamed the board of directors)
with a slim student majority was formed to oversee the
organization.

The parallels between 1933 and 1995 are striking.

Although there is no immediate threat of bankruptcy, the
associated students could lose close to $1 million this year.
Officials are considering approaching the university for another
loan, and individuals throughout the associated students are once
again questioning how the organization is being run.

Representatives from the board of directors and association
employees met Thursday afternoon for what one official called a
"mini constitutional convention." The primary topic of the meeting
was to reconsider and clearly define the board’s role in governing
the students’ association.

Given a mandate for change by the rest of the board, the
somewhat informal committee discussed proposals ranging from the
dramatic to mundane.

At one end was a suggestion to reduce student representation on
the board from four to six members. At the other was essentially
the status quo, adopting only minor changes in the bylaws and vague
mission statement of the students’ association.

Although no firm decisions were made, those present hovered
somewhere in the middle. Officials also repeatedly stated that
limiting student control was not a consideration, despite a
document which outlined, as one "scenario," reducing student
representation on the board from a majority to 40 percent.

"We are not here to discuss limiting student input in (the
association)," said Peary Brug, graduate board member.

Charles Mack of Alpha Partners Inc, serving with his partner
Douglas Drumwright as executive directors of the association,
expressed similar sentiments.

"The whole issue of student control is a sacred legacy at (the
association), and we are here to help preserve that," Mack
said.

"If we don’t get our act together, students won’t have any
control at all," he continued, referring to the possibility of a
bankrupt students’ association.

But officials agreed that something about the board ­ its
structure, its role or its politics ­ needs to change.

"There is a gulf between the board’s perception of how free
management is to act, and how much room management feels it has to
act," Mack said, explaining one of the association’s largest
challenges.

But it was the political and transient nature of the board that
caused the most concern on Thursday.

During the past 10 months, this year’s board has developed an
increasing solidarity and understanding of the association’s
problems. The fear among many board members and the consultants is
that a new board, less familiar with the situation, will be
reluctant to take the serious action many current officials feel is
necessary.

"I think it’s OK and healthy for students to elect a group that
has different views from the prior board ­ the concern is that
a different board not interrupt the long-term plan," said George
Brown, a faculty board representative.

The debate about insulating the association from politics seemed
almost futile in the end. Board members argued that student
representatives too often had political agendas when they came to
the board. Some suggested that student government office holders be
prevented from serving on the board as well.

But in the end, officials realized that the individual student
governments hold responsibility for appointing representatives to
the board. The best that the board of directors could do, Brown
said, was to offer recommendations to next year’s incoming student
government leaders.

Board members agreed to revisit the political concerns next
week.

But an infinite amount of meetings will not help much if the
association is unable to get solid financial aid from an outside
lender soon.

The most likely source of the money the board hopes for is the
university, an association document said. But that could mean more
direct university involvement in the association. In 1933, when the
students’ association was first saved by the university, student
control was redefined, and in some ways limited. Regardless of what
the board itself decides about student involvement, Chancellor
Charles Young and Murphy Hall administrators could end up with the
final and conclusive voice.