Proposition support divides USAC
By Narges Zohoury
Oct. 12, 2005 9:00 p.m.
Members of the undergraduate student government failed to reach
an agreement Tuesday on whether it is appropriate for them to make
public their stance on ballot propositions for the November special
election.
The Undergraduate Students Association Council was expected to
vote on resolutions opposing propositions 74, 75 and 76, and after
hours of discourse, all three resolutions failed to gain majority
support.
The three propositions respectively address tenure regulations
for K-12 teachers, the prohibition of unions using their dues for
political purposes without written consent of their members, and
giving the governor more control over the state budget.
Those who voted against the resolutions ““ primarily those
council members who ran for office under the Bruins United slate
““ had a range of reasons for their rejections.
No one openly spoke against the content of the propositions.
Instead they focused on the principle of having student government
make their political views public to students when they do not
directly pertain to university policy or student affairs.
“Our positions carry a lot of weight,” said Jeannie
Biniek, USAC external vice president, who helped author the
resolutions and was disappointed that other members of council did
not believe that making their views public was important.
Preventing USAC from taking a stance on political issues could
specifically hurt the work of the external vice president’s
office, Biniek said. Her office works to educate students on issues
outside of the university, which include matters of state and
national politics.
An argument used by those opposing the resolutions was the fact
that, according to regulations put in place by the UC Office of the
President, “student governments may not use university
resources to support or oppose a particular candidate or ballot
proposition in a non-university political campaign.”
The regulation goes on to specify that resources can be used for
events that aim to educate the student population on propositions,
as long as the information is presented in “a fair and
balanced manner.”
General Representative Brian Neesby encouraged the council to
pass their own criteria for the approval of resolutions.
His proposal, which was never put to a vote, included a section
that required all resolutions passed by the council to have direct
affect on the student population.
But both USAC President Jenny Wood and Biniek agreed that it is
hard to distinguish between being a student and being a member of
the greater UCLA community.
“Limiting our scope to issues just affecting students and
ignoring other communities within the university is
irresponsible,” Wood said.
Biniek said that though the council did not pass the
resolutions, she still believes that she has the responsibility to
vocalize her stance as a participant in the UCLA community.
“Council is looking at this in a vacuum without realizing
the consequences and implications of their actions,” Biniek
said.
