Editorial: USAC guiding documents need revision to better serve UCLA
By Editorial Board
June 23, 2014 12:00 a.m.
Smart decisions by undergraduate student government leaders should be consistent with their constitution and bylaws.
But after Undergraduate Students Association Council General Representative Nihal Satyadev resigned on June 12, USAC was faced with a choice between following its constitution and being transparent in the replacement process.
Whenever the USAC guiding documents are out of line with sound government, they should be changed, not circumvented. USAC needs to conduct a comprehensive review of its procedures and stop improvising one-time solutions when dealing with rules that don’t make sense.
In recent years, councilmembers have habitually ignored their own rules and pushed forward without addressing obvious problems in their governing documents. They do so almost every year when they miss the deadline to appoint an Election Board chair – a naturally difficult position to fill – and more regularly at meetings when public comments last more than the 30 minutes called for in the bylaws.
USAC may again be forced to ignore its guiding documents when replacing its recently lost councilmember. The USAC constitution mandates that the council must hold a special election within 15 days of Satyadev’s resignation. Instead, USAC may make what we believe is a prudent decision this Tuesday in pushing to have the election held in the fall.
A special election in the summer would limit the pool of candidates and lack transparency since the majority of students would not be on campus to see campaigns and meet individuals running for office. Furthermore, holding the special election in fall may save the student body thousands of dollars by combining the costs of voting software used for two upcoming special elections – one for the new transfer student representative and one for a new general representative.
In the past, this board has urged that strict adherence to the constitution and bylaws is critical to a transparent and accountable student government. But in this case, the decision to override those standards served both those goals. This suggests that parts of USAC’s current guiding documents are deficient.
Our student government’s constitution and bylaws should be living documents that reflect the growth and experience of the student body. While USAC should not change them for frivolous reasons, there is no excuse for ignoring common sense problems in the texts.
USAC was faced with several tough situations last year, including a vote on a controversial divestment resolution and the loss of a councilmember with just a few months left in the school year. This year’s council will undoubtedly have to struggle through similar situations in the coming year.
Without a logical constitution and set of bylaws, the standards to which this board and the student body must hold USAC are unclear. To fix this recurring problem, USAC needs to thoroughly review and revise its guiding documents instead of using a patchwork of ad hoc measures to address foreseeable crises.
Thoroughly addressing these problems early in the year will prevent future confusion and allow USAC to focus on its larger goals without running into more procedural obstacles.
This council should extend the deadline for future councilmembers to appoint Election Board chairs, lengthen public comment periods and expand and clarify the rules USAC must follow when it loses a member. These are just a few examples of the common sense amendments it could enact by putting a referendum to change its governing documents during the special election in fall.
This course of action would set this council apart from past councils as one dedicated to good governance, transparency and accountability.
If USAC improves its procedures, future councils will be better equipped to handle difficult situations and the public will be better informed of the governing process. This way, overrides will draw the scrutiny they deserve.
Every year, USAC members swear to abide by the constitution when they take office. Better rules will allow them to actually uphold their oaths in the future.
