Ad snafu dramatizes need for change

Monday, 5/19/97 Ad snafu dramatizes need for change Revision of
USAC’s bylaws would prevent further controversial funding
incidents

The confrontation between the Undergraduate Students’
Association Council and an anti-Students First! coalition in 400
Kerckhoff Hall on Thursday night demands a word or two. When bad
blood between student groups on campus turns a government office
into a scene reminiscent of a convention floor, it has more the
ring of boxing than the ring of righteous truth about it. Yet there
is some truth to be sifted out from the mess of a poorly timed
advertisement, long-held grudges and election-season pressure. It
all started two weeks ago. On May 7, USAC paid for an ad
encouraging student participation in student government. It
featured a list of USAC accomplishments realized during the year.
Accompanying the ad was an invitation to "contact Kandea Mosley"
for further information. Mosley, who recently won office, was the
Students First! presidential candidate at the time. When students
took the ad to the USAC Election Board, citing a misappropriation
of funds, the board ruled that no violation had occurred, because
nowhere in the ad was a connection made between Kandea Mosley as a
contact and Kandea Mosley as a candidate. Students First! rebutted
that the ad was a mistake, a pressured rush job thrown together to
fulfill an advertising commitment to the Daily Bruin. Dissatisfied
with the Election Board decision, the complainants appealed to
Judicial Board. At the center of their argument was the demand that
all Students First! candidates be disqualified, and that USAC
President John Du and Academic Affairs Commissioner Max Espinoza be
impeached. The appeal also asked that students be refunded the cost
of the ad. The J-board refused to hear the case, but did not
explain why. Nonetheless, the board’s decision seemed to finally
bring an end to what constitutes, in many eyes, mere political
bickering. So it’s over, right? Wrong. The tensions remain, and
next year’s anti-Students First! coalition is likely to use this
recent incident as fuel for future anti-Students First! campaigns.
After examining the bylaws for USAC, it is clear that both the
Election Board and Judicial Board were responsible in finding the
ad legally permissible. Ethically speaking, however, there appears
to be room for discussion. Whoever holds office in USAC clearly
holds the incumbent’s advantage at UCLA. And with the appearance of
a USAC ad that lists a Students First! candidate as a "contact,"
USAC ethics and student trust appear to have been compromised. When
you use your government resources to quell opposition during an
election season, they call it corruption. Do the same thing at
UCLA, and they call it ethically wrong – but legally just. And
that’s the problem. Clearly, some of the bylaws that govern student
elections need to be changed. The Students First! dominated USAC
should learn from this incident, and create policy that would ban
all questionable advertisements during election season. A change in
the bylaws would provide a much-needed assurance that USAC
officials could not use mandatory registration fees to fund their
own election campaigns. It would force a badly needed delineation
of party and office upon USAC. And advice for the students
interested in reforming student government? Put together a cohesive
coalition next year – not just something thrown together a few
months before elections. It will let help you determine the agenda
and save you the trouble of fighting a defensive, whiny battle. And
it might just put you in office.