Voter turnout hinders GSA funding, function

By Barbara Ortutay
Daily Bruin Senior Staff

It’s a government for the students, but few of them seem
to be aware of it.

For the past 11 years, voter turnout in the Graduate Student
Association elections has not passed the 10 percent mark necessary
to put any referenda in effect, even they were approved by more
than half of those who vote.

As a result, GSA’s membership fee, which comes from
mandatory student fees and is the association’s primary
source of funding, has not increased since 1982. Without
adjustments for inflation and rising costs of programming, the
amount of funding the graduate student government receives allows
it to do only minimal activity.

“This has led to considerable problems,” said GSA
President Martin Griffin. “Last spring we failed to get 10
percent turnout and thus our referenda, one on the admission of the
American Indian Graduate Student Association as a special interest
group to Forum and the creation of a Public Policy Council, and one
on the increase in GSA fee failed, even though they received a
clear majority of votes.”

The Forum is GSA’s executive committee. It is comprised of
delegates from 11 departmental programs and schools such as law and
biological sciences, and five special interest groups. Griffin said
the School of Public Policy has grown in recent years, and had the
referendum been approved, the Public Policy Council would have been
the 12th Council on Forum.

University policy requires a minimum voter turnout in student
government elections for referenda to go into effect, so even if
100 percent of those who vote approve a fee increase, if not enough
students show up to the ballots, their vote doesn’t
count.

“It is a vicious cycle because in order to increase
services to graduate students, GSA needs to have more money to do
it,” said GSA Administrative Representative Mike Cohn.

Griffin added it has more to do with little involvement from the
graduate student body that GSA has not been at the level of
activity many of its members would like it to be.

“GSA has not been where the action is over the last few
years,” Griffin said. “I mean, let’s be honest.
Someone elected on 8 percent turnout has less to work with than
someone elected on a 51 percent turnout.”

Whether all this means the association is less effective than
its undergraduate counterpart, however, may not be a clear-cut
issue.

“It depends on how you define effective,” said
Joanna Brooks, GSA president in 1998-99 and currently assistant
professor of English at the University of Texas at Austin.

“GSA has more power as a student advocacy organization
than it does as a programming body. It’s true that every
advocacy organization needs a budget, but vision, commitment, and
volunteer hours are more powerful than money,” she
continued.

When it comes to being able to get things done, money does
matter. With low funds and little student participation, GSA may
have trouble working on issues affecting graduate students.

“Having the fee level currently $5.50 per quarter written
into the GSA constitution is a legitimate protection for the
membership, but it becomes a nightmare when the electoral
participation is so low that we cannot make basic reforms,”
Griffin said.

Though the graduate and undergraduate student governments may
see eye to eye on some issues, such as diversity and increased
enrollment, graduate students often face different challenges than
undergraduates.

Working on lowering non-resident tuition, for example, is a high
priority for GSA because many students come from other states for
graduate school.

In fall 1999, 44.4 percent of graduate students came from
outside California, compared to only 6.1 percent of undergraduates,
according to the Office of Academic Planning and Budget.

Additionally, unlike the Undergraduate Students Association
Council, the graduate student government often focuses more on
departmental issues.

“Most graduate students participate in and benefit from
GSA at the departmental level,” Brooks said. “For
example, GSA annually distributes thousands of dollars to
departmental student organizations for parties, conferences and
projects.”

This, she added, may dampen voter interest because students have
more exposure to the departmental benefits of GSA than they do to
its central functions not specific to departments.

The creation of a Public Policy Council, for example, has been
on the ballot for several years, but despite voter approval, the
low turnout has kept referenda from going into effect.

The 10 percent minimum threshold, according to Griffin, was put
in the constitution 25 years ago as a protection, but now it is
more of a hindrance.

“It has always been difficult for GSA to get over a 10
percent turnout for their elections,” said Mike Cohn, GSA
administrative representative. “The primary reason for this
is the nature of graduate students. Many of them are not on campus
all that often and when they are, they are insulated in their own
departments.”

Cohn added that this past year elections were scheduled during
the finals week for the Law School, which may have prevented those
students from voting.

Indeed, academic pressures for graduate students, as well as
having to work and often raise a family, makes student government a
low priority for many.

“The pressure and workload problems have increased over
the years for grad students,” Griffin said. “People
have less time, more commitments to meet, and something like GSA
becomes a fringe activity.”

The graduate student president added that this year he would
like to work on trying to reinvent cross-disciplinary social
interaction among grad students on campus, as well as focus on
graduate students support on issues like unattractive fellowship
packages and high non-resident tuition.

“We need to consistently defend the value of graduate
students to the teaching and research mission of the university and
the contribution of graduate programs to the wider society and the
economy,” Griffin said “If we don’t do this,
nobody will do it for us.”