Administrators need to fulfill promises to SPARC supporters

Sandoval is a fifth year political science and history student
and chairman of the Campus Retention Committee. Saelua is a
fourth-year political science and history student and chairwoman of
the Student Initiated Outreach Committee.

By Antonio Sanduval and Natasha
Saelua

Last May, by an overwhelming margin, UCLA students approved the
Student Programs Activities Resource Complex referendum, which
sought to fund repairs to the Men’s Gym and remodel the
Wooden Center. In the past, undergraduate students have been
hesitant in approving referenda which had sought to increase their
fees by significant amounts. Last spring’s SPARC referendum
galvanized undergraduate student support in a very special way; the
referendum passed with 77 percent of the vote.

Even for graduate students, supporting a referendum that would
increase their fees by such a large amount would normally have been
considered a long shot. Graduate students last increased their fees
in 1982, but they passed the SPARC 2000 referendum with a landslide
74 percent win.

Unfortunately, problems have arisen. The road to relocation for
the biggest supporters of the SPARC 2000 referendum ““ the
Student Retention Center, Community Programs Office and the Student
Initiated Outreach Committee ““ has been rocky. On Sept. 25, a
commitment was made by Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Winston
Doby to ensure relocation for all the student-initiated,
student-run projects to Kerckhoff Hall. The move to Kerckhoff Hall
has been seen as a boon for students working in the impacted area
of the Men’s Gym.

But there are still disputes as to how much space the student
projects will obtain once they move to Kerckhoff. We hope to
address these issues as soon as possible so as not to jeopardize
the possibility of obtaining the space needed for such projects.
But the decision to keep this promise rests on the vice chancellor,
and it is up to him to keep his word.

What makes the SPARC 2000 case so special? It is special because
it was a true student effort. During the USAC and GSA elections of
1999, the UCLA administration ran a decidedly administrative
proposal. This proposal was underdeveloped and had minimal student
input. During the endorsement process, the referendum carried
little weight and was overshadowed by the popular student-led
Community and Retention Empowerment referendum, which won by an
astonishing 83 percent support of the student vote. That year, both
the USAC and GSA version of the SPARC-1999 referendum were defeated
by large margins.

During the summer of 1999, efforts were made to form a new SPARC
advisory committee in the hopes of passing a new SPARC referendum.
The students on this committee represented a diverse set of
perspectives, which allowed for the formulation of a proposal that
would gain popular student support. The only thing that was
objectionable in the proposal was that it did not specifically
state where the projects housed in the Men’s Gym would be
moved during construction. This problem was resolved through
discussions with students who would be affected.

Representatives from the UCLA administration, in particular Vice
Chancellor Doby, made a commitment to prioritize students in their
quest to find appropriate space and an agreement was developed. In
a sense, this agreement was based on a mutual trust in the spirit
of cooperation between students and the vice chancellor. Students
who have traditionally had mixed feelings in working with
administrators nevertheless took it upon themselves to pursue the
agreement reached. They moved forward with the trust that the vice
chancellor would accommodate the student’s needs to the best
of his ability.

A consensus among student representatives was made to present
the SPARC 2000 referendum to student organizations as a good option
for UCLA community. Presentations were made and contacts were
created in order to ensure that students knew that the SPARC 2000
referendum would mean improved student services and a better
environment in the Men’s Gym. The problems that persisted in
the Men’s Gym were finally exposed.

Students learned that student-run community service, outreach
and retention projects were run from a building impacted by
asbestos and lead contamination, vermin, the 1994 Northridge
earthquake, and a lack of adequate ventilation ““ all of which
posed clear dangers to students. The Wooden Center was also
portrayed as a facility in serious need of redevelopment.

When the SPARC 2000 proposal reached student organizations, they
insisted that we reassure them of the administration’s
expressed commitment to them. We made it clear that Vice Chancellor
Doby would ensure that units affected by the Men’s Gym
restoration project, particularly SRC, SIOC and CPO would be
prioritized in relocation planning. Student organizations trusted
our perspective and threw in their whole-hearted support for the
SPARC 2000 referendum.

As a result, students were able to accomplish a great feat
during last spring’s elections. They voted to pass the SPARC
referendum. In doing so, they reaffirmed their support for students
who organized the referendum and the expansion of more space for
student initiated and student run projects. It is clear that
students ““ led by the supporters of the SRC, SIOC, and CPO
““ were the primary force in the passage of the SPARC 2000
referendum.

Despite this victory, the administration has yet to live up to
its promise of guaranteeing the groups in the Men’s Gym
proper adequate space in Kerckhoff during the phase of
transition.

Currently, a wave of dissatisfaction has spread to many
organizations. There is a feeling that those student organizers who
sacrificed many hours to navigate a very technical referendum to
successful passage have not been acknowledged or respected.
Students have begun to feel that Vice Chancellor Doby made promises
in an attempt to gain immediate student support, without intending
to keep his promises. It seems like Doby has made vague promises
and is attempting to implement his own interests ahead of the
students’. We hope this isn’t true, but in order for
him to prove otherwise, his actions must reflect his words.

We are optimistic that the original goals of students will be
implemented. Even today, we are updated often on the SPARC plan and
hope to see the fruits of hard work in 2003. But, unfortunately,
our good spirits have been dampened; we are saddened that the hard
work of the students has been slighted. We vehemently oppose the
characterization that as student organizations we have not learned
to sacrifice.

As students, housed in the Men’s Gym, the perception of
injustice is great. The Men’s Gym, known by high school
visitors as the “ugliest building at UCLA,” is UCLA for
many of the hardworking volunteers, students and staff who roam its
halls. The reality is that students have had enough. Last spring we
voted for change, and that is exactly what we want. Anything less
would be unacceptable.

Many discussions will occur over the next few months. The fact
of the matter is that there is a solid principle involved in
keeping promises. At UCLA, the first thing that is taught is the
value of word and integrity. We hope that the administration
exercises this more often in this matter.

We thank all of you for supporting the SPARC 2000 campaign.
Every vote you gave has motivated us to continue with our goals of
service, outreach and retention, and to genuinely assist the
community outside of UCLA. We hope that in the next few weeks the
issues that have served as disappointing areas of concern are
resolved and that good work continues to be accomplished.

The reality is that we couldn’t have done SPARC 2000
without you. Now we urge you to support us in our efforts to
secure its fair implementation.