Editorial: Non-voting commissioners best for USAC

Tomorrow Undergraduate Student Association Council President
David Dahle will make his recommendation for the next facilities
commissioner. Though the slate affiliation of the candidates up for
nomination is not overtly brandished, the fact that whomever is
nominated will potentially shift the balance of power on USAC is
without a doubt on Dahle’s mind.

With Annie McElwain of Students United for Reform and Equality
out of the picture, Student Empowerment! holds a slight lead over
S.U.R.E. Granting the commission to an Empowerment!-leaning
candidate would considerably sway voting power away from
Dahle’s slate.

It’s natural for slates to want to control political power
on council, but in the last few years, this has sometimes come at
the cost of adequate commission leadership.

McElwain’s contribution to the facilities commission was
dismissable at best. When running for office, McElwain had no clue
what the job of facilities commissioner entailed and proved this
upon assuming the role. It was pretty clear she was chosen to help
build a S.U.R.E. minimum winning coalition. The result is now a
commission with little visibility; an office few students know or
care about.

Making commissions subject to politicization by electing
commissioners rather than appointing them is counterproductive to
the best interests of students. Commissioners should be focused on
their commissions only, not on all matters brought before council.
And to a large extent that’s what happens now. Three of the
current commissioners are independent and for the most part abstain
or are visibly apathetic to political issues brought before USAC,
such as passing anti-war resolutions. There is nothing wrong with
this: The job of the commissioners is to run their commissions
well, not decide on the validity of war or other world
conflicts.

Phasing out commissioners as voting council members would serve
student interests best. Instead of having commissioner’s
elected, they should be appointed by the newly elected president
based on their qualifications. This would stop slates from choosing
weak candidates to run for commissioner positions for the mere
purpose of serving as another partisan vote on council.

The commissioners’ places as voting members on council
should be replaced with more general representatives. As it stands,
only three general representatives are charged with representing
students ““ all of whom have yet to do anything noteworthy.
Having additional general representatives would increase the number
of student views on council and bring more ideas about how to use
USAC resources to better programs and plan projects for the student
body. Of the existing commissions, only the Academic Affairs
Commission and the Financial Supports Commission seem most relevant
to vote on council because of the breadth and nature of their job
descriptions.

True, adding more general representatives to USAC would only
transfer slate politics from the commissions to the general
representatives. But that’s the point. The gain for students
in this new approach lies in the creation of independent
commissions focused on serving them, not slate interests. USAC will
be political regardless; it’s naive to think otherwise. After
all, the real reason slates exist is to control the distribution of
funds. But there’s no reason why commissions should be
included in this political bargaining and coalition building.

Appointing commissioners would also give the president more
power to improve commissions ““ he would be working with
someone whom he appointed, rather than potentially working with
someone who ran on a slate against him or her.

In considering his nomination for facilities commissioner,
perhaps Dahle should ask the candidates whether they would still
run the office if they didn’t vote on council.