Programming-based commissions should be placed under USAC president’s office to keep Council elections “˜fair and open’
By Roy Hu
April 25, 2011 11:38 p.m.
As you work through the ballots for this year’s Undergraduate Students Association Council elections, pay close attention to the candidates running unopposed.
If memory serves, these same positions were also unopposed last year, and there’s a reason for that.
Three large and complex organizations, the Student Welfare Commission, Community Service Commission and Campus Events Commission typically select in-house candidates independently of slates, which are groups of students that support and endorse each other. Candidates from these commissions traditionally run unopposed.
But having internally selected commissioners fundamentally goes against the idea of an elected USAC council. Furthermore, their function on USAC, to provide campuswide programming, is also a very thin justification for having a seat on it.
Ideally, a better solution is to transplant them from having a council seat to placing them under an executive office like the president’s.
This suggestion isn’t to take away from the valuable work these commissions do for the campus.
SWC, for example, promotes health issues through numerous programs and awareness efforts, like last week’s Bruin Health Week. CEC plans annual events like Bruin Bash and regularly hosts free movie screenings.
Many students know about CEC through its efforts to promote its brand, even if they aren’t aware of its intimate relationship to USAC.
Though the USAC constitution stipulates that all officers must be elected through “fair and open elections,” the current system suggests otherwise.
Our current slates, Students First! and Bruins United generally choose not to run candidates against these commissions. One, because the main purpose of these commissions is to plan and host programs rather than champion political issues that these slates are interested in. And two, because they know they can’t realistically win.
Since 2000, these commissions have been challenged only a handful of times, most recently in 2009 when Bruins United challenged Lucy Wu, the in-house selection for the Student Welfare Commission. Bruins United argued that in-house elections were unjust and biased.
“The notion that nobody ever runs against us is extremely misleading,” said Charles Ma, currently the Campus Events commissioner and a former illustrator for the Daily Bruin.
“They have every opportunity to go run,” he added.
What is really misleading is the interpretation of what it means to vote someone into office. If “voting” is all about the technical aspects ““ checking a box ““ then they are indeed “voted” in. But in a sense, all the real voting is done internally. We are merely confirming their choice.
To be sure, these commissioners should be internally selected. In-house candidates are more qualified than outsiders. Prior experience and familiarity with the workings of each commission allow for efficient turnover from commissioner to commissioner.
But if the goal of the USAC council is to accurately represent students, programming-based commissions are a little out of place.
Ma said that programming and voting are not mutually exclusive.
While this is true, programming isn’t a good enough reason to justify voting power. As of now, plenty of organizations engage in large-scale programming.
For example, the Student Alumni Association puts on Spring Sing every year. The Office of Residential Life hosts thousands of programs each year on the Hill. And they don’t get a representative on council.
While other organizations may be interested in programming for the entire community, it is not their primary mission, as it is for the elected offices on USAC, said Michael Cohn, the associate director for the Center of Student Programming.
But to differentiate between groups based on their missions is tenuous. What we find instead is that the only real justification for having voting power on USAC is to be fairly and openly elected.
So the logical move is to place these commissions under the president’s office, which already has a general responsibility for carrying out programs. These commissions would still retain the same responsibilities for maintaining the same programming ““ just without the voting power on the council.
Naturally, this idea generates a lot of friction. Indeed, to change the constitution itself would require a two-thirds council vote ““ highly unlikely, since no sane person votes against him or herself. But doing so would fulfill the “fair and open” requirements set by the constitution.
As this elections season approaches, we should consider the behind-the-scenes politicking that brought us the candidates seen on the ballot. At least then we’ll have a clear picture of how we’re being represented.
