Editorial: USAC’s lack of transparency creates dangerous precedent

“Early Wednesday morning, leaders of the undergraduate student government made a decision to deny hundreds of assembled community members basic information necessary in assessing their student government.”

That’s what the Daily Bruin Editorial Board wrote in 2014 after that year’s Undergraduate Students Association Council used a secret ballot to cast a vote on a resolution about divesting from companies that profit from Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. The vote came after nine hours of public discussion.

History repeated itself Tuesday.

After nearly four hours of public discussion about the upcoming National Students for Justice in Palestine conference, this year’s undergraduate government leaders went into executive session – or behind closed doors – to vote on a resolution affirming the event should go on amid administrative threats to shut it down.

Tuesday’s vote came after a contentious public comment period. Members of the student body quarreled over the potential ramifications of hosting the conference, the trademark dispute that broke out between UCLA and NSJP and who was to blame for anti-Semitism on campus. Tensions were high, passions flared and emotions bubbled.

But students would only be told that the contentious resolution was approved unanimously. What happened at the discussion that immediately preceded the vote, though, is anyone’s guess.

The council’s use of an executive session was arbitrary: Members seemed to toy with the idea for only several moments before ushering the public out of the meeting. And that willingness to so casually cast votes in secrecy is a troubling sign that USAC is willing to sideline accountability when it’s faced with a tough decision – especially one students are passionate about.

This is especially concerning considering the council’s meetings can fall under the purview of the Ralph M. Brown Act, a state law that spells out the do’s and don’ts of California legislative body conduct in public forums. The act has been ruled to apply for local meetings, including student government sessions, and does not allow closed or executive session save for extreme circumstances, such as ongoing litigation, personnel and investment issues.

USAC’s bylaws, in fact, echo the sentiments of the Brown Act, listing employment and payment concerns as some of the reasons for an executive session. The bylaws state the council may go into closed-door sessions when it deems appropriate, but fear of backlash for an unpopular vote hardly meets the bar for kicking students out of their own government’s meetings.

And that’s what is concerning about Tuesday’s vote: Council members were unwilling to put their name behind their votes – even when there was no opposition.

The precedent such a practice sets is jarring and one that has been long coming. Council members in 2015 severely restricted student public comment periods on divisive decisions. Last year, USAC spent weeks floating ways to limit its livestream to protect council member privacy. Executive sessions now risk becoming an easy opt-out for council members who don’t want their names on the record.

It’s not hard to imagine future councils, fearing backlash from votes about their stipends, student fees or even the spring USAC elections, reference Tuesday’s executive session to justify scratching their names from the record.

Of course, USAC members are right to worry about their privacy. Ideologically charged issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict can end up in students being badgered by fellow students or internet commenters. But council members are beholden to the student population, and Bruins are right to scrutinize their elected representatives’ voting records – that comes with the job. Moreover, council members always have the option to cast abstaining votes on resolutions they find difficult to support or reject.

Representing the student population comes with the basic promise of transparency.

That was true in 2014. And it’s still true now.