Friday, May 17, 1996
Members reexamine possible changes to board’s structureBy
Michael Angell
Daily Bruin Contributor
Last week, the chancellor had his say, and Thursday the students
had their turn.
The student members on the students’ association Board of
Director’s convened a special meeting Thursday to discuss possible
changes they would accept to the board’s structure. The meeting was
a response to Chancellor Charles Young’s demand that all
student-elected officials be removed from the board, or face a
possible takeover by the university.
At the meeting, student board members proposed their ideas for
retaining control over the students’ association, in the event of
Young’s requests being passed. Instead of capitulating to Young’s
demands, an ad-hoc committee of graduate and undergraduate members
suggested several proposals which, they believe, are necessary for
the students to retain their power on the board.
"We’re trying to reach a comfort level in which accountability
is brought to a board without elected officials," said Dan Ryu, an
undergraduate board member.
But other board members thought the proposals diverted from the
real issue at hand: whether or not the board would follow Young’s
recommendation and remove elected officials.
"If I recall from last meeting we talked about incredible time
pressure," said Allen Latta, an alumni board member. "We should
have this resolved by this meeting. It seems to me that we have an
overwhelming number of issues to resolve."
Some of the proposed changes included bringing in an outside
organization to train current and future board members, as well as
extending an open invitation to past board members to attend
meetings and board retreats.
Two more controversial changes were also proposed.
The ad-hoc committee suggested that the board must be given
prior notice of any layoffs; and the board could refuse student
fees if the student body did not approve the collection of those
fees.
Student board members hope that these changes will help the
student majority retain power. Jim Friedman, a graduate student
board member, said that the changes are a way for students to
retain control even if student elected officials are not allowed to
serve.
"We focused on issues of accountability," Friedman said.
"Management can’t layoff people without the board’s approval. If 10
students are laid off, I have to know about it. I have a
constituency to answer to."
But alumni and faculty board members argued that their
organization cannot supervise daily operating decisions such as
hiring and firing. Chand Vishwanathan, a faculty board member, said
that the board should not become involved in such minute
decisions.
"The Board of Directors has the right to ask management how come
layoffs were not noticed. At the same time the board of directors
must recognize that they can’t micromanage the operations,"
Vishwanathan said. "I’d hate to be on the board if I have to worry
about every dismissal."
Yet undergraduate members believe that the board could
potentially swing toward a more "pro-business" stance in their
decisions. A $1.5 million budget shortfall faces the association
and its management could decide that layoffs may help curb that
debt.
"I don’t think what is best for business is best for students,"
said York Chang, the undergraduate president and a board member.
"We’d like to see some lines drawn to make the association listen
to students’ needs."
Board member training was another proposal put forth by the
undergraduates. The training would detail how a board functions, a
board member’s responsibility, and basic parliamentary
procedure.
The committee also nullified several by-law changes which passed
in April. The group argued that the full Board was not properly
notified of the proposals and therefore the vote should be
reversed.
They also nullified the proposed removal of student presidents
from the Board of Directors. The board made the change last month
as a compromise to Young’s demand to remove all elected officials.
But the by-law change cannot take effect because it was noticed at
a regular meeting.
"I think we have to be aware of the chancellor’s concern," Latta
said." It seems to me that other issues being raised are
inflammatory to the chancellor. He is interested in getting the
board to run."
The ad-hoc committee was also worried about the possibility of
new student fees being levied in order to make up the association’s
deficit. The committee proposed a by-law that would allow the board
to refuse any new student fees unless the decision was put to a
student body vote.
In addition to the training, the committee wanted past members
to become involved in current board meetings. Other board members
agreed with the ideas, but still questioned their relevance to the
day’s meeting.
Latta then recommended that the members vote for the new by-law
change to eliminate all student elected officials. As for the new
changes, Latta suggested that that they run by the chancellor so
the board would not appear to be "hiding the ball from the
chancellor."
After student members had their say, faculty board member Dave
Lowenstein spoke up.
"By-laws, as presently written say nothing about removal of
officials," he said. "I wrote something that would be attached to
proposed bylaw changes."
Lowenstein’s proposal would allow undergraduate and graduate
student government to remove board members who they appointed. Any
removal would have to follow procedures outlined by the student
government rules, he added.