Thursday, May 30, 1996
Bargaining power, focus on collective interests will be lostBy
David E. Lee
As a past president of the Graduate Students Association, as
well as a former member of the ASUCLA Board of Directors, I’ve been
disgusted and saddened by the actions taken to disallow elected
student officers from serving on the board.
As one who has steadfastly and consistently supported our
chancellor, I am personally insulted by his decision to strong-arm
the board of directors and deny students a role for their elected
representatives to effectively serve their interests in ASUCLA.
As a former board member by both election and appointment, I am
shocked by their acquiescence at so fundamental a change to the
board enforced through direct blackmail.
The student majority board that serves as the oversight entity
for ASUCLA’s Services and Enterprises is an essential element of
the Memorandum of Understanding which delineates the role that
ASUCLA can play in serving the campus. It is also a document
designed and defined by the elected student body presidents at the
time and signed by our chancellor in the early years of his
leadership of UCLA.
Those elected student officers preceding and following me have
served as leaders in every sense of the word  as active
organizers and alumni regents, as fund-raisers and judges, as
change masters and defenders of the Blue and Gold. It is this
direct voice that is being silenced on the Board of Directors and
is truly a blow to all of us who have fought to insure that
democratically elected student voices would be heard at the
table.
It also makes me wonder upon what bargaining position students
serving on the board will be able to rely when addressing campus
administrators currently on the Board of Directors, appointed by
the chancellor, and who have served for upwards of six years and
counting.
"You weren’t here back in 1991 when we talked about this agenda
item," the students may be counseled. "If the Undergraduate
Students Association Council is so interested in the issue, why
should we address it?," when they author a motion that affects most
if not all undergrads but seeks to improve ASUCLA services.
Enhancing their ability to communicate with an underserved group
among the student population provokes an attitude of indifference:
"Mailboxes for grad students? We’ll benefit, but why should ASUCLA
get involved?"
The nature of power politics on the board has relied upon the
role that the Undergraduate Students Association Council and the
Graduate Students Association, in organizing their respective
constituencies, can force ASUCLA to confront issues that transcend
the divisions of graduate/undergraduate, north versus south campus,
services to the campus in toto versus only students. What now?
Should the student representatives be concerned when the opinion,
"we seriously underestimated the cost of seismically renovating
Ackerman and Kerckhoff  but it’s OK since it’s a life safety
expenditure and the maximum fee increase of $109 per quarter that
the undergraduate and graduate presidents negotiated should be
treated as irrelevant now," is voiced?
As for the actual motion that was approved by the board to
modify its constitution, why in the world was it authored and
submitted by a student board member? And sadly, by a student who
had once been elected to a position based on his campaigning to
petition the regents and the legislature to reduce or eliminate fee
hikes? If the chancellor was so hot and bothered and/or the Interim
Executive Director willing to take his money, let them come with
carrot and stick as they saw fit.
Moreover, the concepts and structure embodied in the Board of
Directors has served as an example for other entities on campus
such as the Wooden Center’s Board of Governors  should these
be changed also to eliminate elected student officials? On external
boards such as the Board of Visitors, are elected individuals such
as judges and state secretaries of education to be eliminated from
consideration? (Oh, I forgot, the Chair of the Academic Senate is
an elected position too.) Conversely, why is a political appointee
by the undergraduate council or the graduate association less
political than an elected officer?
Beyond the direct impact on the board, I foresee two elected
student presidents with a bit more time on their hands  the
Board of Directors, with its committees, extended discussions and
ever present multi-hour meetings is truly a huge time sink. Also, I
know that the graduate association has seldom seen itself as an
essential element within ASUCLA. How will they direct their efforts
when facilities overhead rates and student government accounting
service charges are raised?
Will this come full circle when an ASUCLA Â possibly
stripped of the student governments and solely focused on making
money  begins to talk with the university’s Student Affairs
Division or Business Enterprises entities about more ways of
charging fees for services while eliminating student employment
opportunities because they can find cheaper labor but still have to
pay off the Ackerman expansion debt?
Perhaps I care too much. As a newly elected officer who
literally knew next to nothing nor cared a great deal about how
ASUCLA worked, I have become one of its most ardent supporters both
around campus and across the UC system. I learned a great deal
about how dependent ASUCLA has been on Bearwear profits and sought,
quite unsuccessfully, to wean the association by exploring new
services and other revenue streams. And now the board has decided
to accept the chancellor’s loan with all strings attached. I
fervently hope that they have some idea where the association is
going and how to get there without having to sell out more of the
collective soul embodied in ASUCLA for which so many students have
fought long and hard.
Lee is a graduate student in the mechanical engineering doctoral
program.