Council behind USAC disunity Karren
Lane’s vicious attack on USAC President Elizabeth Houston
(“USAC
president fails to fulfill own promise, calls for
inclusion,” Viewpoint, Jan. 11) should be used as a case
study in psychology classes. It looks like a classic case of
projection. That would be the best case scenario. Otherwise,
Lane’s point of view simply appears to be ignorant and
closed-minded. Lane asserts, “Despite receiving a base
budget, the president’s office has not produced one
program.” But, just last week, the president’s office
released its plans for winter quarter. They’ve got several
major events taking place, starting in a couple of weeks. The
office used fall quarter to plan for these events. Furthermore,
funding allocations took priority this fall, which was one of the
priorities on Houston’s platform. As a matter of fact, a
committee was formed and is currently addressing those issues. I
wonder if Lane ever stopped by to see what the president and her
staff have been doing. I guess she didn’t need to open up her
doors as a representative of an established student group or step
outside of them to find out what the new president is doing if she
already made up her mind. I have attended council meetings every
Tuesday and witnessed the roles which Lane describes; they are
reversed completely. In every meeting, Houston goes out of her way
to encourage cooperation and support among the various segments of
campus. What kind of response does she get? Overwhelming support?
No. Adamant refusals? No. It’s worse than both of those
options. Instead, she gets absolutely no response at all. I invite
anyone to come watch every week as our president strives to bring
unity and cooperation yet simultaneously is ignored by most council
members. Need I remind Lane that just as our president in
Washington, D.C., is just one man, who relies on over 500 members
of the Legislature in order to get anything done, the USAC
president cannot do anything alone. And yes, she is alone. Some
members of council hardly ever speak up to tell the rest of their
peers what their office is doing. Isn’t that strange behavior
for a cooperative governing body? Beyond that, presidential
appointments have been blocked by council members who seem to have
a hard time approving people who hold views that differ from their
own. The lack of unity and the “intentional efforts to
isolate” do exist, Ms. Lane. Houston isn’t the culprit;
council is.
Nathan Roman fourth-year psychology
Power crisis does affect UCLA I think
it’s great that California’s power crisis is getting
thorough and thoughtful coverage in the Daily Bruin
(“California
still in midst of power crisis,” News, Jan. 9), but there
is another perspective to the story. To say the crisis does not
have an impact at UCLA is not quite accurate; this situation
affects everyone. It affects our family and friends, and has even
stopped deregulation in other states. Our parents are paying high
energy bills when it would be much better spent on buying our
books. We should all be concerned about taking this opportunity to
tell the power companies that we want cleaner, more affordable
energy. We are all affected when companies start expecting the
public to repeatedly bail them out. California consumers and
taxpayers have already done enough to save the utility companies.
Under the terms of deregulation, California spent $17.6 billion
fixing the utility companies’ past mistakes, including
investment in nuclear power plants and polluting fossil fuel
plants. These public funds helped fuel this year’s
record-breaking profits of $1.5 billion of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company. Now we are being asked to bail them out again, despite
their having agreed to be solely responsible for rising electricity
costs under the original terms of deregulation.
Nick Lazzarini First year Psychobiology