By Robert Salonga
Daily Bruin Reporter
After spending nearly an entire academic year revising its
bylaws, the Undergraduate Students Association Council is seemingly
one step away from completing the process.
On Friday, the council ratified changes to its bylaws regarding
USAC sponsorship of student groups on campus. But lack of quorum
prevented the council from taking an official vote on the
revisions.
President Elizabeth Houston said the council’s failure to
reach quorum ““ which requires at least seven voting council
members to be present ““ has hindered USAC’s progress
over the course of the year.
“It goes deeper than just lack of quorum. I think at times
there was a purposeful lack of attendance by certain council
members to resist change,” Houston said.
But General Representative Elisa Sequeira said any lack of
attendance was justified and by no means intentional.
“It has in some cases affected council because there
weren’t enough people to dialogue on the issues, but it
hasn’t been intentional,” Sequeira said.
“People have other commitments. Taken in the grand scope
of things, I don’t think it has affected proceedings,”
she continued.
Houston sent the ratified changes Friday to Chancellor Albert
Carnesale to satisfy his April 27 deadline. In a letter to the
chancellor, Houston stated that certain provisions were still in
question and will be discussed and voted on during USAC’s
regular Tuesday meeting.
One example of a revised clause that the council made addresses
sponsorship. Before changes, Article II.C.2 of the bylaws read,
“As entities, whose existence and operations are essential to
the fulfillment of the goals of USAC, Student Advocacy Groups shall
be considered a part of the governance of USA, and as such shall be
eligible for full access to resources such as base budgets and
office space.”
It now reads, “Student Advocacy Groups shall be considered
a part of the governance of USA, and, along with all officially
registered/recognized student groups, shall be eligible for full
access to resources such as base budgets and office
space.”
Despite clarifications to the bylaws, Houston said one issue
still in question has to do with whether to sponsor only recognized
student groups or all registered student groups.
Student groups recognized by USAC are currently eligible for
university resources, including funding. There are also independent
student groups ““ mainly political or religious, ““ which
are registered with the university but do not have access to its
resources because of their inherent partiality, which puts them in
conflict with USAC bylaws.
“Under the law, I think USAC should allow for all
registered student groups, including religious and political
groups, to be eligible for funding,” Houston said.
“They are a very big part of this campus,” she
continued. “It puts a new light on discrimination: when are
you stepping on religious freedom and when are you preventing
discrimination?”
The other provision in question that will be addressed at
Tuesday’s meeting deals with whether the bylaws should
specifically detail its sponsorship for “culturally”
diverse communities or just diverse communities.
Despite the issues at hand, council members in general feel the
revisions will be officially approved Tuesday, thereby completing
its yearlong effort.
“I don’t think anyone has any major problems with
it. The process was never as difficult as it was made to
seem,” said Internal Vice President Elias Enciso.
The council has been working since summer to revise its bylaws
regarding student group sponsorship and mandatory student fee
allocation. Revisions were partially prompted by three court cases
related to the matter, but recently, USAC has made it clear that
its primary goal is to comply with guidelines set by the University
of California Office of the President.
“We’re in compliance with all the court cases.
It’s the UCOP guidelines we’re trying to comply
with,” Enciso said.
UCOP guidelines dictate that a student government must
distribute student fees to groups without regard to viewpoint.
“We have to make certain that we’re inclusive as
possible, that if a group shows a valid concern for an issue they
can prove is not being addressed, we have to fund it,” said
Berky Nelson, director of the Center for Student Programming.
Three court cases ““ the 1993 California Supreme Court case
Smith v. UC Regents, the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court cases Rosenberger
v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia and Southworth
v. University of Wisconsin in 1996 ““ dealt with similar
issues that addressed how mandatory student fees were allocated to
student groups on their respective campuses.
Most notable was the Southworth case, when in March 2000, the
Supreme Court ruled unanimously that mandatory student fees were
legal as long as they were distributed on a viewpoint-neutral
basis.
Technically, USAC is already compliant with all three court
cases because the Smith case prompted the establishment of a refund
mechanism where students can apply for a refund if they don’t
agree to certain groups their fees are funding.
“Because we have a refund mechanism, none of the student
fees are mandatory because a student can apply for a refund at any
time,” Enciso said.
Sequeira said the council’s efforts over the course of a
year have been considerable.
“In a year we’ve been able to review our funding
mechanisms, make changes to sponsorship and start a process in
which allocations are made,” she said.
Houston recognized the achievement of completing the revision
process but stressed its lack of timeliness.
“I think it will prove to finally be a professional action
by council in doing what we should have done months ago,” she
said.