The Undergraduate Students Association Council has tabled a
number of issues so far this year, blaming school work and external
complications for many of the delays.
To be fair, some delays appear to be based on legitimate
concerns. For example, on both Oct. 14 and Oct. 21, USAC voted not
to amend rules governing the allocation of money for student
groups. That decision was made because the UC Office of the
President is scheduled to hand down guidelines on the issue before
the end of the quarter. Council reasonably decided to wait and not
expose itself to accusations of rashness ““ and possibly even
a lawsuit ““ regarding this highly controversial and political
issue.
Other delays, however, have not been as logical ““ or
necessary. On Oct. 28, USAC tabled a request for sponsorship by the
UCLA Dance Marathon, citing unclear bylaws governing group
sponsorship. During the discussion of the issue, some
councilmembers appeared to understand the relevant bylaws, but
others appeared to be almost oblivious to them. In this case, it is
not clear if the delay was because of the confusion or because of
political motivations ““ but the Dance Marathon’s status
remains in limbo.
Similarly, on Oct. 28 and Nov. 4, USAC twice tabled resolutions
supporting organized labor. Internal Vice President Allende
Palma/Saracho explained, “We got boggled down with
midterms,” adding that the delay was partially attributable
to labor group slowdowns. Certainly, midterms are stressful for all
students, but elected student representatives must plan their time
so they can fulfill their duties ““ even during stressful
weeks.
Slow decision making is not a new phenomenon with this
year’s council, but they still need to improve. Since the
beginning of their term in May 2003, councilmembers have been slow
moving forward with long-term reforms and individual campaign
promises. On these matters, USAC councilmembers should be held to
account by student groups and appointed student officials.
USAC’s executive officers ““ the president, the
internal vice president and the external vice president ““
must take the lead and ensure USAC’s efficacy. In recent
years, USAC has been successful with many student advocacy
projects, including this year’s anti-Proposition 54 efforts.
USAC’s leaders must expand on these successes and continue to
address fundamental and important campus issues.
Sometimes issues may require heated debate and in-depth research
to resolve, but USAC members must be committed to the process in
which they have promised to engage.
Right now, it seems that USAC picks and chooses a handful of
issues to pursue, but dawdles on other controversial and complex
campus issues. A successful council must be well informed and
willing to take political risks ““ only then will the
potential productivity of the council be realized.
Palma/Saracho is right ““ councilmembers must study hard
““ but they should remember that they have chosen to be
elected officials, and that part of their homework is USAC
homework.