For years, the Undergraduate Students Association Council has
been a stagnant body, dominated by several powerful student groups.
Now, sweeping reforms could recast the government as a senate.
Though no government can be more effective than the sum of its
elected officials, we are convinced this proposal has the potential
to make student government more deliberative and representative
““ two characteristics sorely missing from the current,
40-year-old council system.
Currently, the council is comprised of 13 members: a president,
an external and internal vice president, seven commissioners and
three general representatives. Each official represents
approximately 1,900 fellow undergraduates.
The proposed senate would offer 32 elected offices: 20
senatorial representatives, along with seven nonvoting
commissioners and five executive officers.
The most serious drawback of the current council system is its
less-than-comprehensive representation of the campus. A senate
system has, at least hypothetically, the potential to alleviate
many of those structural deficiencies.
The idea of a senate is radically different than a council, but
many student associations are structured in this way, including all
other University of California campuses. Its size allows for a
greater division of tasks and gives a formal voice to a wider gamut
of political ideologies. The proposal also introduces a
ranked-preference voting system. For each office, students would
rank a first-choice candidate and as many alternate choices as they
wish.
If a voter’s first choice earns more votes than are needed
to win, the remaining votes would be transferred to the second
choice, and so on. Students would be able to rank as many or as few
candidates as they wish, and no one group could control the process
as in the case of plurality voting. Candidates would not need
thousands of votes ““ less than 1,000 would likely be
sufficient.
Commissioners, such as the Campus Events commissioner and
Community Service commissioner, would still be elected but would
not have voting powers ““ theoretically reducing the frequency
of political distractions and permitting a stronger focus on
student programs and advocacy.
The senate, meanwhile, would become more deliberative than the
current system. For example, many important funding decisions are
currently passed by acclimation. While highly efficient, no debate
or modification occurs. When there is opposition at the table, it
is usually from one or two voices that are easily ignored by the
majority.
Inefficiency ““ perhaps the biggest fear of a senate system
““ could also be its strongest advantage. Volatile issues,
like student-group funding and advocacy campaigns, deserve much
more input and debate than they currently receive.
Certainly, the system could have drawbacks. Senators would
likely receive stipends, further straining an already tight budget.
Deliberations could be lengthy and result in stalemates. Finally,
there is no guarantee that a senate could avoid the same inbred
politics that plague the council today.
Additionally, beyond constitutional specifics, it is
questionable and uninspiring that the proposal is being carried
solely on the back of Brian Neesby, current chief of staff in the
Financial Supports Commission and a council candidate last year.
Such dramatic changes shouldn’t be the result of one
student’s efforts. Broad and vocal support is needed now, and
if it does not emerge, Neesby should drop the proposal.
This would be a momentous change, and before taking further
action, students should learn about the details. If its potential
is realized, the senate system could introduce dozens of new voices
and better serve the student body that willfully submits more than
$2.4 million of their money every year. But if not carefully
implemented and supported, it could be no better than the existing
council. Students shouldn’t miss this opportunity for
substantive change.