To write Slate Refund off as a joke would be to miss the point
of why they are running.
The reality is that Slate Refund is, for the most part, running
a group of very passionate (if somewhat myopic) candidates under a
slogan most students can finally understand: Vote for us, and
we’ll refund you the $120 in fees you pay to the
Undergraduate Students Association Council. (Money from the fee
currently goes toward student groups and the council as a
whole.)
That platform sounds good. Really good. If students are going to
pay money, the argument goes, it should be by their choice, not
USAC’s. But while that might make sense to some extent for
student groups, it doesn’t when it comes to the council as a
whole.
Every year, the council has the potential to be phenomenal.
Every year, there is the possibility that the council will finally
program events that all students care about, will increase campus
safety, get a student voice on every faculty and administration
committee, start new classes you want to take, screen free movies
you want to see, and host gigantic activities fairs for groups you
want to join. Every year, the council has the potential to
influence the lives of every undergraduate on this campus.
To vote for Slate Refund would be to essentially give up on that
hope. Because to reach that sort of potential, the council requires
two things: Representatives who have the energy and ideas to get it
there and some of your money. That’s just reality speaking.
Groups and organizations can only run so far on ideas before cold
hard cash spells out exactly what they can and cannot
accomplish.
It is highly unlikely Slate Refund would be able to match the
sort of funding, either through voluntary contributions or through
private fundraising, that council receives now via mandatory fees.
Again, that’s just reality speaking. That would result in a
smaller, less-effective council, and while that might be what some
students want, you can’t convince us that’s ultimately
what’s good for the students.
And Slate Refund’s candidates, while they are passionate
about one platform, for the most part cannot articulate any goals
beyond that, or even demonstrate knowledge as to what their duties
would be. This causes us to speculate that even if they give back
students’ money, Slate Refund would then grow stagnant or
haphazard.
Slate Refund might be able to get $120 back into your pocket.
But the bottom line is that all the candidates this board chose to
endorse have better ideas as to how to improve the lives of UCLA
students. And they ““ like us ““ have not given up on the
potential of student government.
But regardless of which candidates ultimately win, they would
all do well to pay attention to Slate Refund. Because what the
slate does point to is a growing conviction that council lacks
fiscal discipline and transparency, that, when you get right down
to it, the council fails to meaningfully impact students’
lives.
That’s not wholly true. Student government impacts people
in more ways than they realize. A lot of community service projects
and events, like the Jazz Reggae Festival, are run through
USAC.
But if a wide swath of students are convinced that USAC is
ineffective, that sentiment must contain some kernel of truth.
Therefore, next year’s council should take one message above
all with them: Make council strong, make it engaging, and make it
relevant to all students, not just your constituents.
Because one day, if USAC really does become as inefficient as a
lot of people claim it is and as irrelevant to students’
lives as many believe, students will probably give up on the
council’s potential and divest from it.
Is that day today? (Or, more accurately, since voting
doesn’t start until Tuesday, is that day tomorrow?)
We say no. But ultimately, that is up to you, the voter, to
decide.