The original version of this article contained an error and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for additional information.
An advisory committee is set up to do just that ““ advise.
The Undergraduate Students Association Council is in charge of making 71 appointments to student government positions, all of which are prescreened by the USAC Appointments Review Committee.
Lately, committee members have abstained on a majority of votes, offering no solid recommendation to the council, making their vote pointless.
Because of this, it seems as though USAC has been expediting appointments for the sake of time rather than dutifully considering the importance of finding only the most qualified candidates.
According to USAC bylaws, “The primary purpose of the Appointments Review Committee shall be to expedite the appointment approval process.”
The committee’s recent votes included 0-0-2 votes for appointees to the Chancellor’s Enrollment Advisory Committee and the Campus Sustainability Committee, who were approved by USAC despite the abstentions.
Even more concerning is the 0-1-1 vote for Alon Kashanian, who was appointed to the Student Health Advisory Commission even though no one on the committee approved of his appointment, and one of the members voted against recommending him.
Committee members said they forward candidates to give them more time to learn about their positions before being considered by USAC. But this board believes that a good candidate for these appointments should know about the job they are pursuing before they come to the Appointments Review Committee.
If the approval of candidates who have no better than two abstentions in their favor is to be the norm for this year’s USAC, then the UCLA community is not being well served. These appointments are for positions that span every realm of student life.
Last week, we noted that the delayed selection of an Election Board chair showed a lack of expediency. Now, speeding through appointments shows an opposite but equally problematic approach in that it implies USAC cares more about getting a name down than making sure that name fits the position.
USAC President David Bocarsly said the council chose not to appoint an Election Board chair in part to have more time to pick a fitting candidate. However, regarding appointments with so few recommendations, he said in a meeting that the open roles were filled for the sake of expediency. With those contradictory statements, it is unclear what the council’s priorities are.
We ask that the Appointments Review Committee find a medium between rushing its appointments and missing them. We urge USAC to abide by the laws it is governed by, and treat them more like requirements than guidelines. We call on the committee to make recommendations and turn away unqualified candidates, looking upon each applicant with due scrutiny.
If the Appointments Review Committee does not have a positive recommendation to give, then it should seek out better candidates to more effectively serve the student population.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the editorial board.
Correction: Bocarsly said in a meeting that the open roles were filled for the sake of expediency.