Undergraduate council reviewing constitution to clear up
confusion
By Brooke Olson
Daily Bruin Staff
Time and time again this year the undergraduate council has
drawn criticism from both administrators and fellow students for
allegedly breaking and misinterpreting its own bylaws.
The council has attributed these incidents to unclear and
contradictory guidelines, but now the council has an opportunity to
clear up these discrepancies via the annual constitutional review
committee.
The committee is responsible for reviewing the constitution and
submitting proposed changes to the council.
But some students criticized the council’s attempt to revamp the
laws, despite the fact that councils review the constitution every
year.
"The students should be concerned with these changes because no
doubt the council will favor certain student groups while making
the changes," said Rob Greenhalgh, who served as last year’s
undergraduate president.
But committee members claimed that their only goal is to fix the
guidelines so future councils are clear about the laws and do not
make the same mistakes which occurred this year.
"It’s a very weak document; each year the council attempts to do
their best to clean it up so future councils won’t run into the
same types of disputes," said undergraduate President York
Chang.
The most controversial council action occurred this quarter when
the student government impeached a Judicial Board justice.
The council, in accordance with one bylaw, impeached Justice
Noah Hochman with approval of two-thirds the council. However, a
separate bylaw states that a three-fourths approval is needed to
remove a justice. As a result of the contradiction, Hochman’s
removal was overturned by the Judicial Board.
"We want to clear up these bylaws so that they don’t contradict
each other anymore," said Barbara Brazil, the council’s internal
vice president and a constitution review committee member.
The council also drew fire last quarter when several committee
members bypassed the appointment review committee.
According to one bylaw, the review committee must question and
review all recommended applicants for various committee positions.
But the council’s interpretation of the law was that the
undergraduate president could decide whether or not the nominee
needs to meet with the committee, Chang said.
Members of the constitutional review committee said they are
interested in making their interpretation of this issue standard in
the bylaws to avoid similar problems in the future.
But that met with sharp criticism from opponents of this year’s
council.
"The (appointment review) committee is about making sure all
presidential appointees are reviewed by those not connected with
the nomination process," Greenhalgh said.
"If the council was confident about the legitimacy of their
appointees, they would have no problems having them go through this
committee," he added.
But council members said the appointment review committee is an
unnecessary bureaucratic measure and the council as a whole is
responsible for reviewing the nominees.
"The final decision on the nominees belongs to the council
members, who all review the qualifications of the appointees,"
Chang said.
Members of the constitutional review committee also plan to
straighten out the issues of undergraduate sponsorship, Brazil
said.
"The committee is interested in trying to serve the student
groups interest," Brazil said. "We’d like to make some student
groups permanently sponsored by the council so that they don’t have
to continually reapply for sponsorship."
But some said this is an attempt to make the council more
exclusionary.
"Obviously the council is out to give certain preferences to
some organizations while at the same time excluding others,"
Greenhalgh said. "This is an elitist system."
Committee members, though, said they have not decided which
student groups would be eligible for the extended sponsorship, but
said it would be based on previous long-term standing and
commitment with the university.
The committee also plans to provide a more specific definition
of various council members roles.
"There are no guidelines which outline exactly what the
council’s general representatives should be doing, for instance,"
Brazil said. "We want to clear up their roles."
Certain undergraduate committees will also be changed to make
them more relevant to students, said John Du, the council’s
external vice-president and a committee member.
"The rally committee, for example, is in the constitution but
hasn’t been in effect for several years," Du said.
Another issue which the committee plans to tackle is that of the
Smith v. Regents decision, members said. The Smith ruling declared
that students cannot be forced to fund religious, political or
ideological programs through their mandatory fees. Many students
feared that this might severely hinder campus activism.
The council receives mandatory student fees, but UCLA
administrators and undergraduate officers decided the Smith
decision was not relevant to the council, Brazil said. Because the
council gives refunds to students who object to particular
programs, Brazil said that the ruling is not problematic
anymore.
"The administration is giving us a lot of leeway in the Smith
ruling," Brazil said. "Therefore we want to make the guidelines not
have to be so constricted by the Smith ruling."
The constitutional review committee consists of four
undergraduate council members, including the internal and external
vice presidents, who are responsible for evaluating the guiding
documents.
According to undergraduate bylaws, the committee recommends to
the council amendments to the constitution. Approval by two-thirds
of the voting members of council is necessary to ratify any new
amendments.
However, in order for the council to change the wording in the
constitution, a referendum announcing the changes must be submitted
to the student body. A two-thirds approval of students voting is
necessary to make the changes.
The constitution review committee will submit recommendations to
the council next quarter, Brazil said.
"This is just a thing that every council does each year," Chang
said. "It’s neither a success nor a failure; it’s just that times
have changed and sometimes guiding documents need to be changed to
reflect the shift."Comments to webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu