After a long debate and opposition at Tuesday’s
undergraduate student government meeting, four students were
finally approved and appointed to sit on the Constitutional Review
Committee.
The Constitutional Review Committee is a standing committee
whose members are appointed by Allende Palma/Saracho, president of
the Undergraduate Students Association Council, and voted on by the
council. The committee is expected to look primarily at the
budgetary issues and funding processes that the USAC constitution
outlines.
Additional guidelines were created over summer to permit a
larger pool of student organizations to apply for money
appropriations. Because of the new guidelines, the committee will
refine the constitution and re-visit budget-related issues.
Results of the disbursement of funds spurred controversy among
student groups, as some councilmembers believed there were
inconsistencies in the relation between the qualifications of clubs
and their fund allocations.
A point system was used to serve as a guide for the Budget
Review Committee to allocate money, but this resulted in
inconsistencies between the number of points an organization
received and the amount of money they were given.
The same four appointed members of the Budget Review Committee
have been appointed by Palma/Saracho to serve on the Constitutional
Review Committee.
The members are Budget Review Director Tracy Ohara, Finance
Committee Chairwoman Ma Raissa Corella, Community Service
Commissioner Crystal Lee and General Representative Anneli
Villarin.
The proposal was not passed fluidly. Instead, there was
continuous discussion back and forth across the table. The
disagreement was among Palma/Saracho, Facilities Commissioner Pavan
Tripathi and Financial Supports Commissioner Alex Gruenberg ““
the latter two in opposition of the proposal.
Gruenberg started the debate by raising his concern over the
lack of diversity; all the appointed members have already expressed
their viewpoints since they all occupied seats on the Budget Review
Committee.
“We had intense controversy surrounding (the outcome of
the decisions made by the Budget Review Committee). To appoint the
same committee members again seems faulty to me,” Gruenberg
said.
The issue most disputed was whether Ohara, who has never served
as an elected officer, met the technical requirements to be on the
committee based on USAC bylaws.
“I’m not sure what her position would count
as,” Palma/Saracho said, referring to the qualification of
Ohara as budget review director to be on the committee.
“I don’t think (Palma/Saracho) presented enough
reasoning as to why he chose who he did to serve on that committee.
It should have sent up a red flag for the rest of the
council,” Gruenberg said.
Tripathi also expressed his concerns during the meeting, saying
that if the same people are appointed, the council would be
avoiding all of the different viewpoints in the process.
“(The four appointed members) have very established views
since they’ve been working on similar matters together, so
their conclusions will be similar,” Tripathi said.
Concerns also went beyond the appointments, as Gruenberg
furthered his issue with the reviewing of the constitution.
“I personally believe we need to examine the entire
constitution because there are glaring inconsistencies,”
Gruenberg said.
To address this point, Palma/Saracho argued that the
Constitution Review Committee meetings would be open to all
councilmembers wishing to voice their concerns.
Gruenberg and Tripathi wanted more than just the chance to voice
their opinions; they also wanted to have more elected
councilmembers serve on the committee.
“Of course the meeting is open to all, but the problem is
that the people on the committee are the ones actively directing
whatever task is being undertaken. The point of a committee is so
that the majority of work will be done among those four
people,” Gruenberg said.
“Ultimately, the debates should occur during those
meetings and not all of the council should be involved. The council
should be voting on what is brought to the table.
“Personally, I want to ensure that we can reach (a)
compromise, especially since we are engaging in fairly serious
constitutional review, which may lead to changes,” Gruenberg
said.