At Tuesday’s four-hour-long meeting, council discussed the possibility of changing the voting system for the three general representative seats on USAC.
The Elections Board chairwoman Sandybeth Carrillo presented the two voting system options of instant run-off voting and single-transferable voting.
The instant run-off voting system, or IRV, involves counting all the first-place votes, eliminating the candidate with the fewest votes, and then redistributing his or her votes to the next candidate on the ballot. This automatic elimination process is repeated until the right number of candidates are left to fill the positions. Carrillo said this system will shave off a week of extra run-off elections.
In the single-transferable voting system, or STV, a winning threshold, or the fewest number of votes a candidate needs to ensure a seat, is set. In the case that a candidate receives votes greater than the threshold, the surplus votes are redistributed. If none of the candidates meet the threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and his second and third choice votes are transferred accordingly. The presenters said STV was more complicated and needed more specific guidelines to be efficient.
Currently, the IRV system is used for electing the 10 executive commissioners while the STV system was planned to be used for electing the general representatives for the first time this year. Eric Splaver, director of College Information Services said the goal of changing the voting system was to “try to put into place a voting system that would allow for greater proportional representation.”
Carrillo proposed making all of the election IRV style or specifying the mathematical calculations with which to determine the winning threshold.
After a series of rather confusing discussions on the differences between the voting systems, councilmembers decided to choose the best process at next week’s meeting.
Judith Smith, vice provost and dean of undergraduate education, spoke to council about the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and UCLA’s reaccreditation process. She emphasized that since only accredited colleges can qualify for federal financial aid programs, it is crucial to show progress at the site visits that are done every eight years.
Of course, amid the accreditation talk, Administrative Representative Rick Tuttle couldn’t help but enlighten council with a delightful little story on his knowledge of interdisciplinary education.
Surprise over office space allocations:
After several weeks of worrying about the lack of applicants for the Office Space Allocation Committee, three applicants were willingly approved by council. When hearing that some of the applicants had been expressing their interest in the positions since fall quarter, some councilmembers seemed a bit stunned.
Tabling of Campus Safety commission:
When it was Internal Vice President Gregory Cendana’s turn to speak in support of creating the Campus Safety commission, councilmembers couldn’t contain their laughter. Due to a cold, Cendana’s voice began cracking spontaneously, causing him to jokingly proclaim that he was going through puberty again.
After reviewing and discussing the resolution in support of the new commission, Alumni Representative Todd Sargent expressed his concern over the overlapping duties of this proposed new commission and the existing Facilities commission. He felt that some of the responsibilities outlined in the resolution might create unnecessary rivalry. After another lengthy discussion on the pros and cons of establishing this new commission, council decided to table the resolution until next week’s meeting.
Operational fund scoring changes:
The last item on the agenda was a discussion of changes to the Student Organizations Operational Fund score sheet. A very enthusiastic Financial Supports Commissioner Shaun Doria explained that the changes to the “additional factors” section of the score sheet would provide a way to reward groups that exhibit responsible spending and funding.
Doria said he believed these small changes would help USAC allocate funds more efficiently and “prioritize groups that will be prioritizing good things that USAC values.”