Historically, candidates for the three programming-oriented commissions in the undergraduate student government elections label themselves “in-house candidates” if they have been endorsed by their staff members through unofficial elections or some other means.
But this year, some slate-aligned candidates running for the other commissions, which are advocacy-oriented, such as the Facilities Commission, have begun to use the term in their campaigns.
Candidates for Campus Events commissioner, Student Welfare commissioner and Community Service commissioner tend to be independent, run unopposed and have the support of both slates.
“Slates respect the work that we do,” Student Welfare Commissioner Tamaron Jang said. “With slates you are responsible for overarching issues, and being independent frees us from that and allows us to program with the hopes of addressing all issues for all students at large.”
During this year’s elections, positions such as Cultural Affairs commissioner and Facilities commissioner have two candidates who are both choosing to call themselves “in-house candidates.”
There are no regulations from the Elections Board, which oversees candidates and their campaigns, on who can call themselves “in-house candidates,” and positions are open to people without support from the commission.
Ravi Dehar, Campus Events commissioner, said the dynamics of his office would dramatically change if an outside candidate were elected, and the student body would be able to notice.
His office holds unofficial elections to choose an in-house candidate.
“If someone from outside the office were to run and win, it would set our office back a lot,” he said. “The new person would be faced with having to train new staffers and being trained themselves.”
But not every office holds unofficial elections, and many candidates and their supporters have more flexible definitions of the “in-house” term in campaign materials.
“For me, the term “˜in-house candidate’ is someone who has worked actively in the commission and has experience within the commission,” Joline Price, Bruins United campaign manager and current USAC general representative, said.
She added that, while candidates who were endorsed by their office staffs may “show support they have from within the commission, … (it) doesn’t mean they are the best candidate.”
Tina Park, Students First! campaign manager and current external vice president, had a similar definition, but she said she believes it is unethical for candidates to exaggerate their experience.
“I’ve always viewed the term as (a candidate with) a long-standing commitment and work relationship with the office,” she said.
Facilities commissioner candidate Angela Cheung said she is confident in using the term “in-house” candidate in her campaign.
The Students First! candidate said she has served as the sustainability director in the office for two years, but there was no formal process in determining who qualified as an in-house candidate. Her opponent, Bruins United candidate Sherlyn Mossahebfar, is also running as an in-house candidate.
PC Zai, current Facilities commissioner, said that because of the small size of her office, she had informal conversations with her staff to determine who was interested in running for office.
She added that candidates who are not from the office can be successful if elected. Zai was not an in-house candidate when she ran last year, but “had skills that translated (into her USAC position).”
Park said she believes candidates who have not spent at least one or two years working on behalf of the office should not label themselves as the in-house candidate, but noted that there is no regulation on that.
“Someone could easily come in three weeks prior to elections starting and go to three or four staff meetings and call themselves the in-house candidate,” Park said. “I think it’s unethical ““ (candidates) should be honest about the experience (they) have.”
Zai agreed, but said there was little possibility of the Elections Board taking action about the issue.
She said the Elections Board is limited to sanctions and disqualifying candidates, and toward the end of the elections any threats of action will not be taken seriously.
“The Elections Board doesn’t have the resources and time to enforce certain things,” she said.