New guidelines don’t gel with past policies
In “Attend USAC meeting if interested in office space” (Oct. 21), the editorial board endorses the proposed changes to the application process for student groups applying for office space in Kerckhoff Hall, but seems to misunderstand the consequences behind these changes. The current rules for eligibility require student groups to demonstrate a certain amount of stability in three areas ““ they must have been registered with the Center for Student Programming, applied for funding and utilized campus facilities for the last three years.
Changing this requirement to five years ““ as the current Undergraduate Students Association Council proposes and the Daily Bruin editorial board endorses ““ is problematic considering that virtually all student groups were denied the right to apply for USAC funding until less than five years ago. It is simply unfair that under these new guidelines, hundreds of student groups will be prohibited from applying for office space because the current council has decided to take advantage of the discriminatory policies of past councils.
I understand the editorial board’s concern that the most deserving student groups receive the limited office space in Kerckhoff Hall. But the process has been calibrated over the years so that the Office Space Allocation Committee takes into account several important factors ““ including stability and history on campus ““ when determining its allocations for the year. This committee was made a separate and independent entity to protect the controversial issue of office space from the biases inherent in the partisan politics of USAC. The current USAC members threaten what should be an objective process by imposing their own ideology on which groups “deserve” office space with regard to the eligibility requirements.
If OSAC is allowed to operate with its independence and integrity intact, there is no question that the best student groups will be awarded offices. But first we should ensure that the best student groups on this campus are even allowed to apply.
Dianne Tanjuaquio
USAC internal vice president
2007-2008
Roth: Judicial Board case is unjustified
The current Student Judicial Board case is an unfortunate manifestation of petty politics. Filed by a defeated Bruins United candidate for the undergraduate student government, it is politically motivated and ultimately unfounded.
While I respect the right of any member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council to carefully examine the actions of its elected leaders, it is not appropriate to abuse the Judicial Board solely to advance partisan agendas.
I have been working along with the rest of USAC to improve the Office Space Allocation Committee guidelines after years of problems and controversy due to poorly written guidelines. As Facilities commissioner and a member of the Constitutional Review Committee, it is my duty to be concerned with such problems, and USAC’s guiding documents in no way prohibit me from doing so. This process has been completely transparent, with all meetings and documents open to the rest of council and to the public. Any changes made have been to improve OSAC’s procedures, a necessary step that is not remotely partisan.
Finalizing these procedures would allow groups the opportunity to finally take advantage of available space following OSAC’s independent allocation decisions. Yet Boris Lipkin and Addison Huddy’s unjustified accusations will only prolong the process, barring groups from applying for office space even longer than they already do. They are creating a distraction from the real business of student government: working on projects that help students. They are forcing USAC and the Judicial Board to waste time and university resources for their own political purposes. This effort to turn student government into a political circus is shameful and unproductive.
Galen Roth
USAC Facilities commissioner
2008-2009