By Esther Flores
In following our UCLA student government I have noticed that accountability, a key element to good governance, has been overshadowed.
On Tuesday, the Daily Bruin printed a color, two-page spread noting the year-end evaluations of our current elected Undergraduate Student Association Council officers. I was happy to see that, for the most part, our three executive officers fulfilled their promises, as well as a couple of the commissioners.
I was disheartened, however, by the fact that some of those who scored the lowest marks are the same officers who are re-running for positions. Raquel Saxe, Andrea Hester and Michael Starr are all running this year but for a different USAC position.
However, their officer reports do not reflect success in the current positions that they hold.
It is one thing to re-run for a position in the hopes of doing a better job; in fact, that is a very respectable thing to do. But, all of these officers are running for different positions, including executive spots.
This is puzzling. I’m wondering if these candidates did not successfully complete their current platforms, why do they desire to take on entirely new positions and new proposals? Some may argue that platforms are projections made at the beginning of the year and that officers cannot expect to be able to complete them all.
Although I acknowledge that the success of a platform is not solely dependent on a candidate’s effort, candidates are responsible for making proposals that are feasible and within their constraints.
Students who run for USAC office should understand how the office they are running for operates so that they can run feasible platforms. One fundamental condition to understanding an office is having worked in that office before.
For example, David Bocarsly was chief of staff for General Representative 2 office before being elected to that same position last year. His USAC evaluations reflect his understanding of the office and what can reasonably be achieved. Joelle Gamble, having been involved with the External Vice President’s Office, and Kristina Sidrak, having been in the Internal Vice President’s Office, were also both able to run on and successfully complete their platforms.
As evidenced, there is a trend about the kind of experience necessary to become a productive elected official in USAC. In-house candidates, with experience working on office projects, are the most able to keep their promises to the campus community. They are the most likely to produce feasible platforms that UCLA students can hold them accountable to.