The original version of this article contained information that was unclear and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for additional information.
Campus climate could find its way back to the ballot this year.
On Tuesday, the Undergraduate Students Association Council voted against allowing the Bruin Diversity Referendum a place on the May election ballot.
The proposed referendum, previously known as the Bruin Wellness Referendum, would raise about $840,000 per year to support programs on campus focused on student retention, access to education and improving campus climate. The referendum USAC voted on would raise student fees by $10 a quarter. After the vote, students behind the referendum reduced the amount to a $9.93 quarterly increase in student fees, resulting in about a $30-per-year increase.
Students who organized the original referendum have started collecting signatures to put the proposal on the May ballot as an initiative. However, the council’s decision to block the Bruin Wellness Referendum has denied students the right to determine for themselves how to spend or alter their student fees.
If USAC wants to be considerate of students’ voices, it should approve any well-thought-out and well-researched referendum that comes before it, because students can tell USAC whether funding is a need better than USAC can guess.
“The programs in the referendum are worthwhile and important for students to invest in,” said Kim Davis, fourth-year history student and Academic Affairs Commissioner.
This referendum was a quarter-long project for the six student groups that proposed it, and contained 20 pages of detail about the programs the referendum would fund. The Bruin Diversity Referendum reflects a substantial body of student work and student interest and deserves consideration by the student body.
After USAC voted down the proposed referendum, students resolved to get it on the ballot anyway through signatures on a petition. If it gets approved this way, the proposal becomes an initiative, as opposed to a referendum. For the referendum to go on the ballot this spring, organizers need 10 percent of the undergraduate population – 2,700 students – to sign their petition.
As of press deadline, the referendum’s supporters had already taken down more than 2,000 signatures, according to Molly Katz, a fourth-year history student and internal chair of the Community Programs Office Student Association.
The speed with which this group of students has been able to garner support for its referendum indicates two things: first, it shows that the student population has a significant interest in the programs this referendum funds and a desire for the opportunity to vote on funding those programs. Second, it shows that USAC was not entirely in touch with that student interest.
But reasonable concerns about the Bruin Diversity Referendum should be addressed.
The size of this fee increase – which would result in a $30 hike per student, per year – will only benefit select portions of the student population and will leave out many others.
“It’s such a sizeable increase, we just couldn’t justify it,” said David Bocarsly, USAC president and fourth-year economics student. “Fees are paid by every student, so they should benefit a majority or at least fulfill what we agree is a large need.”
Even so, the student body deserves to have it on the ballot where all students can make the final decision.
Additionally, the initial vote to put the referendum on the ballot is only the first step in the process. Following the first-approval vote, the referendum receives approval from the UCLA Chancellor’s office as well as the UC Office of the President to make sure it doesn’t break UC policy. Then, USAC votes on the proposed referendum for a second time to finally approve its place on the ballot.
This process takes about two weeks on average, which is plenty of time for USAC to consider the referendum’s full ramifications. Shutting down the process so early constitutes a premature denial of the student groups who proposed the referendum and of the student body to consider its merits.
In addition, while some members of the council expressed reservations regarding two-line items that violated university policy in the initial draft, those items were immediately amended before the vote, and if it had passed, the Chancellor and the UC Office of the President would have acted as supplementary fail-safes.
The dollar amount of the Bruin Diversity Referendum is absolutely a valid concern, and one that most students, struggling as they are to pay already high student fees and tuition, will likely be wary of.
The question lies in whether our student government finds us capable of informing ourselves and voting the way we think will most benefit us and our entire campus.
Clarification: The referendum USAC voted on would raise student fees by $10 a quarter. After the vote, students behind the referendum reduced the amount to a $9.93 quarterly increase in student fees, resulting in about a $30-per-year increase.
I have a few comments about this.
1. The referendum (from what I’ve read/heard) was given to council not very far in advance of the meeting. Thus, as representatives of the student body, their role of confirming its legitimacy and appropraiteness was hindered. Do you want your student government to push forward fee increases without thoroughly analyzing them first?
2. As someone who has witnessed individuals gathering signatures, I disagree with some of your statements. The ability of the organizers to gain signatures does not signify widespread student support. It simply signifies that a number of passionate students are going out and getting signatures. From the multiple instances I’ve seen, most of the students don’t even know what they signed.
3. The fact that changes were made (changing the fee amount) AFTER it was brought to council tells me that it is not ready for a vote. The referendum seems to still have some kinks to work out.
Yes, the students should have a right to say where their money is going. However, they also elected USAC to represent them, which includes protecting them from faulty referenda that don’t directly affect a vast amount of students.
Great article, let the students decide!