Natalie Delgadillo: General representative candidates should have cohesive platform

After this summer’s stipend increase, every student government officer gets paid $672 a month.

For most members of the Undergraduate Students Association Council who have clearly defined roles and a very structured office, it’s relatively clear what the student body is paying them to do.

For the three general representatives that sit on council, however, it’s not quite so obvious.

This year’s general representatives, Sam Haws, Sunny Singh and Lizzy Naameh, started the year with election platforms aimed at programming and advocacy that would better student life on campus. Some have been more successful than others at implementing those platforms, but all have faced the challenge of trying to create structure and purpose for an office that is very vaguely defined.

The general representative office has very little prescribed direction, but that can be an advantage – it frees general representatives to be creative with their positions and work on initiatives that fill any gaps left by the other 10 offices.

But because general representatives are responsible for determining their own paths, the candidates about to emerge for the position must demonstrate a strong and specific vision for the office.

As election season begins, students should look for general representative candidates that have specific and achievable goals for their office, and don’t simply tout empty phrases in the debates about bringing the UCLA community together or “raising awareness” for various issues.

It’s very easy for broadly defined initiatives to deteriorate as the school year gets underway and the realities of being in a USAC office – with a limited budget and the logistical difficulties of implementing programs – become apparent.

A better way to create platforms is with specific programs or, even better, institutional changes in mind.

For example, then-General Representative David Bocarsly’s 2011 platform to strengthen UCLA’s ties with Westwood resulted in Bruins Night Out, an event that’s co-programmed with the Campus Events Commission and partners with Westwood businesses to give UCLA students discounts.

That program is continuing through the General Representative 1 office this year with Haws.

While general representatives are certainly capable of putting on more ambitious programs or taking on initiatives with wider implications, it’s important that platforms are feasible too.

The general representatives have the ability to provide programming and take up initiatives centered around what they – and by extension the students who voted for them – feel is important.

That’s what makes it so critical for the student body to elect officers that have a clear sense of where their office is going to go.

Some of this year’s general representatives have had various difficulties in finding that direction.

Haws said he’s found it difficult to figure out what his role should be outside of being a representative on the council table.

Haws is clearly well-intentioned and has tried to figure out a way to cater to all students with his programs, but has been unable to develop a clear purpose for himself or for his office. Most of the programs he described were small-scale and haphazardly scattered across several different areas of focus.

 

General Representative 3 Naameh has chosen to focus on two main areas: mental health awareness and social justice.

 

Her office is working on institutionalizing a People of Color Tour at UCLA and creating an archive for literature on student activism for future student leaders. It has also been holding small events that spread awareness about mental health resources on campus, she said.

However, she had difficulty describing or detailing the programs or initiatives her office has already completed, or giving specifics about how she plans to achieve the other initiatives she has in the works.

Despite a relatively unambitious set of programs, the General Representative 2 office has managed to build a cohesive office centered around several small programs that work toward his larger platforms, like the T-shirt redesign contest held during fall quarter. Singh’s idea of the office is clearly centered around this kind of smaller programming, and he has accomplished the initiatives he set out to do.

Next year’s general representatives will be more successful if they work to incorporate the specificity of Singh’s platforms with a more ambitious vision for the direction of the office.

Developing a cohesive vision is a challenge reserved for the general representatives’ offices, and it requires more planning and work in some ways than any other office to do well.

With election season around the corner, those running for general representative offices would do well to remember that and plan their platforms so that students get their money’s worth.

Email Delgadillo at ndelgadillo@media.ucla.edu or tweet her @ndelgadillo07. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.