Throughout the year the undergraduate student government has needed prodding from students (myself included) to move on several important issues: reforming the general representative position, appointing the election board chair and owning up to its stipend blunder.
But some occasions call for a more measured approach. A constitutional amendment coming to the spring elections ballotis one of those occasions.
The proposal would create a 14th position on the Undergraduate Students Association Council that would focus specifically on transfer student issues.
The problems transfer students have expressed in public comment at the past two USAC meetings are founded and perfectly legitimate. Transfer students often don’t have access to student government positions or to the many services student government provides, simply by virtue of not having the time to get involved with a slate and not knowing what resources are available to them.
But this constitutional amendment isn’t the solution to those problems.
The new position is meant to “address academic and social issues, housing and commuter concerns, as well as transfer integration into the UCLA community,” according to language of the referendumitself. But without a clear structure for the office, achieving those goals effectively is going to be next to impossible.
Although the language for the constitutional amendment has been written, the language for the bylaws, where each council position’s duties are described in relative detail, has not yet been drafted. That means that the duties and structure of the office have not yet been laid out.
On top of that, the passage of a constitutional amendment would mean a special election to fill the newly created position, and the eventual councilmember would likely be entering his or her job months into the year.
Nicole Fossier, a fourth-year political science and psychology student who co-wrote the language of the amendment, said she pictures the position taking on a similar role as the general representative offices, where candidates run on platforms that in turn create the structure and direction of their office.
General representatives have often struggled to create fleshed-out offices that have tangible and meaningful effects on campus. Certainly a new office, lacking the history and well-defined roles of some of the other council positions, will face much of the same struggle. Will the office be focused primarily on programming geared toward transfers? On some sort of institutional change?
If it’s up to the individuals running for the office, and not to a larger, more entrenched structure for the office, those questions will be answered differently every year, and students elected to the position will face the task of building from the ground up again and again.
Randall Call, a fourth-year sociology transfer student and another co-writer of the referendum, said he pictures the position advocating for a transfer student center and working to create a cohesive voice for the transfer student community at UCLA. Another transfer involved in the creation of the referendum, third-year political science student Alyssa Nunez, said her ideas for the position include a remodel of the current transfer student orientation and creating an additional event before Bruin Bash to facilitate transfer students meeting one other before the big event.
These are worthy ideas, and all future councilmembers would do well to keep them in mind when planning their programs and events for the year.
But they will all be difficult to achieve in the context of a brand new USAC office, with what is likely to be a meager budget in comparison to that of larger offices such as the External Vice President’s office or the Cultural Affairs Commission and without the deeply entrenched structure and purpose of those offices.
Each councilmember receives a stipend of $672 per month. Assuming it’s modeled after the general representative offices, the transfer representative office would likely have a budget of around $1,000. The special election in fall required for this position will cost $6,000. This is a considerable amount of money to spend on an amendment that may not have many tangible effects. It could better be used at a later time for a more concrete and structured proposal.
What might better serve transfers than a new position on council is recognition of transfer issues and an amplification of the transfer voice on council as it exists now.
For instance, it’s within the purview of the Academic Affairs commissioner to take on transfer-specific issues. A bylaws amendment that obligates the Academic Affairs commissioner to take on a certain number of transfer-specific programs or platforms every year would likely have more immediate and tangible effects than the new position.
In fact, even without such a provision this year’s commissioner, Darren Ramalho, has made an effort to put on transfer programs and workshops for transfer students.
Existing offices have the money and the manpower to make a real difference in the transfer community, and a responsibility to address issues that affect them.
Instead of jumping into a constitutional amendment without fully measuring out the responsibilities and resources of that job, council should work within the existing framework of its institution to create a lasting change not plagued by procedural headaches.
Email Delgadillo at ndelgadillo@media.ucla.edu or tweet her @ndelgadillo07. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.