The decades-old process that the undergraduate student
government has used to make changes to its governing laws is
written nowhere in its constitution or bylaws and is invalid, a
member of the council said at Tuesday night’s meeting.
The Undergraduate Students Association Council historically has
operated under the assumption that a two-thirds majority was needed
to change bylaws, which govern how USAC operates.
But this two-thirds majority precedent is not specifically
outlined in the constitution, or even the bylaws themselves.
Instead, in situations where a legislative question cannot be
answered by either the constitution or the bylaws, the council
refers to “Robert’s Rules of Order and Parliamentary
Procedure,” a book that specifies a standard for the rules of
meetings.
General Representative Brian Neesby pointed out that the
document states a simple majority of council is sufficient to pass
a bylaw change.
Council voted 7-5 to approve a bylaw change that would affect
how office space allocation guidelines are voted on, with only
Bruins United councilmembers in support. If a two-thirds majority
had been required, the change would not have passed.
This bylaw change may affect future council decisions because it
makes future bylaw changes easier to pass.
The bylaw in question concerned the voting threshold necessary
to approve changes to office-space allocation guidelines, which
govern how office space in Kerckhoff Hall is assigned to student
groups. The new bylaw requires a simple majority vote, rather than
the two-thirds majority previously required.
Bruins United councilmembers maintained that the change was
necessary for any turnover to occur among student groups’
space holdings. But other councilmembers questioned the legitimacy
and motivations of the change.
“I think what we saw (at the council table) was a
manipulation of power and a complete disregard for 40 years of
precedent,” said USAC President Jenny Wood. “There were
obviously ulterior motives.”
Wood also expressed concern that the changes might be motivated
by the upcoming general election. Candidates will be announced next
week, and voting will begin May 9.
“It’s a clear motivation to show constituents who
may support a particular slate that they are being advocated
for,” she said. “There’s an attempt to make
(Student Power! councilmembers) focus on these petty issues, rather
than the elections process and campaigns that really
matter.”
But Neesby said a simple majority threshold makes sense because
other USAC committees require the same standard for similar
changes.
He also said the change will give new student groups the
opportunity to obtain office space and interact with USAC.
“The same groups get office space year after year,”
he said. “The two-thirds majority makes it almost impossible
to change anything. Representation means nothing if you can’t
make changes.”
But the controversy at the council table focused more on the
sudden challenge to years of precedent, rather than the bylaw
change itself.
Wood said she was upset because she felt slate politics played
too much of a role in the council’s decision.
“They were basically saying that these bylaws needed to be
changed so that Bruins United could get their way,” she said.
“That very principle is completely backward and
wrong.”
But other councilmembers said the decision was based on larger
issues.
“The structure that USAC currently has breeds slate
politics,” said Financial Supports Commissioner Ryan Smeets.
“We need to open it up and allow students and student groups
more access.”
Facilities Commissioner Joe Vardner agreed the change was key to
increasing representation of the student body.
“I think it helps council realize that USAC needs to
change,” he said. “There are a lot of types of students
that USAC overlooks.”
But Berky Nelson, administrative representative to USAC and the
director of the UCLA Center for Student Programming, said bylaws
should continue to be approved by a two-thirds vote. He said the
additional votes required would help protect the vote of the
minority on divided issues.
Wood said the actions of councilmembers merit the review of the
Judicial Board, which could overturn the legitimacy of the bylaw
change, although she would not submit the case herself.
If the Judicial Board, which rules on the constitutionality of
legislation and actions of USAC, decides a case should be heard, a
trial process would follow.
But Neesby said he believes the decision will stand in a
Judicial Board case since no USAC rules specify otherwise.
“I believe you work within the system,” he said.
“I like rules. I never go against them.”