The Undergraduate Student Association Council revisited the
proposed changes to the structure of UCLA student government at its
meeting Tuesday, addressing the issue for the first time since last
year.
The proposal, first introduced last January, would create a
20-member legislative senate and restructure council’s
executive branch.
Staff from General Representative Brian Neesby’s office
gave this year’s council their formal introduction to the
proposed senate system. But Neesby stressed that the idea is still
under development and is subject to change.
“The Senate itself is a work in progress,” he
said.
The new system would divide student government into branches.
While 13 members currently sit on council, the senate would be
comprised of four executive positions, five non-voting
commissioners, and 20 senators.
It would also replace the current majoritarian voting system
with the Hare Voting system, in which voters rank candidates in
order of preference by single transferable vote.
Continuing development has led to some changes to the proposal
since it was first introduced, Neesby said.
One proposed executive position, the vice president of Student
and Community Advancement, was dissolved.
Its duties, which would have included advocating on behalf of
students, were redistributed between the president and the external
vice president.
Additionally, the Academic Programming, Facilities, and
Financial Supports Commissions were condensed into the Academic
Supports Committee, which would be responsible for USAC’s
relations with the UC.
Some present at the meeting expressed concern about negative
effects the senate system could have on USAC and the student
body.
There is a lack of a strong, unifying presidency, said Rick
Tuttle, administrative representative to USAC.
“It’s a kind of disaggregation of political
power,” he said.
Tuttle added that this lack of a strong central power could lead
to senators focusing on their own special interests and politics
rather than on campus programs.
But Neesby said his office is already in the process of finding
a solution to this problem, specifically looking into a form of
collective veto, in order to combat any one group’s political
motivations from dominating USAC’s agenda and activities.
“We have a great programming apparatus right now (with the
commissions), and I want to protect that,” he said.
“One of the ways to do that is by depoliticizing them. We
want to maintain their independence and sovereignty as much as
possible.”
Todd Hawkins, Cultural Affairs Commissioner, said the senate
system could create more political problems for the
commissions.
“A senate can’t vote on (programming)
effectively,” he said. “The whole thing is just going
to turn into a political circus.”
Hawkins added that commissioners need political power to help
facilitate their programs.
Some issues remain to be sorted out, specifically whether the
senate would need to approve the allocation of funds from student
referenda.
“(Student government) should provide a direct avenue to
resources instead of red tape,” USAC President Jenny Wood
said. “Student organizations aren’t going to be able to
get the resources they deserve. Senate actions could block access
to referendum money.”
Student referenda in recent years have increased funds for the
Associated Students of UCLA and for outreach and community-service
organizations on campus.
Neesby said he will try to pass the measure through a referendum
should the proposal fail to be approved by USAC. He currently does
not have a specific timeline for the potential referendum.
Last year, students collected 4,000 signatures in support of the
senate proposal.
But the proposal was not placed on the spring ballot or voted on
in a special election because all the signatures were not
verified.
“We don’t necessarily want to (collect signatures)
again, because it takes many, many hours, but we will if we have
to,” Neesby said.