Carlos Quintanilla’s resignation Thursday marked the third time a student-elected officer has left their student government position this school year.
Quintanilla cited personal reasons for his departure and declined to comment any further. The Undergraduate Students Association Council also did not announce the resignation to the student body.
Only about a month into his term, former General Representative 2 Nihal Satyadev also quietly resigned from his post in an email to council, again citing only “personal reasons.” Former President Devin Murphy also resigned earlier this year in a press release from his office, citing a hostile environment on campus for students of color and personal and emotional stress.
The precedent these officers have set is not only unusual, it’s concerning.
Resignations, whatever their cause, are disruptive both to the function of USAC as an institution and the offices within. Moreover, when councilmembers resign without offering the students who put them in office anything but a vague reason, it only serves to weaken the trust between officers and the undergraduate student body.
These departures reflect poorly on USAC as an elected institution – students cast their votes and put faith in candidates’ ability to see the job through. They also leave students in the dark, wondering if these offices will actually be effective in the interim, operated by people they didn’t even vote for.
When they resign, councilmembers leave chaos in their wake, with offices scrambling to reorganize, restructure and re-prioritize. Not only is this a waste of time, but it weakens any given office’s ability to fulfill platforms and goals that the student body has endorsed.
Because of that, councilmembers owe the student body more transparency than merely citing “personal reasons” as the cause for their departure, no matter how valid those reasons might be.
This is not to say that resigning councilmembers are obligated to share every detail of their personal situations with constituents, but they do owe students a substantive statement that goes beyond an empty two words. When councilmembers take their oath, they make a year-long commitment, which they should show respect for even if they have to abandon it.
The resignations on council this year are a blight on the effectiveness of this council and have only served to weaken the overall trust students place in their elected officials. To lose three out of 14 councilmembers in one year is not only chaotic, it’s an embarrassment for the institution that represents us.
Candidates running in the upcoming election should not view the unusual number of resignations in this year’s council as a sign that resigning from a post as a USAC officer is acceptable. This is a precedent that USAC as an institution cannot afford to follow.
Future councilmembers must make sure they understand what a yearlong commitment to both service and transparency really means. And more importantly, with USAC elections around the corner, students must carefully consider whether they believe that candidates are up to the task.
Part of the problem might be that over the years the USAC has been acting less and less like a student government and more and more like a wannabe United Nations, except with zero power or actual influence on world affairs. Instead of focusing on improving student life at UCLA and on designing and completing projects that will actual make positive changes in students lives, it seems like fifty percent of the focus of the USAC is geared towards how to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, a task they are neither qualified to undertake nor capable of having any real impact on. The only thing that is accomplished by such misplaced priorities is to raise tensions and animosity levels on the USAC, hindering members ability to work together on issues and projects where they actually could have a positive and meaningful impact on the lives of the students they were elected to represent. It is not surprising that members are becoming disillusioned by such a toxic environment and want to move on to other things.
Perhaps if the USAC were to leave the international politics to the appropriate student interest groups and clubs, of which there are more than enough for those students who wish to get involved, and instead focus on issues that affect the UCLA student experience, burnout would not be such a high risk, service on USAC would be a more positive and rewarding experience, and the lives of students at UCLA might actually improve because of the USAC’s efforts. Just a thought.
Do you even go here? Geesh. This doesn’t even have anything to do with the point of the article.
It has everything to do with the point of the article. The writer of this article wants an explanation for why people are leaving the USAC. The answer is simple. Being a member of the current USAC is a national embarrassment. They’ve failed miserably and brought shame and humiliation to UCLA. Who wants to be part of that?
USAC’s embarrassingly racist and antisemitic bullying – caught on video for all to see – their initial attempt to suppress that video – followed by their feeble and disingenuous apology – has succeeded in saddling UCLA with a notorious and despicable reputation. It will take UCLA years to live it down.
Those who disassociate themselves from the USAC after the incident are people of integrity who want no part of it anymore. They need not provide any further explanation.
It is the board members who remain – who participated in that spectacle – and continue to hold their positions after bringing such shame and humiliation to UCLA – they are the ones who need to explain something: Why haven’t they resigned?