Monday, April 29, 1996
Students association succumbs to chancellor’s ultimatumBy Rachel
Kelley
Daily Bruin Contributor
Any illusions of independence by the students’ association were
shattered by Chancellor Charles Young’s threat to dissolve the
student run organization if elected officials were not removed from
the board.
With teary eyes, beat-red faces and heads buried in their hands,
board members at Friday’s meeting reluctantly acknowledged that a
$20 million loan from the university hinged on the proposal to
eliminate elected officials from the students’ association (ASUCLA)
board.
Without the $20 million loan, which is needed to pay for
construction of Ackerman Union, the student association would fall
under the hands of the university.
Yet ironically, some would argue that the board already is.
"Chancellor Young has got us behind the eight ball," said York
Chang, undergraduate student body president, adding that Young has
giving the board no choice but to pass the proposal if they wish to
remain a student association.
Young cited numerous reasons, including recommendations from
outside consulting firms, as to why he supports the elimination of
alternates and elected officials, but his primary motive was to
depoliticize the board.
"(Restructuring) is a sound decision," Young said in an
interview Thursday. "It would help buffer the board from political
interests."
The board painfully admitted that because they have a "$20
million shot gun to their heads," they had no choice but to concede
on this issue. And after a 5 hour, 15-minute board meeting, concede
they did.
The motion, which passed with barely a quorum, holds that
elected officials of the student’s association may only be
appointed as alternates, and must be able to serve for a two- year
minimum. and that presidents may not serve as board members.
"We’ve tried to accommodate (Young’s) concerns," Chang said. "We
hope that he can also respect that we voted to protect the
integrity of the student majority board and keep ASUCLA accountable
to its students."
Before passing the proposal, board members debated heatedly the
effects of removing elected officials from the board.
"People on this board serve as trustees, not to represent
political interests," said Anita Cotter, an administrative
representative.
"Why is this political when it’s not political to raise textbook
fees or cut student employees?" Chang responded.
Other board members said the disagreements between the
university and the association are rooted in differing priorities
for the association.
"Murphy sees non-business oriented decisions as political
decisions," said Dan Ryu, a board member and Chang’s chief of
staff. "We (board members) see non-business oriented decisions as
fulfilling our mission statements."
But some board members strongly supported the restructuring
plan.
"Why spend time at a board table when ( the presidents) could be
concentrating on issues such as affirmative action?, asked Perry
Brug, a graduate student member. "Even with the presidents not
serving on the board, eight out of 13 members are students, so you
can’t tell me that student issues will not come up at the board
table.
"It’s not that I don’t want them or don’t like them. It’s just
that their time could be spent more effectively," he argued
Despite some opposition, the board made its first step towards
meeting Young’s requirements early on in the meeting by reversing
an original decision to allow alternates to continue serving on the
board.
Board members supporting the alternates argued that this year
especially, alternates contributed a great deal to the
organization’s recovery by heading committees and substituting for
board members.
Despite these points, the motion passed with nine people voting
in favor of removing the alternates, with graduate student
President John Shapley abstaining.
Approving Young’s demand that the board remove all elected
officials was not so easy, especially for student board
members.
Chang pointed out that supporting this motion would be like
going back on his words of commitment to students.
"I cannot support eliminating the only democratic mechanism that
holds ASUCLA to its mission statement," Chang said."I’m not here to
take notes to learn how to run a business. I’m here to represent
the students."
Chang was not the only one that expressed resentment toward
Young’s request.
"Chancellor Charles Young does not recognize the changes we’ve
already made to prevent the type of actions that have lead to the
fiscal situation we are in," said Reyes Valenzuela, a board member
and an undergraduate government general representative.
"For me the real problem is the way the chancellor has become so
forceful. It has come down to whether or not (the board) does what
the chancellor tells (us) to do. That is the issue at hand," Brug
said.
Board members also expressed concern for future student
presidents serving on the board now that their term has been
extended to ensure continuity.
"It is difficult to serve as president and to be a responsible
board member for one year, and longer board terms are necessary. It
would be unrealistic to ask them to do both for two years," said
Dave Kopplin, a graduate student representative.
Despite the restructuring demands, other board members found
Young to be quite supportive of the association.
"We are operating right now in a giant compromise. Chancellor
Young adopted a liberal covenance and didn’t take the place over,"
said Dorothy Webster, an administrative representative.
Association Co-executive Director Charles Mack argued that
Young’s request can be seen as a financial transaction, in which
the university has the right to be involved in the association’s
recovery.
Although he is able to see things from an administrative point
of view, Mack also understood the pressure put on the board.
"If they wanted me to a roll a peanut up to Murphy Hall with my
nose, I would do it," Mack said.
As the meeting progressed, board members began to accept the
circumstances at hand. The question was no longer how the
association could avoid having to cut elected officials and still
get the university’s loan, but rather, if the board should leave
the decision to Young or pass the bylaw themselves.
Most board members favored voting on the proposal without the
administration’s involvement, because they knew that surrendering
to Young meant saying good-bye to the board’s student-run majority
 a unique aspect of ASUCLA’s operations.
However, some undergraduate representatives saw things
differently.
"I want the chancellor to take full responsibility for removing
elected officials," Chang said. "I don’t believe that removing my
position will make it a better association …"
He expressed fear that without a voice on the board, the power
of the president and therefore the students will be very limited.
"It’s like we’ll be given crayons, yet if we draw outside the
lines, Chancellor Young or any other chancellor will come and take
them away," Chang said.
Another student board member put the belittlement of their
positions in a different context.
"If we’re just going to be here as mouth pieces for the
administration, i.e. Charles Young, then why should we have an
association?" Valenzuela questioned.
With reports by Gil Hopenstand, Daily Bruin Senior Staff