Thursday, November 7, 1996
USAC:
Undergraduate council’s spending should reflect views of those
paying mandatory feesBy Michael Bourdaa
I would like to address the Nov. 5 viewpoint by Telle Tse,
Michael McDavit and Janice McDavit. As for the portions that dealt
entirely with President Clinton, it is by now a moot issue.
However, our "esteemed student government" is not.
The authors claim that the court case Smith v. Regents is
basically irrelevant, since it does not forbid educational
spending, and because, according to their claim (this is a new one
on me guys: got proof?) that "the Regents have used mandatory
student fees to help support lobbying to raise registration
fees."
First off, there is a BIG difference between USAC trying to
fight reg fee hikes (something that benefits virtually EVERYONE at
UCLA) and USAC protesting a ballot initiative.
In the first case, USAC would be attempting to benefit all
students, and is thus a justified use of THEIR collected mandatory
fees. However, the great whine of 1996 (if some on this campus can
rename the ’92 riots and call it the "revolution," I reserve that
same right to rename your little traffic blocking) was a case where
USAC spent mandatory fees to endorse a position that approximately
50 percent of the students supported (according to polls that
stated that UC students were basically evenly split on this
initiative).
Even if that number was higher, (let’s give them a huge benefit
of the doubt on this one), say, 80 percent (a ridiculously high
number, used only for example), USAC is STILL guilty of funding
compelled speech, since 20 percent did not support the ‘no’
position.
It is claimed by the authors that this is a First Amendment
issue  and I agree. I was forced to pay for part of that
whine, against my will. I don’t have any problem with individual
students expressing their mind on an issue. In fact, that is a
fundamental part of our democracy! But how can you justify using
student fees to pay for something that is not supported by ALL
students? The analogy would be the federal government using tax
dollars to purchase commercials that supported one candidate, and
not any of the others.
It is inferred by the authors that the last non-Students
First!-controlled USAC two years ago was guilty of "unfairly
misusing funds" by allocating more to the IFC.Yet, that that was in
the aftermath of the previous USAC, which drastically cut these
same funds in the first place. If you want a REAL comparison, use
comparisons dating from before any of this chaos  say, 10
years ago. The real problem with USAC now is that the elections are
divided on racial and group lines: the ethnic groups on one side,
the frats on the other. Every time the pendulum shifts to one or
the other, the funds change because these groups interpret their
election as a mandate.
Let’s face it. There hasn’t been a mandate on this campus in a
VERY long time, if ever. Every election for the last few years has
been a choice for the lesser of two evils. You can pick the
stereotypical students last … er … first, or the stereotypical
(as you put it) "greek slate" candidates.
What USAC needs is not more of this. What USAC needs is,
essentially, a "third slate," one that will truly represent all
sides of this campus. And yes, such a hypothetical USAC would often
make decisions that other students don’t like (the law of averages
says it will be about 50 percent of the time). But the current
situation of virtual race wars between the white and ethnic
students on campus cannot lead to anything good.
What is REALLY needed, however, is an amendment to the USAC
constitution: One that will fairly reimburse students when their
fees are misused (and no, I don’t think that Students First! is the
only one who has ever misused funds). Here’s my proposition for a
solution:
"1. USAC shall not directly or indirectly endorse any political
viewpoint, unless such viewpoint is passed in a general student
referendum by no less than 75 percent of those students voting in
an election that has occurred within the last 365 days. The
referendum must be directly worded and phrased in the narrowest
sense possible.
2. Any item that deals with political viewpoints must spend
equal amounts on all sides of that issue, and must bring reasonable
and unbiased effort to present fairly all sides of the issue. The
only reason to have such an item is to educate students fairly on
all sides of the issues presented and to permit students to make
their own decision on the issue, based on informed data.
3. Other than these two cases, USAC may not spend mandatory fees
to directly or indirectly support any remotely political or
ideological position. In any case where USAC shall be found to have
violated this statute, any member of the Association who files a
grievance with USAC shall be entitled to a total reimbursement (100
percent) of their mandatory fees for that quarter.
4. The Student Judicial Board shall have full authority to
enforce this statute. USAC shall have absolutely no power to
overrule a decision made by the Judicial Board under this
rule."
I have provided the 75 percent "escape hatch" to allow USAC to
continue with things that benefit virtually everyone.
Of course, to get something like this in the rules, we’d have to
get it on the ballot over USAC objections, and they’d never let
this on unless they had no choice. It cuts into their ability to
break the law.