Monday, January 13, 1997
GOVERNMENT:
Oversight diminishes in a one-party student government, may lead
to abuse of powerStudents should not be lulled into the false
belief that all is well in student government at UCLA. The
apparently open-shut nature of the recent battle between the
Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC) and the Judicial
Board (J-board) hides government’s failure to fairly represent
students in a political environment where the need for a strong,
politically-aware USAC may be growing..
The recent controversy surrounding student government at UCLA
began when Jeff Ellis, a fourth-year philosophy and political
science student, claimed that Students First!, the party that won
power last year, had overstepped their constitutional authority by
using student fees to promote a selfish political agenda not
related to the needs of the Undergraduate Students Association
(USA). Ellis also claimed that Students First! had irresponsibly
used student fees to print the Students First! logo on political
advertisements. It apparently ended after the J-board, the judicial
branch of the USA, upheld Ellis on the second point and when USAC
subsequently overruled the J-board’s decision.
The Bruin finds that both parties have acted constitutionally.
Section B.2 of the Undergraduate Students Association Constitution
notes that the J-board, "shall rule upon the constitutionality of
legislation and official actions of elected or appointed officials
at the request of the Council or any other members of the
Association (Ellis)." The following section requires, "Concurrence
of three-fourths of the voting members of the USA council … to
overrule any Judicial Board decision." Both the initial ruling and
the overruling were legally fulfilled, but systemic change is
necessary to prevent what was a moral, if not legal, abuse of
power.
USAC should recognize the distinction between political party
and institution; any unity between the two, as represented by the
misappropriation of student funds, discredits the very institution
it inhabits and constitutes a breach of faith with the USA to
represent the student body as a whole. What USAC did is comparable
to President Clinton using taxpayer money to emblazon the donkey,
emblem of the Democratic Party, on the side of Air Force One, and
should not go unchallenged. Greater responsibility should be used
when handling student fees.
The Bruin questions the effectiveness of supposed J-board
"oversight" in what has been, is now, and may likely continue to be
a one-party system at UCLA. Only the Judicial Board can check
USAC’s power, but it may easily be overruled  unanimity is
not difficult to reach when only one party runs USAC.
"Why is this important?" you ask. As long as it is possible for
USAC to rewrite the Constitution every time they are challenged,
there are no binding limits to government at UCLA.
Systemic change is needed for the future. What should be
implemented is the use of a student-passed referendum to authorize
USAC’s use of student fees as they see fit.
Students should not be lulled into a false sense that all is
well in student government at UCLA. Nor should they discredit the
very-real power it now possesses  a power that effectively
acts unchecked.