In 1883, Chester A. Arthur, then-president of the United States, signed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which established the United States Civil Service Commission and created a meritocratic federal bureaucracy. Before its passage, prestigious government jobs, like postmaster general, were doled out to friends of the ruling party; this patronage was popularly known as “the spoils system” and was epitomized by President Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party in 1828.
And like Jackson’s Democrats, the Undergraduate Students Association Council at UCLA also makes appointments to bureaucratic boards and committees. Many of these positions cycle annually and in turn are filled by the council.
While many appointees are capable and industrious, the USAC bylaws place a clear emphasis on speed of appointment rather than quality, and openly state the many ways that the appointment process can favor the council members’ pre-existing networks – something that should be extremely concerning to students.
The issues relating to the council are twofold. First, these positions are critical to the functions of USAC’s many departments. More importantly, unlike student groups, USAC can pay hundreds of dollars per quarter in stipends, provide opportunities to build professional skills and beef up a resume. Awarding such lucrative positions at the discretion of an elected student government poses a clear moral hazard. While there is a conflict-of-interest clause in the appointments section of the USAC bylaws, patronage-style appointments are implicated in those same bylaws. Thus, the outcomes are quieter than conventional corruption, but no less sinister.
For example, the bylaws state that, “The primary purpose of the Appointments Review Committee shall be to expedite the appointment approval process.” Yes, appointments can be timely, but the bylaws should also require a commitment to quality and inclusivity from this committee.
Soliciting applicants for numerous board positions undoubtedly takes an endowment of time from busy council members. Still, with the considerable search and review outlined by the bylaws for these attractive and important appointments, one could imagine a high volume of applicants. However, the transparency report says that only about 150 applications were fielded for the more than 60 available positions.
That breaks down to two or three applicants per position. This is an arguably small number of applications given the size of the student body. At the start of the last administration, the Daily Bruin reported that less than 10 applications were received for undergraduate representative to the Associated Students UCLA Board of Directors, a position that is paid a stipend worth an entire year’s tuition.
On this point rests the second major flaw of the appointment process: marketing the applications rests too heavily on council members’ existing connections and does not adequately advertise the import or potential benefits of the positions. The bylaws dictate that applications “shall be advertised in a manner readily accessible to all students … including direct contact, notices in departmental offices, postings on the internet, and by seeking recommendations from knowledgeable persons.” Two of those four methods rely directly on personal relationships with the council.
Only the department office postings reach students who do not already follow a council member on social media, follow campus politics or know them personally. Limiting the reach of application marketing to them is not inclusive and is a disservice to our campus. Even something as simple as a campuswide email would be an improvement.
But USAC is not the only pillar of our civic structure that has missed the mark here. The Bruin does not adequately cover the appointment process of these positions, which deserves scrutiny beyond a bullet point in the “USAC recap.” In fact, they did not publish a story about the efficacy of the various appointees even after learning that some committees had failed to report updates at the council meeting on Nov. 30.
What The Bruin has reported, notably only after the release of a transparency report from the USAC Office of the President, is that six of the committees did not have any goals for winter quarter. While this news is troubling, the reality is that outcomes like these are symptomatic of a flawed and highly partisan system. As previously mentioned, The Bruin did not investigate why so few applications were received for the highest-paid appointments; they simply repeated what they were told.
The current reality of the Jacksonian nature of these appointments does not have to be the future of them. In the long run, ASUCLA should create an independent commission to appoint students and run an extensive campaign to disseminate information to students regarding these positions and their benefits.
But in the short term, the council must not only advertise these positions and their benefits in a manner that reaches far beyond their political and personal circles, but also incorporate transparency into the duration of the search process, not just at the end of it. To make sure the whole process is inclusive and fair, The Bruin must be a strong pillar of scrutiny and accountability. Until then, as New York Sen. William L. Marcy said in 1828, “to the victor belongs the spoils.”
Torpey is a fourth-year economics student and member of the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Student Advisory Board.