Eight appointments, seven hours and two recesses later, the
undergraduate student government meeting came to a close past 2
a.m. on Wednesday after a long night of deliberations on the
presidential appointments.
In the Undergraduate Students Association Council meeting
Tuesday, most of the presidential appointments were approved to the
various standing committees from programming to activities to
finance and budget issues, but all appointments faced much debate
before a vote.
The USAC president has the power to appoint the Finance
Committee chair and the Budget Review director, as well as make
appointments to the Campus Programming Committee, Campus Activities
Committee and Association Students UCLA board of directors.
The process includes the president receiving the applications
and choosing the most qualified applicant, then forwarding the
applicant to the Appointment Review Committee.
Following the president’s recommendation, the committee
reviews the candidates, interviews them, and forwards their
recommendations to the council.
On Tuesday, councilmembers were given information packets
stating each candidate’s qualifications and asked to approve
all 12 applicants based on the criteria for their respective
positions.
Though the council unanimously approved the first of the
applicants, Candice Daneshvar for the Campus Programming Committee,
the rest did not go as smoothly.
The programming committee oversees projects and programs
directed at the student body and acts as a forum for soliciting
student views on the nature and goals of campus programming.
Of the four seats contested for the programming committee, one
was not approved because the applicant’s willingness to be
“viewpoint neutral” was questioned.
General Representative Brian Neesby expressed concern over
several applicants’ past involvements and their publicly
vocal, established viewpoints as a factor in their ability to stay
unbiased when appointed to a committee.
Jenny Wood, the USAC president, said the “appointments
should not be based on a quota system (of past viewpoints) because
that’s completely disregarding the qualifications (based on
experience and knowledge) of the candidates.”
The next four appointments to the Campus Activities Committee
also did not progress easily because one of the proposed
appointments was not present, which sparked concern among
councilmembers.
Michelle Sassounian, Academic Affairs commissioner, said she
“did not feel comfortable voting because though the candidate
may be qualified, there are questions of her that cannot be
answered due to her absence.”
Because none of the candidates were notified that the meeting
was mandatory, the council decided to postpone the appointments of
absent candidates.
The next appointments in line were the most debated ““ the
two-year appointments to the ASUCLA board of directors.
The board’s job is to maintain the financial well-being of
ASUCLA; it has full control over all ASUCLA activities and is
directly or indirectly involved in business management and
expenditure of funds.
The four appointments to the board are two-year terms. Because
two of the seats are currently empty, the council was asked to
approve only two candidates.
Christina Kaoh, a second-year organismic biology, ecology and
evolution student, was the first candidate recommended by the
president for the board of directors. Her approval on the board was
debated back and forth across the table as councilmembers discussed
her qualifications and questioned the perspective she would bring
to the board.
Joe Vardner, the Facilities commissioner, said though Kaoh has
had a lot of experience, he believes her interests are already
represented on the board through the other two continuing appointed
representatives.
Wood stressed that the council should approve her because she is
“extremely qualified due to her extensive experience”
and her appointment should not be discounted because she meets and
surpasses the criteria set for the appointment.
Wood also said considering Kaoh’s policies and interests
would not be an objective way to make decisions on the candidates
and that Kaoh has the ability to be unbiased and work on any issues
in the interest of students.
Neesby contested that “policy is opinion” and
because of the length of term one holds and the few seats available
for appointment, they “must have a diversity of
ideas.”
After more deliberation, the council rejected her appointment by
a margin of one vote.
The next of the appointments for the board, Matt Bukirin, also
faced questioning, but for other reasons such as the lack of direct
experience with the board.
Like Kaoh, Bukirin would also not have been approved, but Wood
used her voting power and broke what would have been the tie
vote.
Though the president has voting powers for all action items,
those powers are traditionally not exercised because the president
leads the meeting and attempts to stay neutral unless there is a
tie vote.
Appointment of the Finance Committee chair was voted on
unanimously, but long debate followed when the council discussed
the approval of Rita Qatami, a third-year international development
studies student, as the Budget Review director.
The job of the Finance Committee chair is to serve as the chief
financial adviser and to make fund allocations and recommendations
with final approval by USAC.
The Budget Review director would facilitate the Budget Review
Committee’s task of formulating the USAC budget.
Qatami’s appointment was voted down with a margin of one
vote because some questioned her past involvements with groups and
ability to stay neutral toward specific groups.
Wood said she believed “slate affiliations had come into
play in this vote.” Immediately thereafter, Sassounian
responded that she was offended by Wood’s remark.
Wood apologized and clarified that “when no concerns are
addressed publicly before voting, (she) is left to
speculate.”
Lastly, Todd Hawkins, the Cultural Affairs commissioner, Farheen
Malik, the Community Service commissioner, and Ryan Smeets, the
Financial Supports commissioner, were appointed to the Budget
Review Committee.
The appointments of the remaining seats will resurface in the
future when the president revisits the applicant pool and once
again presents the council with her recommendations.