Politics of Kerckhoff Hall: a student perspective

Politics of Kerckhoff Hall: a student perspective

By Joel Elad

Three years ago, I remember reading the illustrious Viewpoint
section and coming across a letter condemning the UCLA Community
Directory because it had a crying, "ignorant" woman on it. And even
though the cover was just a cool Liechtenstein replica, I remember
that letter for two reasons: 1) it had the word "fuck" in it, which
was the first time I ever read a swear word in the newspaper. 2) it
was signed by MY student body president, Danette Martin. And I
remember thinking, is this what USAC is about? Writing stupid
letters and doing nothing productive?

During my first year, I became involved with the Jewish Student
Union, which provided me some contact with USAC. Every year, I
helped friends run for an office, and I celebrated each time. But
then, USAC showed me that politics can come between the strongest
of friendships and trust.

People can get misguided, frustrated, bitter and divisive, and
you see their true colors when you don’t support one issue they
care about, even if you agree on many other issues. I have watched
two Councils draw their lines in the sand and fight for only their
issues without any chance of compromise, without ever really coming
together to agree on anything.

Last year’s undergraduate president Kate Anderson proved to me
that individual work can provide an inspiration. For me, she
defined "leader" ­ someone who cares about hard work and works
the politics only to push through the important issues. While a
majority of council members agreed with her, others didn’t, and it
prevented the council from proving that it could make a difference
as a unified body, that the council can do more as a group than
pass resolutions and fund programs.

So I decided that I wanted to help make this possible.

Last year, while I was President of the Jewish Student Union, I
met Rob Greenhalgh, who was then Internal Vice President. I
supported him through elections and then accepted the position of
Chief of Staff. After getting to know this year’s Council, I was so
hopeful ­ most people were new, but what they lacked in
experience they made up for in enthusiasm, unity and spirit.

At that time, I remember thinking, "They could start making a
difference with a unified Council. This is too good to be true."
Today, I ask myself, was I right?

Over the summer, I thought heavily about my future since this is
my last year. I realized that I could not do a good job in school
and retain my position as Chief of Staff. So I made a choice, and
that was to give up the position I worked so hard for. After all, I
came to college to get my degree, not to become the Chief of Staff.
But I decided not to say anything, and instead to spend the summer
getting the office ready, and make a smooth transition in October
to focus on school. I was convinced I could still make a
difference.

But over the summer, I realized that while Rob and I both cared
about the issues, we had different styles of getting things done.
He got so wrapped up in all the meetings he had to go to, and
focused on the itty-bitty details instead of on the big picture. He
wanted his office to solve the world’s problems, not realizing that
if you try to do too much, you get nothing done. But I cared about
making a difference, so I would yell and scream, and continue to
work. By October, I was glad that I was leaving, because it felt
like I hadn’t made a difference. Rob hadn’t changed, but the office
progressed a little because individually we had each started the
ball rolling on projects. I kept a good face because Council cannot
be strong if it does not believe in the president.

This quarter though, miscommunication and politics have had free
rein in Kerckhoff Hall. Everything I believed in was a lie.

I found myself at the Council table at the end of fall quarter,
saying how much faith and trust I’ve lost in USAC. I felt like I
couldn’t trust or believe anything these people said. I felt that
politics took precedence over hard work, and nothing changed. I
felt betrayed for wasting all my time and seeing no results. After
feeling like I had nothing left to say, I shocked everyone by
getting up and leaving the room, never looking back.

How did the situation get to this point?

After leaving the President’s office, I watched as politics
slowly reared its ugly head. I worked with Academic Affairs
Commissioner Alice Bae from the elections, and she took on a lot of
responsibility with her office, at a time where students can start
to make a difference in the Academic Senate. Then, she suddenly had
a dissenting view on IFC responsorship. Instead of working it out,
others turned their back on her and gave her undue pressure, both
at the Council table and in the halls of Kerckhoff. I told her that
night that I was surprised at her decision, but it was her
decision, and if she could live with it, so could I. I disagreed
with her, but she was still my friend. Others were not so
forgiving.

This is just an example of the USAC soap opera that goes on
every day. People grew further apart instead of coming
together.

And then came Peter Rudinskas.

Peter was one of those "non-viable" hard workers who pushed the
limits of the Facilities Commission to prove that new ground could
be broken. Just by attending meetings and informing Council, he
helped ensure that Westwood Plaza will be closed over the summer
instead of in the fall, so concerts and cultural performances would
not be interrupted by construction. He coordinated student art
space on walls around campus and made sure passageways are
available around construction sites.

But then, problems arose, and Peter saw who his real friends
were. When this happened, I saw someone who in five months had
turned that office around get treated like he was a criminal.
Instead of asking his advice on his replacement, or wanting him to
continue being involved in the office, the other council members
gave him nothing.

No phone calls, no attempts of inclusion, only mixed messages.
The communication really broke down and the situation was made to
seem like Peter was no longer important, that he couldn’t win a
re-election, but that he was expected to stick around because he
was a nice guy.

Forget the fact that Peter was the hardest worker on Council,
ignore everything he’s done, and still, he did not deserve to be
treated the way he did.

In dealing with this situation, both sides said they wanted to
talk, but that the other side didn’t listen. How convenient. When I
saw all this, I stood by Peter, because to me he was not only the
right choice, but the only choice. Peter represented the USAC that
meant hard work instead of schmoozing and bullshit. I’m not sure
what happened, but it wasn’t right. Despite politics, nobody
deserves to watch everything they had slip away in a sea of rumors
and silence.

After this, I felt that if I was Peter, I would get treated the
same way. I started to wonder what these people really cared about.
Did they just want themselves to look good for the future? Did they
listen to politics rather than friendship, loyalty and trust? Or
does this just show how badly communication can break down?

Either way, I’m disappointed. I feel like nothing’s changed.

Should I have let everything I care about go to hell? Or should
I have re-examined my life and decided that USAC is more important?
So many questions in my head, and only one statement to answer them
all.

Politics, not hard work, still govern Kerckhoff, and it will
never go away.

As much as I want, I can’t accept that answer. I ask Council to
prove me wrong.

Elad is a fourth-year student in computer science and
engineering.