• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Sandoval is a fifth year political science and history student and chairman of the Campus Retention Committee. Saelua is a fourth-year political science and history student and chairwoman of the Student Initiated Outreach Committee.

By Antonio Sanduval and Natasha Saelua

Last May, by an overwhelming margin, UCLA students approved the Student Programs Activities Resource Complex referendum, which sought to fund repairs to the Men’s Gym and remodel the Wooden Center. In the past, undergraduate students have been hesitant in approving referenda which had sought to increase their fees by significant amounts. Last spring’s SPARC referendum galvanized undergraduate student support in a very special way; the referendum passed with 77 percent of the vote.

Even for graduate students, supporting a referendum that would increase their fees by such a large amount would normally have been considered a long shot. Graduate students last increased their fees in 1982, but they passed the SPARC 2000 referendum with a landslide 74 percent win.

Unfortunately, problems have arisen. The road to relocation for the biggest supporters of the SPARC 2000 referendum – the Student Retention Center, Community Programs Office and the Student Initiated Outreach Committee – has been rocky. On Sept. 25, a commitment was made by Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Winston Doby to ensure relocation for all the student-initiated, student-run projects to Kerckhoff Hall. The move to Kerckhoff Hall has been seen as a boon for students working in the impacted area of the Men’s Gym.

But there are still disputes as to how much space the student projects will obtain once they move to Kerckhoff. We hope to address these issues as soon as possible so as not to jeopardize the possibility of obtaining the space needed for such projects. But the decision to keep this promise rests on the vice chancellor, and it is up to him to keep his word.

What makes the SPARC 2000 case so special? It is special because it was a true student effort. During the USAC and GSA elections of 1999, the UCLA administration ran a decidedly administrative proposal. This proposal was underdeveloped and had minimal student input. During the endorsement process, the referendum carried little weight and was overshadowed by the popular student-led Community and Retention Empowerment referendum, which won by an astonishing 83 percent support of the student vote. That year, both the USAC and GSA version of the SPARC-1999 referendum were defeated by large margins.

During the summer of 1999, efforts were made to form a new SPARC advisory committee in the hopes of passing a new SPARC referendum. The students on this committee represented a diverse set of perspectives, which allowed for the formulation of a proposal that would gain popular student support. The only thing that was objectionable in the proposal was that it did not specifically state where the projects housed in the Men’s Gym would be moved during construction. This problem was resolved through discussions with students who would be affected.

Representatives from the UCLA administration, in particular Vice Chancellor Doby, made a commitment to prioritize students in their quest to find appropriate space and an agreement was developed. In a sense, this agreement was based on a mutual trust in the spirit of cooperation between students and the vice chancellor. Students who have traditionally had mixed feelings in working with administrators nevertheless took it upon themselves to pursue the agreement reached. They moved forward with the trust that the vice chancellor would accommodate the student’s needs to the best of his ability.

A consensus among student representatives was made to present the SPARC 2000 referendum to student organizations as a good option for UCLA community. Presentations were made and contacts were created in order to ensure that students knew that the SPARC 2000 referendum would mean improved student services and a better environment in the Men’s Gym. The problems that persisted in the Men’s Gym were finally exposed.

Students learned that student-run community service, outreach and retention projects were run from a building impacted by asbestos and lead contamination, vermin, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and a lack of adequate ventilation – all of which posed clear dangers to students. The Wooden Center was also portrayed as a facility in serious need of redevelopment.

When the SPARC 2000 proposal reached student organizations, they insisted that we reassure them of the administration’s expressed commitment to them. We made it clear that Vice Chancellor Doby would ensure that units affected by the Men’s Gym restoration project, particularly SRC, SIOC and CPO would be prioritized in relocation planning. Student organizations trusted our perspective and threw in their whole-hearted support for the SPARC 2000 referendum.

As a result, students were able to accomplish a great feat during last spring’s elections. They voted to pass the SPARC referendum. In doing so, they reaffirmed their support for students who organized the referendum and the expansion of more space for student initiated and student run projects. It is clear that students – led by the supporters of the SRC, SIOC, and CPO – were the primary force in the passage of the SPARC 2000 referendum.

Despite this victory, the administration has yet to live up to its promise of guaranteeing the groups in the Men’s Gym proper adequate space in Kerckhoff during the phase of transition.

Currently, a wave of dissatisfaction has spread to many organizations. There is a feeling that those student organizers who sacrificed many hours to navigate a very technical referendum to successful passage have not been acknowledged or respected. Students have begun to feel that Vice Chancellor Doby made promises in an attempt to gain immediate student support, without intending to keep his promises. It seems like Doby has made vague promises and is attempting to implement his own interests ahead of the students’. We hope this isn’t true, but in order for him to prove otherwise, his actions must reflect his words.

We are optimistic that the original goals of students will be implemented. Even today, we are updated often on the SPARC plan and hope to see the fruits of hard work in 2003. But, unfortunately, our good spirits have been dampened; we are saddened that the hard work of the students has been slighted. We vehemently oppose the characterization that as student organizations we have not learned to sacrifice.

As students, housed in the Men’s Gym, the perception of injustice is great. The Men’s Gym, known by high school visitors as the “ugliest building at UCLA,” is UCLA for many of the hardworking volunteers, students and staff who roam its halls. The reality is that students have had enough. Last spring we voted for change, and that is exactly what we want. Anything less would be unacceptable.

Many discussions will occur over the next few months. The fact of the matter is that there is a solid principle involved in keeping promises. At UCLA, the first thing that is taught is the value of word and integrity. We hope that the administration exercises this more often in this matter.

We thank all of you for supporting the SPARC 2000 campaign. Every vote you gave has motivated us to continue with our goals of service, outreach and retention, and to genuinely assist the community outside of UCLA. We hope that in the next few weeks the issues that have served as disappointing areas of concern are resolved and that good work continues to be accomplished.

The reality is that we couldn’t have done SPARC 2000 without you. Now we urge you to support us in our efforts to secure its fair implementation.

Comments

Post a comment