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

Thursday, May 30, 1996

Bargaining power, focus on collective interests will be lostBy David E. Lee

As a past president of the Graduate Students Association, as well as a former member of the ASUCLA Board of Directors, I've been disgusted and saddened by the actions taken to disallow elected student officers from serving on the board.

As one who has steadfastly and consistently supported our chancellor, I am personally insulted by his decision to strong-arm the board of directors and deny students a role for their elected representatives to effectively serve their interests in ASUCLA.

As a former board member by both election and appointment, I am shocked by their acquiescence at so fundamental a change to the board enforced through direct blackmail.

The student majority board that serves as the oversight entity for ASUCLA's Services and Enterprises is an essential element of the Memorandum of Understanding which delineates the role that ASUCLA can play in serving the campus. It is also a document designed and defined by the elected student body presidents at the time and signed by our chancellor in the early years of his leadership of UCLA.

Those elected student officers preceding and following me have served as leaders in every sense of the word ­ as active organizers and alumni regents, as fund-raisers and judges, as change masters and defenders of the Blue and Gold. It is this direct voice that is being silenced on the Board of Directors and is truly a blow to all of us who have fought to insure that democratically elected student voices would be heard at the table.

It also makes me wonder upon what bargaining position students serving on the board will be able to rely when addressing campus administrators currently on the Board of Directors, appointed by the chancellor, and who have served for upwards of six years and counting.

"You weren't here back in 1991 when we talked about this agenda item," the students may be counseled. "If the Undergraduate Students Association Council is so interested in the issue, why should we address it?," when they author a motion that affects most if not all undergrads but seeks to improve ASUCLA services. Enhancing their ability to communicate with an underserved group among the student population provokes an attitude of indifference: "Mailboxes for grad students? We'll benefit, but why should ASUCLA get involved?"

The nature of power politics on the board has relied upon the role that the Undergraduate Students Association Council and the Graduate Students Association, in organizing their respective constituencies, can force ASUCLA to confront issues that transcend the divisions of graduate/undergraduate, north versus south campus, services to the campus in toto versus only students. What now? Should the student representatives be concerned when the opinion, "we seriously underestimated the cost of seismically renovating Ackerman and Kerckhoff ­ but it's OK since it's a life safety expenditure and the maximum fee increase of $109 per quarter that the undergraduate and graduate presidents negotiated should be treated as irrelevant now," is voiced?

As for the actual motion that was approved by the board to modify its constitution, why in the world was it authored and submitted by a student board member? And sadly, by a student who had once been elected to a position based on his campaigning to petition the regents and the legislature to reduce or eliminate fee hikes? If the chancellor was so hot and bothered and/or the Interim Executive Director willing to take his money, let them come with carrot and stick as they saw fit.

Moreover, the concepts and structure embodied in the Board of Directors has served as an example for other entities on campus such as the Wooden Center's Board of Governors ­ should these be changed also to eliminate elected student officials? On external boards such as the Board of Visitors, are elected individuals such as judges and state secretaries of education to be eliminated from consideration? (Oh, I forgot, the Chair of the Academic Senate is an elected position too.) Conversely, why is a political appointee by the undergraduate council or the graduate association less political than an elected officer?

Beyond the direct impact on the board, I foresee two elected student presidents with a bit more time on their hands ­ the Board of Directors, with its committees, extended discussions and ever present multi-hour meetings is truly a huge time sink. Also, I know that the graduate association has seldom seen itself as an essential element within ASUCLA. How will they direct their efforts when facilities overhead rates and student government accounting service charges are raised?

Will this come full circle when an ASUCLA ­ possibly stripped of the student governments and solely focused on making money ­ begins to talk with the university's Student Affairs Division or Business Enterprises entities about more ways of charging fees for services while eliminating student employment opportunities because they can find cheaper labor but still have to pay off the Ackerman expansion debt?

Perhaps I care too much. As a newly elected officer who literally knew next to nothing nor cared a great deal about how ASUCLA worked, I have become one of its most ardent supporters both around campus and across the UC system. I learned a great deal about how dependent ASUCLA has been on Bearwear profits and sought, quite unsuccessfully, to wean the association by exploring new services and other revenue streams. And now the board has decided to accept the chancellor's loan with all strings attached. I fervently hope that they have some idea where the association is going and how to get there without having to sell out more of the collective soul embodied in ASUCLA for which so many students have fought long and hard.

Lee is a graduate student in the mechanical engineering doctoral program.