ASUC Update

The ASUC Page

Things to consider for this year’s election

By Christopher Page
From the April 2006 Print Edition

Another reason to distrust (student) government

A deal has been finalized that will keep the northside Top Dog open until 11 p.m. Monday through Friday — hopefully one of the first steps in keeping more northside businesses open later into the night. One of the many people who worked to make this a reality is former ASUC Senator Igor Tregub. Though he no longer has an official ASUC position, Tregub continues to spend his own time to improve student life.

This highlights the difference in efficiency between government bureaucracy (the very word has extra unneeded letters) and an individual or private organization. For example, there have been plans to webcast ASUC Senate meetings so students can see what goes on. So far, the camera is not in place. However, a year ago, the Patriot ran an ASUC watchdog operation by taking video cameras and webcasting meetings ourselves. If an independent organization can do something like that I would hope the ASUC, with our money and countless interns at its disposal, could do at least that well.

Fitness on someone else’s dime

As if the Career Center and Class Pass fees were not enough for one semester, there is another one in the works: a Recreational Sports Facility Fee. Planners hope to have it on the same ballot as the ASUC elections. With all the promises of services and numbers thrown out, it is easy to get lost in the information. As of now, a membership in the RSF for a semester is $65, up from $35 last year. While they were still hammering out the details when this went to press, the idea is a $40 mandatory fee for all students and then an additional semester fee of $10 for those who wish to use the RSF. Currently included in what students pay the university is $57 to pay off a construction bond on the RSF.

While I am one of the many students who use the RSF, I am opposed to this fee. I chose to use the RSF, and as a consequence I pay the membership fee. Those students who don’t use the gym should not have to pay for something they don’t want to use in order to subsidize the students who do.

More on elections

The time sensitivity of the need to get the RSF fee approved has helped muddle the election timeline. The Judicial Council ruled that the elections should be held to the original schedule of April 11-13. The rationale given to counter the incredibly short time frame of election planning was that the RSF fee was a “candidate.” As such, the RSF fee would be unfairly affected by the later date, and even if the fee was passed it still needed to be approved by other committees before it could be put into effect for the fall.

I like the RSF fee “candidate.” I wouldn’t vote for it, but it is upfront and does not make promises it can’t keep, something a good number of the students running for office can’t say.

If the elections do fall on April 11-13, an elected official has some advice for you. In the words of Defend Affirmative Action Senator Yvette Felarca (who was incorrectly labeled as a CalSERVE senator in the March issue), “I would encourage a student to sue the ASUC.” If you do feel the need to sue, do so in the Judicial Council and not a court of law, as that would only waste ASUC resources that could otherwise go to student groups.

Show me the money

Some ASUC expenditures might not be the best. Let’s start by taking a look at the ASUC Web site. It has a nifty feature that tracks bills and contains contact information for all elected officials. While the bills were updated regularly last semester, there is only one bill listed for the spring. There should be close to 50 bills listed. If you did have a concern or question about one of these bills you could not see online, you could always contact a senator. So you click over to the Senate page and pick a senator at random. You might pick a Mr. Igor Tregub. After sending him an e-mail, you would be slightly surprised when he e-mails you back and says he is no longer a senator. In fact, he resigned at the first meeting of the semester. If you wanted to contact Melissa Jones, who assumed his seat, the Web site would offer you no help. For this site, we pay $1,000. In all fairness, it could be that nobody is submitting the appropriate information to the webmaster. The dereliction of duties could belong to more than one person who is paid to do them.

Since the spring bills are not updated online, there are plenty of questionable expenses from the fall semester. SB 101 supported the November 2 attempt to drive out the Bush regime. The bill stated that the ASUC as a whole “[supported] the policy of no reprisals — academic or otherwise — against students, teachers, and others in the school community who may take off work or school to take part in protest activities that day.” If you want to protest, that is your choice. However, your choices have consequences. If you don’t go to class and you had a midterm, the result of you not going to class is missing the midterm. The same applies to work; if you don’t show up, you don’t get paid.

A second interesting expense was one that undermined our troops in Iraq. “On the Frontlines” was a conference co-sponsored by the Campus AntiWar Network and Military Out of Our Schools Bay Area. It aimed to unite people in coordinating the anti-war movement. For this, the ASUC shelled out $200. There is a second bill asking for an additional $400, but since the bill tracker has not been updated this semester, we don’t know what happened. One wonders, would $200 be appropriated to a group that wants to hold a conference supporting military recruiters?

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot