Undergraduate student government officers have recently raised concerns over the role of a subcommittee in the appointment process for students on campus committees.
USAC is responsible for filling about 70 student positions on various committees across campus, such as the Associated Students UCLA Board of Directors and the Student Fee Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to the UCLA chancellor on how student fees should be allocated.
Once an applicant is selected by the USAC president to fill one of these positions, he or she must undergo an extensive screening process administered by the USAC Appointments Review Committee. The committee is comprised of three voting councilmembers and the non-voting finance committee chair.
Committee members can either approve the potential appointee, give no recommendation or disapprove the appointee. Then, when the potential appointee appears before council, the USAC officers have a basis for voting one way or the other, said Berky Nelson, an administrative representative who has sat on USAC for more than a decade.
At a weekly council meeting Tuesday, several USAC members raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the council’s bylaws for the Appointments Review Committee.
According to the council’s bylaws, the Appointments Review Committee was established “to expedite the appointment approval process” – a role councilmembers say is vaguely stipulated.
“I think there is a lot of uncertainty in what (the Appointments Review Committee’s) role should be,” said USAC President David Bocarsly.
So far, the committee has referred five appointees with no recommendations to council for approval.
Andrea “Andi” Hester, internal vice president and chair of the Appointments Review Committee, said members often opt for no recommendations when they see promise in a potential appointee but think they should research more about the position they are applying for.
At last week’s council meeting, USAC voted down the proposed appointment of second-year human biology and society student Dorit Stein to the Student Health Advisory Committee.
“The abstentions caused an insecurity coming out of (the Appointments Review Committee) that is then translated to council,” said Cynthia Jasso, the USAC finance committee chair, who sits on the Appointments Review Committee as a non-voting member.
Jasso said the committee felt Stein didn’t have enough knowledge of the position or the Arthur Ashe Student Health and Wellness Center, among other things.
“I know that for the most part when people see the 0-0-2 vote it seems like a soft “˜no’ or like we don’t feel confidently,” said Stephen Kraman, facilities commissioner and a member of the Appointments Review Committee. “But really it is a neutral vote, (meaning we want to) bring it to council to decide.”
Jasso said her biggest concern is that the committee is using abstentions as an easy way to say no.
“The fact that there is no clear definition for abstaining and (what) no recommendation (means) is really frightening,” Jasso said.
Anees Hasnain, the USAC community service commissioner, said she is concerned when the Appointments Review Committee doesn’t approve or disapprove a candidate, advising them to learn more about the position before their appointment goes to the council for approval.
“You want students who choose to apply to take the time to explore the duties of the position beforehand,” Hasnain said.
Almost half of the council’s appointments have been filled for this year, Bocarsly said. And all but one of the proposed appointments have been approved by council.
“I would say it’s speedier if they get all the appointments done before November,” Nelson said.
With USAC well on its way to filling this year’s appointments, some councilmembers are looking to amend the unclear bylaws for future councils.
Bocarsly said the councilmembers are having conversations to figure out how to address the ambiguity in the bylaws about the Appointments Review Committee’s role.
Kraman said he wants to work with the Constitutional Review Committee, a subcommittee responsible for reviewing and updating council bylaws, to make the language about the appointment process in the bylaws more clear.