The process and appointment of a new facilities commissioner to
the Undergraduate Students Association Council has certainly caused
quite an uproar with the political and journalistic powers that
be. Much of it was expected, and most of it I welcome and
candidly laugh about, as it is clear that the Daily Bruin knows
little about me or the events that led up to my appointment.
The Jan. 27 editorial (“Non-voting commissioners best for
USAC) highlights many dark speculations that surround my nomination
and subsequent approval by council. The editorial suggests,
above all else, a previous assertion by the editorial board that
making commissioners non-voting members of council is the best way
to reform the broken, partisan system. In case The Bruin failed to
notice, during USAC’s meeting I referred to that article as
one of the most thought-out and well-written that I have read in my
nearly five years here at UCLA.Â
There is only one glaring problem with The Bruin’s
proposal ““ while it would befit the commissioners to step
back into purely advisory roles (assuming there were no
multi-commission issues), the fact of the matter is that the
priorities of every commission affect each other and the operation
of USAC as a whole. For example, the cultural affairs
commissioner often needs to work with the campus events
commissioner on student events that may require the facilities
commissioner’s logistical help.Â
The respective commissions’ inputs are given more weight
and are best received by council when there is a vote attached to
these insights. Doing away with commissioners’ voting
rights diminishes the firm voice and judgment of experts on the
issues their commissions face.
As far as USAC’s partisan dynamic is concerned, I do not
have the time nor the inclination to deal with slate
bickering. I have said many times that I believe there
isn’t room for politics in student government. But politics
continues to rear its ugly head, and nothing gets accomplished.
Furthermore, the student body as a whole remains indifferent as to
what goes on in council. I personally, have never had a political
slate affiliation, nor have I ever aligned myself with the lobbying
interests of any advocacy groups on campus, even those with which I
tend to agree. So it is illogical for The Bruin to include me in
any alleged partisanship of USAC.
The editorial also ignores several important pieces of
information, distorting the picture of what happened on Jan. 28. It
doesn’t mention that The Bruin’s own photographer left
before the meeting concluded and that Dria Fearn ““ a member
of the Associated Students of UCLA Board of Directors ““ took
the photographs in question for The Bruin’s sole benefit.
The editorial also fails to mention that I’ve been friends
with both Fearn and Matt Kaczmarek, another facilities commissioner
candidate, since our days on the On-Campus Housing Council ““
a council with no slate organization. What’s more, the
fact that USAC President David Dahle appointed Kaczmarek to serve
on the Student Fee Advisory Committee was totally ignored. The
Bruin implies that by being presidential appointees, Fearn and
Helen Seliverstov ““ a member of the ASUCLA Communications
Board and former Daily Bruin writer ““ are by default
partisan.
Finally, The Bruin appears completely oblivious to the
possibility that the initial votes against my nomination were not
based on my qualification or my personal politics, but were made
with the hope of convincing Dahle that Kaczmarek would better serve
UCLA as facilities commissioner than in his current positions as an
officer for both SFAC and the statewide Council on Student
Fees.Â
I am an opinionated, independent decision-maker, who cannot run
for re-election next year as I will be graduating in June
2003. Why on earth I would have been Dahle’s first
choice is completely beyond the realm of common sense if we accept
the editorial board’s argument that Jan. 28 was merely about
jockeying for meaningless political control.
Pearlman is a fifth-year political science student and the new
facilities commissioner.