A.S. President Jenn Brown publically criticized the procedure by which the UCSD administration has been reviewing changes made to UC-wide policies regulating student organizations and fees during the Jan. 22 A.S. Council meeting.

Brown expressed her concerns over the soundness of portions of the newly revised policies, as well as her disappointment that no committee was set up to dialogue before UCSD’s comments were sent back to the Office of the President. According to Brown, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph Watson had said in August 2002 that a committee including members of the administration, Associated Students and the Graduate Student Association would form to comment on the changes; instead, the A.S. Council was notified last week that they could comment “”if they wished.””

“”I did agree to the concept of a committee, and then did not get back to [Brown],”” Watson said. “”I think she was right in her criticism, and I apologize for it.””

The UC Student Association had been in dialogue with UCOP after having received a draft of the proposed revisions to the document, officially titled “”UC Policies on Campus Activities, Organizations and Students,”” in October 2002. Director of Student Policies and Judicial Affairs Nicholas Aguilar had also sent out a copy of the legislation to the A.S. Council and the GSA. This, according to Watson, led him to believe that A.S. Council, through UCSA, had had direct input during the revision process.

Brown and A.S. Vice President External Stephen Klass have drafted a list of their concerns with the policy’s amendments, which Brown said will be sent directly to UCOP without passing through campus administration, though they were promised on Jan. 24 that its comments would also be passed on with the formal UCSD commentary.

According to Brown, the proposed revisions will limit the scope of student government to “”protect the university from student’s actions.””

Both Watson and Brown said that much of the criticism concerning the revised policy has stemmed from wording considered by some to be too vague.

“”I think where there are ambiguities or restrictions that they’re probably good,”” Watson said. “”I think this is an improvement over what was there before, which was much more restrictive.””

Watson added that he welcomed criticism on the wording and that the administration would incorporate whatever advice they felt was warranted, but that he was urging “”implementing these [changes] and moving on.””

Brown said that while she does not know whether their comments will be taken into consideration in the second round of revision, she hopes changes will be made so that document is not open to interpretation by the administration.

“”Discrepancies in wording always favor the administration,”” Brown said. “”We’re thinking worse-case-scenario … We have to think of possible applications of these policies in the future.””

One of the concerns voiced by the A.S. Council was with student government’s rights to advocacy. New sections dealing with the sponsorship of speakers require topics and speakers sponsored by student governments to be “”balanced over time,”” and, if a student government sponsors a forum “”advocating for or against a non-student government candidate or ballot proposition,”” they are required to invite a representative of the opposing “”campaign or campaigns”” at the same time.

Brown said that it was unclear whether this might force the A.S. Council to invite speakers from every existing political party, for example, when inviting speakers to campus. In its written comments to UCOP, the A.S. Council went on to criticize use of the term “”neutral”” in reference to speakers, asking “”Who defines who is neutral?”” and stating, “”We should not be forced to bring in people outside of student government’s choosing, simply because there exists somewhere some opposition.””

Brown also offered the example of the A.S. Council’s current work on a “”No on CRENO”” campaign, for which it is attempting to raise upwards of $15,000 from college councils and from private fundraising. Brown said her concern was that the A.S. Council might be forced to raise an additional $15,000 on a “”Yes on CRENO”” campaign to comply with new revisions concerning student government’s allocation of funds.

Watson said that he did not interpret the proposed new policies to require such a scenario.

Another concern was with the definition and constituency of a student government, and for whom it can or cannot lobby. The revised document states that the advocacy of student governments, in the case of public policy issues, must resolve positions on issues “”affecting students in their status as students.””

The A.S. Council asked whether or not discrimination based on race or gender figured into the student’s “”status,”” or whether student status was limited to “”academic bodies in classrooms.””

The A.S. Council also opposed the new sections of the policies that banned recognized campus organizations from participation in referendums which determine whether campus-based student fees will be raised, as voted by students. Brown wants these sections deleted.

Watson said that he believed that the revisions had stemmed from several problems, including past endorsement of candidates from unnamed student governments and from a need to clarify in what situations student fees could be used. According to Watson, several campus administrations, including those at UCSD, have been vigorously opposed to these mandatory fees being applied to external organizations.

“”Among the basic reasons is that the mandatory fee is a requirement for enrollment, so if a student objects to that fee, we would then be obligated not to enroll that student,”” Watson said. “”And I don’t see how we could do that.””

Both old and new versions of the policy incorporate forms of safeguards for students disagreeing with the application of student fees to receive refunds.

According to Brown, Watson has promised that a committee will form for the second round of revisions.

Watson said that in the future, administrators will formally ask for the comments of the A.S. Council and the GSA.

“”It has often been described that making law is like making sausages. You don’t want to see the process,”” Watson said. “”I don’t think making university policy is as bad as that, but one has to recognize that it is not a perfect process … Let’s move forward, particularly when this is real progress.””

Official UCSD campus comments on the policies will be sent to UCOP by the Feb. 3 deadline.