The A.S. Council seems to have developed its own national domestic policy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Its resolution, passed March 13, calls on Congress to reject the proposed U.S. constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the United States. The Council sent the resolution, which passed 20-2 with four abstentions, to media outlets and government bodies, including the San Diego Union-Tribune, the U.S. Supreme Court and the California governor’s office. Previous A.S. resolutions have renamed the Student Leadership Chambers, shown ASUCSD’s opposition to student fee increases and Proposition 54, supported fire fighters and police officers in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and asked the UCSD administration to construct new gender-neutral bathrooms. All of these resolutions technically did nothing, but their effects on the campus community can be significant.
With the constitutional amendment resolution, the council showed its support for a vocal constituency whose interest groups — including the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Association, among others — are well-represented on this council and in this year’s A.S. elections candidate pool. Over 50 of the resolution’s supporters showed up to the A.S. meeting when the resolution faced a vote. The council responded to its constituents, revised the original resolution, and passed it.
In early 2002, the council again listened to its constituents. The College Republicans brought a resolution before the council, asking it to affirm its support for the nation, police officers and fire fighters. The resolution passed in significantly altered form, but it did pass — people who wanted a resolution got one. The resolution did nothing except show the council’s regard for its constituents’ feelings.
Each time a resolution passes, people complain about the council wasting its time. “It could be working on more productive things,” they say, “like setting up new student services, fighting to keep the administration honest or defending free speech.” Yes, the council should work on getting Triton Taxi service back to the border. Yes, our elected officers should make sure our vice chancellors don’t trample our rights. And the council does try to do that — but not during meetings.
Most of the work the council does is “behind-the-scenes.” The meetings are obscenely long, largely because of cumbersome procedural rules that govern how the council can conduct business. Councilmembers’ lengthy reports on their weekly job duties consume much of the meeting time. The actual business conducted at the meetings consists of approving or rejecting what councilmembers have already done during the week. Before spring break, the senate voted to approve the charter for the new online “Bookswap” program, which A. S. Commissioner of Enterprise Operations Jeremy Cogan created in the days and weeks before the meeting. This week, the council will decide on A.S. Elections Manager Tom Chapman’s plan to finally implement Instant Runoff Voting, for which significant research and cost calculations were done — again, prior to the meeting. All of these “constructive” projects take hours of work outside of the weekly Wednesday meetings.
Only negligible time is spent writing a resolution. Some senators spend less than 20 minutes drafting the resolutions they submit to council, and others don’t write them at all — their constituents do, and they submit them on their behalf. Much as real-life legislators in Congress gain political capital by submitting bills written by constituents and lobbyists, members of the A.S. Council hammer out resolutions that cater to certain student groups. The resolutions don’t even have to pass; just the fact that the councilmember submitted it means that he can claim to have “supported” that student group during his next campaign. If it means the council spends an extra hour or two listening to public input or working in committee hearings, it’s worth it. The resolution enriches both the councilmember and the student group who supported it. Uncontroversial resolutions are even better. Half of the council jumps aboard as “co-signers” to claim credit, the bill passes without much debate, and everyone goes home happy.
The council does more than its share of lobbying, even though it cannot actually stop Congress or the states from approving the federal marriage amendment, nor can it force the Building Advisory Committee to follow the rules or stop Vice Chancellor Joseph W. Watson from banning casino nights. The A.S. Council’s impact on other areas of campus is already affected through the scores of representatives it sends to campuswide committees. It’s not the council itself that represents the students’ will in these arenas, but the committee representatives. Concerned with the way Price Center or Student Center will be built? Talk to Aaron Sheinbein, Justin Williams or one of the other students representing our interests on University Centers Advisory Board or BAC. Worried about the new Warren Writing grading system? Talk to one of the representatives appointed to the Committee on Educational Policy.
The A.S. Council isn’t the final word in student representation, and they’re not expected to be. Twenty-three senators and a handful of executives aren’t enough to do everything. It’s called delegation.
