AS Senate Proposes Constitutional Amendments in Winter Special Election

Story by Joyce Chi || Listen on SoundCloud

—

In a Special Election this Winter Quarter, the AS Senate is proposing amendments to three articles of UCSB’s AS Constitution. If they pass, they would go into effect in time for the Spring General Election next quarter.

 

The first is a proposal to amend Article Six, which mostly deals with how the Senate itself is set up. This amendment would increase the number of Transfer Senators from one to two, so as to better reflect the makeup of the student body. It also would remove entirely the Residential Senate positions –these are the On-Campus, Off-Campus, and University-Owned Housing Senators. Taking their place would be “Senators At-Large.”

 

LALA: “In this way, we allow for broader representation.”

 

That’s Off-Campus Senator Enri Lala, who introduced the proposal with fellow Off-Campus Senators Dan Siddiqui and Taylor Iden.

 

LALA (cont.): “Because as defined in the amendment, any undergraduate enrolled at UCSB can run for this position. So it opens up anyone who wants to run while at the same time enabling them to represent all housing interests, as is really the case if you really want to do this kind of work in the first place.”

 

When asked how much his “off-campus” title influences his work, Senator Siddiqui said this.

 

SIDDIQUI: “I would say zero percent, just because of the sheer breadth of responsibilities we all have. I mean, I don’t know if any other of the Off-Campus Senators would disagree.”

 

Apart from getting rid of all 18 Residential Senators, this switch to eight Senators At-Large would also cut the size of the Senate as a whole, from a potential maximum of 27 Senators to just 18. The goal, in turn, is to allow for the hiring of two staffers for each Senator to assist with their duties. These can include writing legislation, serving as liaisons to campus organizations, working on committees, and attending meetings for local governments. Here’s Senator Siddiqui again.

 

SIDDIQUI: “We’re just trying to make it easier for students on this campus, if they run for Senate, to actually be able to utilize the full extent of their position.”

 

As an example of the importance of having more staff, Senator Iden cited the office of Attorney General Eric Carlson.

 

IDEN: “His team has just really shown what can be possible when you have a group of individuals supporting one goal…They’ve gotten tons of legislation that we’re looking to move into the floor and a lot of great ideas.”

 

With the addition of these new staffers means new honoraria that must be paid to them. Senator Lala said the Association was ready to pay this honoraria, because the proposal would remove nine Senators who are paid a maximum of $600 each and would instead have staffers who are paid in the $300 range. 

 

LALA: “The problem is not in the amount of fees or the lack of it, but rather how they’re allocated…” 3:12-3:20 “Students would be getting way better services by this small, or relatively small investment, it would make the entire structure worth it.”

 

Besides restructuring the Senate, the Article Six proposal also would codify that the Internal Vice President (or IVP) serves as “President” of the Senate rather than the currently-stated “Presiding Officer.” This is a change that’s also reflected in proposed amendments to Article Two, which we’ll get to later.

 

Senator Siddiqui explained that the “President of the Senate” language comes from the U.S. Constitution. Incorporating it here would mean the IVP does not have to chair the Senate meeting each week and would allow them to work on other issues.

 

SIDDIQUI: “…actually focusing on the internal and external academic issues that are facing students and not just being forced to sit there in a Senate room for six hours every week, which frankly just is not the best use of everyone’s time 100% of the time.”

 

As to who would chair the Senate meetings in the IVP’s place, the language is purposely left vague for future decision making. Constitutionally, it would fall to the first and second presidents pro tempore of the Senate.

 

Next, the Senate is proposing amendments to Article Ten, specifically in regards to when elections are held. Currently, this is all Section Two: Time of Elections reads: quote, “General Elections shall be completed by the fifth week of the Spring Quarter,” end quote.

 

Senators Leah Khorsandi, Dalia Gerson, and Enri Lala brought forward changes to that section. The Article 10 amendment would allow for, quote, “reasonable and timely extensions” to the Spring General Election up until Week 7. The extensions would have to be approved by the Senate and the Elections Board, following consultation with the AS Executive Director.

 

This seeks to address concerns that the Spring Elections might be impeded by natural disasters or could overlap with religious observances, like the Jewish holiday of Passover and/or the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. A specific concern was that the use of technology and electronics are prohibited during Passover, which would impact the abilities of some Jewish students to campaign.

 

Here’s Senator Lala.

 

LALA: “We think that this is the most reasonable sort of common ground solution to extending it if necessary, without upending the way that elections are carried out.”

 

Senator Iden believes the measure could also help with low voter turnout.

 

IDEN: “A lot of the times, Elections Board has to scramble to somehow get it done without extending the deadline, which is just such a headache. So this gives a lot more flexibility, not just for extenuating circumstances, but just getting enough people on the word out to get out and vote, because it’s really important.”

 

Lastly, there’s a proposal to amend Article Seven, which deals with the Executive Offices within AS. Initially, the resolution that introduced this proposal made multiple substantial changes to the duties for the President, Internal Vice President, and the Student Advocate General. 

 

The resolution, authored by Senators Siddiqui and Iden, argued that bureaucratic red tape made it difficult for executive positions to, quote, “exercise their full powers,” end quote.

 

The Student Advocate General was originally set to, quote, “be responsible for initiating technological and software initiatives,” end quote, but that provision has been struck from the final Winter ballot. 

 

At the February 12th Senate meeting, Senator Iden said that removing some proposed amendments and leaving it in the bylaws allowed for greater flexibility. Changes to the Constitution have to be approved through elections, while by-law changes in the Legal Code can be done through Senate approval (no need for an election).

 

Other provisions were struck from the final ballot regarding the President and IVP. The most contentious of these struck provisions added oversight of AS professional (or non-student) staff for the President, under Section Two.

 

The IVP was also originally proposed to, quote, “be responsible for all financial decisions within the Association,” end quote.

 

It was these proposed changes that led AS President Nayali Broadway to veto the winter ballot on February 7th, and consequently, stop the election from moving forward. 

 

President Broadway called the provisions, quote, “illegal in nature” and in violation of UC policy. 

 

However, her email statement and veto did not initially explain which policies or amendments were in dispute. 

 

At the February 12th Senate meeting, she explained the veto was based on the Article Seven, Section Two update to the President and IVP positions. She contended these violated UC Regents Policy 3301, the Policy on Associated Students across UC campuses. 

 

BROADWAY: “These amendments are controversial in regards to university and UC Regent policy, with an extreme likelihood of being unenforceable. While the UC regents’ authority is not explicitly mentioned in the AS constitution, they supersede the AS Constitution, bylaws, and standing policy in the event there are conflicts.

 

Policy 3301 states that AS has, quote, “authorities concerning student affairs by delegations from the Regents, the President, and the Chancellors,” end quote.

 

This is Judicial Council member MingJun Zha’s interpretation of Policy 3301. Zha was previously the Senate Parliamentarian and an International Senator before that. 

 

ZHA: “AS can only have the power that’s been delegated to us, which means that it will be a violation of the policy to amend the AS Constitution and give AS more power.

 

Zha also believed it would have violated human resources policy.

 

ZHA: “Basically, only the Executive Director can have the power to supervise and oversee career staff.”

 

Regarding the provision that would have given the IVP more responsibility over financial decisions within AS, Zha said it would have conflicted with the Executive Director’s authority again.

 

ZHA: “Only the AS Executive Director has the power to oversee the financial situation of the Association.”

 

The Senate eventually voted to overturn the President’s veto a day later on February 8th.

 

Senator Siddiqui spoke about the intention of the proposed amendments to Article Seven. He said it was never the goal to allow the AS President to fire professional staff. The goal, he says, was to repair student-staff relations and to bridge a communication gap between the two.

 

SIDDIQUI: “There’s no internal delegation of authority or internal description of decision-making within the association. Everything is completely centralized, and so, staff are completely disconnected from students. In many cases, they’re also told not to talk to students and not to talk to student leaders unless intentionally sought out by them…

We wanted to codify it in the Legal Code that yes, these people have direct access to talk to staff members. And the intention of breaking that wall was to be able to have students be able to work with staff members to break this wall, to give them agency and dignity in their roles and allow them to do what they want to do.”

 

After the Senate overturned the President’s veto, the Judicial Council issued an injunction of their own to stop the Special Election from proceeding, due to the concerns arising from the two aforementioned changes in Article Seven. However, as Judicial Council member Zha explained, the injunction was lifted after the Senate removed the proposed changes from the final ballot.

 

So, to summarize – the Senate initially wanted to add staff and financial oversight duties to the President and IVP positions. Some argued these could violate UC system-wide policy. AS President Nayali Broadway issued a veto against the winter ballot, then the Senate overturned her veto. The Judicial Council issued an injunction. The Senate made the necessary changes to have the ballot be in line with UC policy. The injunction was lifted. – The Special Winter Election will proceed, as planned.

 

Now then, what’s in the final ballot for Article Seven? For the President, a detailed list that expounds on their responsibility to, quote, “deal with student affairs,” end quote; like by adding the President will work closely with UCSB administrators, quote, “to advance undergraduate student priorities through policy and funding changes,” end quote. The Article Seven amendment also makes it so that the Senate must ratify the President’s appointments for their Cabinet of Advisors.

 

As for the Internal Vice President, one added duty states that the IVP will be the, quote, “primary representative for undergraduate students on all academic matters,” end quote. It also states they’ll work closely with the Executive Vice Chancellor, the Academic Senate (which represents faculty), plus the AS Senate, quote, “to advance undergraduate needs,” end quote. 

 

Another new provision would see the IVP supervising campus entities to ensure they meet their responsibilities and mission statements.

 

There were additional plans to put a proposal amending Article Five on the ballot. It would have increased the approval thresholds needed during the Spring Election for student fees. Specifically, new student lock-in fees would require a three-fourths majority to pass, up from fifty percent plus one or two-thirds. Existing fees that sought reaffirmation (aka, reapproval) would have required a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority. The proposal also suggested reaffirmation for student fees to occur every year, not every two years as it is now.

 

(KCSB is one of many campus entities who depend on student lock-in fees for funding.) 

 

The Article Five amendments were ultimately not included in the final, so as to allow for consultation with campus groups that could be affected. Senator Iden also wants to address rollover, the accumulation of funds year to year. When asked if the Article Five amendments would be included on the Spring ballot, Senator Iden answered,

 

IDEN: “It’s up in the air right now. We’re exploring our options with how we can manage this…” 29:19-29:35 “We’re definitely going to e pursuing some type of agreement just with rollover that we want to put on the ballot. So like, if BCUs do accumulate an excessive amount of rollover, the steps that would proceed following that – whether it’s, we cancel their fee for a year, or we take the money ourselves and we redistribute it where it’s needed.”

 

With regards to promoting the winter election through things like tabling and social media, Senator Siddiqui expects it to cost a maximum of 10 thousand dollars. This will come from the budgets of the Senate Outreach Committee, which will lead tabling efforts, the Elections Board, and the Senate Unallocated Fund.

 

 

SIDDIQUI: “Ultimately it’s up for the student body to decide, because that is the ultimate body that we all serve, who elects us. So it’s really in your guys’ hands, and I hope to see you guys go out there, vote, and have some productive conversations.”

 

The Winter Special Election will be available through email and runs from Tuesday, February 18th at 8 AM until Friday, February 28th at 1 PM.

 

We reached out multiple times to President Nayali Broadway, Attorney General Eric Carlson, and Solicitor General Sandy Grees for comment/interviews. President Broadway and Solicitor General Grees did not respond, and Attorney General Carlson declined.

 

Thank you for listening. With KCSB News, I’m Joyce Chi.