The ASUC Store Operations Board, a body of students and administrators that oversees ASUC commercial activities like the Cal Student Store, is embroiled in a dispute over the appointment of a third party to search for a new executive director.
The controversy concerns a board committee’s vote to commission a firm to search for a new executive director of the board.
The board currently does not have an executive director. Some members proposed that the board contract with an outside search firm to find qualified candidates. The search firm could be paid as much as $40,000 if it is successful, according to Hedy Chen, a member of the board.
According to Philippe Marchand, a member of the Graduate Assembly and a former member of the Store Operations Board, the committee lacked the authority to approve the commission on its own.
Marchand said Ryan Landis, the chair of the board, violated the board’s charter by acting on the vote of a committee rather than the vote of the entire board.
“As it stands now, it appears you have breached protocol by changing the rules of a vote you were going to lose, and not telling the Board that you were changing the rules,” Marchand wrote in an email to the ASUC Senate and Landis.
On Friday, the full board held an online vote on the issue. The measure failed to gain the approval of the required two-thirds majority of board members, according to Chen. Landis said in an email to the board that the results of this vote were invalidated because of irregularities during the voting process.
Landis, who could not be reached for comment, wrote in the same email that “because of the need for a decision,” the board decided to accept the judgment of the five-member Auxiliary Committee that approved the resolution by a four to one vote.
According to Marchand, however, the committee is purely advisory and cannot ratify a resolution without the approval of a two-thirds majority of the entire board.
He points to section six of the board’s charter, which states that the Auxiliary Committee “shall serve to advise the Board on policy provided directly by the Auxiliary.”
“I expect this will be resolved within the week,” Chen said.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
I would add that, based on information from the Chair of the Auxiliary Committee, 2 members voted against the proposal, which could mean the vote was actually 3-2, short of the 2/3 requirement even at the committee level. The fact that Chair Landis may be misinforming Board and Senate members on the nature of this vote (just as he misinformed them by initially claiming the Store Operations Board approved the motion) is probably the most troubling aspect of this story.
UC Administration’s M.O. every time:
don’t like the bylaws? just ignore them!
For example, how is/was tuition set at Boalt Law?
Used to be calculated based on a comparison to tuition at peer institutions.
Policy explicitly called for a number of public U law schools to be part of the basis of comparison. UC wanted to raise the rates more than reasonable under that calculation, so they started making a comparison to only private law schools w/o making a formal policy change.
Why not just change the policy?
Because then people might notice the effect!
In the end they noticed anyway, so UC changed the policy… but had to eat 2X the bad PR. Once for the policy change, and once for trying to pull one over on everybody.
If only UC would learn to act w/integrity, things would be better for UC!
The administrative actions and policies may not be popular with the little people but at least they wouldn’t be double pissed for having been jerked around.
It’s hard for UC to defend new policies when they are implemented surreptitiously or in violation of current bylaws. It makes it seem as if UC has something to lie about. If the administration finds its policies defensible, then it should just be up front about things and make the case for the decisions that have been made.
This is just common sense, something sorely lacking at UC.