On Sept. 9, an ASUC-elected official released a scathing note on his website. This note not only criticised a fellow elected official but proceeded to take a stance on legislation that was being introduced in the ASUC Senate. In student politics, this is a common occurrence. However, this note was not posted by an ASUC senator or an executive actively involved in external affairs. The note was posted by Executive Vice President Nolan Pack, whose main role is to facilitate ASUC Senate discussion and maintain respect for all opinions in the chambers. The bill in question was SB 2, which was entitled “A Bill in Support of Undocumented Students and Immigrant Communities.” The bill addressed concerns of the appointment of Janet Napolitano as the new UC president. It calls for a vote of no confidence before she takes office in a few weeks. The content of the bill, however, is beside the point. In a note posted about SB 2 on his website, Pack starts the beginning of his post with this quip:
“Anybody familiar with my history in student government — and my politics more broadly — knows that I am seldom reserved in dispensing criticism. Today, I get the rare — and very meta — opportunity to offer criticism of criticism, or lack thereof.”
As senators who served with Pack while he was an ASUC senator, we would have to agree with his statements about himself. Pack was one of the most polarizing figures while he served as a senator. Not only was he disrespectful to his fellow senators who opposed his opinions, but he was also disrespectful to then-EVP Justin Sayarath who was dealing with the difficult job of moderating a senate that fell into debating some very heated topics (i.e. divestment). Upon his election as EVP, there were many concerns from students about his ability to remain neutral as EVP because of his polarizing nature. Now it seems those concerns have been realized.
In his note, Pack calls out EAVP Safeena Mecklai for her alleged lobbying of ASUC Senators to vote against the bill. However, Mecklai had already voted on the issue in a UCSA vote days prior. She had a right to talk about her decision to vote against the no confidence vote. To say she was lobbying the senators by relaying to the student body why she voted a particular way is naive. Says Pack:
“I refuse to sit idly by as (the Free Speech Movement) legacy is misappropriated by a (student) politician who seems bent on advancing a pro-administration agenda.”
Then, after criticizing another executive for voicing her opinion as the external affairs vice president, Pack hypocritically expresses his own:
“Support Senator Tan’s bill, SB 2, “A Bill in Support of Undocumented Students and Immigrant Communities.”
This is not the only instance where Pack has breached neutrality. Based on his public opposition to a student district plan that was endorsed by the ASUC the previous year, it seems that Pack is trying to be EAVP rather than fulfill the obligations his actual position traditionally requires. If Pack is interested in expressing his opinion consistently on all issues of the ASUC, then it seems as if he should have thought more deeply about which executive position was more of a fit for him.
Having a non-neutral chair of a very politically diverse ASUC Senate is extremely problematic. It has been the history of the EVP position to retain neutrality in order to facilitate a fair discussion of issues. By establishing his views on a senate bill before it is even discussed, senators who oppose Pack’s position are at an inherent disadvantage. Because Pack moderates debates on bills, he has massive control over the direction of a certain issue. The fact that chambers would be biased before senators even enter the floor is inappropriate.
Critics of our stance may believe that Pack has every individual right to say whatever he feels about the bill. We do not deny that Pack has the right to express his opinion on a bill. While Pack may have every individual right to express his opinion on a bill, it simply does not create an effective or fair senate floor, nor does it do service to the position he was elected to serve. Pack can assert his opinions on bills and criticize executives with whom he works a daily basis all he wants. However, the bottom line is that he will be the main catalyst for what looks to be the most ineffective and contentious ASUC that this school has ever seen.
Rosemary Hua and Mihir Deo are former ASUC senators.