From the Daily Bruin:
[See our previous posts on this matter.]
The University of California Student Association Systemwide Affairs Committee voted 10-0-2 in a closed session meeting on Thursday
to recommend that the UC Board of Regents hold off on the confirmation
of student regent-designate nominee Avi Oved until September...
The Daily Bruin’s Jeong Park spoke with Oved Friday about the email and recent allegations brought against Oved.
Daily Bruin: In the meeting Thursday, you said you wrote the
email to Adam Milstein to thank him for his donation. Can you clarify
the email?
Avi Oved: That letter was thanking Milstein for making a
donation to Hillel. At the time, I had an internship at Hillel that gave
me a lot of opportunities to establish myself as a leader and that was a
stepping-stone for me to seek a different position. That was the point
of the email.
DB: Why did the email mention supporting the Bruins United slate for the USAC election last year?
AO: Hillel supported (Bruins United), and Milstein was a huge
supporter of Hillel. Given that my internship was leadership-based, I
wanted to let him know I was pursuing a different position in the
student government.
DB: Why did you not confirm the validity of the email in Tuesday’s statement?
AO: I didn’t find it to be quite relevant. (The) first and
only accusation (addressed to me) was that I violated the USAC election
code. There was no rule or protocol in terms of detailing where you got
your funds from. The only rule that is detailed in the election code
bylaws is informing the board (about the amount of money) you have and
how much you have used. When people say I was not transparent throughout the process, the
issue is that there is no mechanism to showcase that information. Even
if I wanted to say where I got my funding from – which applies to no
candidate at the USAC election – even if I wanted to share that with the
public, there was no means to do so. There is no opportunity for you to
say that I got money from X, Y and Z. It was outrageous to me to say that I violated or wasn’t transparent
enough in the whole election code. Requiring me to be the only one to
show the information goes against the whole transparency issue because
there is a huge group of people who weren’t part of (a) transparent
process. If USAC wants that information to be included in the future, so
be it, but it is unfair (to say) that I was not transparent when there
was no mechanism to (disclose the information)...
DB: Have you been talking with the UC or the regents at all
since this started? If so, have they told you anything about your
impending appointment?
AO: I plan on moving forward with the confirmation process. I
am trying to lay the groundwork for the work I want to do. This issue,
the Israel and Palestine conflict or divestment, is not really going to
be the focus. There (are) more pressing issues for the UC. Some of (the)
key issues I really want to push for (are) sexual violence prevention,
increasing student representation on the Board of Regents and making
sure we have a strong relationship with the California State University,
California Community Colleges, etc. so we collectively advocate for
higher education. Those issues are issues students care about. There is a need to look at the bigger picture. This issue of
divestment was also (a concern) when (current student regent-designate
Sadia Saifuddin) was appointed, but as you saw, the issue didn’t come up
because the issue was not pertinent to the Board of Regents. I want to
focus on the work I have (been) appointed to do...
Full story and interview at http://dailybruin.com/2014/07/04/qa-student-regent-designate-nominee-discusses-allegations-plans/
No comments:
Post a Comment