At last night’s Legislative Council meeting, members upheld the Associated Students President’s veto of a bill to instate the UCSB Human Rights Council as an A.S. entity.

Last Wednesday, the Legislative Council approved a resolution in a 20-1 vote, creating an A.S.-funded entity known as the Human Rights Board. However, two days later, A.S. President Charlie Arreola announced his intentions to veto the bill. As per the A.S. legal code, President Arreola’s veto was a required item on last night’s agenda as old business.

Council members debated at length whether or not to overthrow the veto and again instate the Human Rights Board as an A.S. entity. President Arreola’s reasons for vetoing the resolution were the center of discussion. Arreola’s statement highlighted multiple concerns, including the fiscal impact the bill could have on A.S. and the possibility of campus polarization if members of the Human Rights Board abused their political power.

Many members said they did not believe this reasoning was adequate.

Rep-at-large Daniel Gradias said many members on the current Legislative Council were already affiliated with the politically charged group and that creating the HRB would not constitute a significant change from the norm.

“I really support this BCC [board commission or committee],” he said. “By not supporting it, we’re being, what’s the word? Hypocritical.”

A.S. Executive Director Marisela Marquez said many BCCs had previously been created by the council when there wasn’t a concrete budget in place.

“Not putting a financial impact on the bill doesn’t necessarily mean the bill can’t go to finance board unallocated and ask for a budget,” Marquez said. “This is similar to any other BCC.”

After extended discussion, Off-campus Representative Chloe Stryker said she would propose minor amendments to the bill in next week’s meeting in order to keep the idea on the table. Stryker also said she was doubtful of Arreola’s commitment to a revised draft of the resolution to instate the HRB.

“It seems that you are just opposed to organizations becoming BCCs,” Stryker said. “Would you just veto it again? Or would you support it with all these corrections?”

Arreola said he would await future legislation.

“I would have to wait to see a piece of legislation to give you an answer,” Arreola said. “I feel like my veto has concerns regarding the fiscal impact and also the precedence Associated Students will set.”

Following deliberation, the majority of the council decided to respect the veto.