Friday, April 4, 1997
ASUCLA:
Five-year rate increase planned to help out association’s
financesBy Frances Lee
Daily Bruin Contributor
With the approval of the UC Board of Regents, a student union
fee increase will be effective next fall, bringing financial relief
to the students’ association (ASUCLA).
Starting next quarter, students will be levied a $51 annual
student union fee, up from the current $7.50, adding about $1.6
million to the association’s coffers. The fee reflects the
per-student cost to cover operating expenses of space devoted
exclusively to students.
Although the regents unanimously approved ASUCLA’s financial
turnaround plan, which included the fee increase, concern was
raised over the process in which the fee was designed.
"I am not comfortable with this fee increase," said Regent Velma
Montoya. "I believe it is an emergency tactic, (but) I am going to
vote for it because it will only raise fees for five years."
Normally, campus-based student fees can only be increased
following a referendum in which students vote in favor of the fee,
and it is approved by the chancellor and the regents, according to
University of California policy.
Exceptions to the referenda requirements are made, however, when
the increase is necessary to meet contractual obligations.
Time constraints forced the association to push the fee through,
since it was part of the budget proposal which had to be presented
to the regents in order to get their construction loans.
"If (former Interim Executive Director) Chas Mack had recognized
this (financial) problem, we would have (put the process) in place
sooner," said Board of Directors Vice-Chair James Friedman.
According to Friedman, Mack was "on a spending spree" on the
infrastructure of ASUCLA, and wanted to worry about the money
later.
"When Pat (Eastman) came on board, she had to grab the reins and
put a stop to the spending. It took her a while to get a good grip"
on the association’s finances, he continued.
Faced with the possibility of a university takeover if it could
not meet its financial obligations, the board claims it had no
choice but to raise the fees.
"It wasn’t so much support of the fee, but more the support of
keeping ASUCLA financially viable," said Undergraduate Students
Association Council (USAC) President John Du. "If we didn’t get the
money, we would lose the association."
In exchange for not having a referendum, the Board of Directors
tacked on a five-year "sunset" clause to phase out the fee, and
will subject the fee to an annual evaluation and adjust it if
necessary.
After five years, the $51 fee will go to a student vote, which
could either continue the fee at that level or reduce it back to
$7.50.
The fee increase received support from both the undergraduate
and graduate student governments, as well as by the Student Fee
Advisory Committee (SFAC), but concern was raised over the lack of
a referendum.
"In theory, I support the increase," said Graduate Students
Association (GSA) External Vice President Grace Chee. "My criticism
is (with) the process  (ASUCLA) used a loophole to not put
this to referendum.
"Students should have a much greater role and participation in
decision making," she continued, since it is the students’
organization.
In a letter to Chancellor Charles Young, SFAC Chair Lynn Swartz
recommended implementing the fee increase, but stressed that SFAC
did so reluctantly because of the lack of student consultation.
Students on the ASUCLA Board of Directors "were very concerned
that this wasn’t going to a referendum. That’s why there is a
five-year sunset clause," as well as a non-binding survey of
student opinion this spring, Friedman said.
While "it is not the best scenario," said Chee, "at least
(ASUCLA) is putting a post-referendum (survey) on the GSA
ballot."
The survey, which was originally intended to be an advisory
referendum, will be put forth to students during the upcoming
student elections.
It is designed to "get a sense of what students think are the
priorities of the association," and tailor them to the desires of
students, Friedman said.
The association admits that the process was flawed, but felt
that time constraints forced it to impose the fee without putting
it to a student vote.
"I’m pleased the fee was approved because it’s critical to the
association," said Executive Director Patricia Eastman. "I’m
anxious to move forward, growing the association’s business so we
can evaluate (the) need for the fee.
"I’m not pleased it had to be done without the binding
referendum," she added, acknowledging that it would have been risky
to do so and expect students to approve it.
With reports from Tiffany Lauter, Daily Bruin Contributor.