Monday, 4/21/97 Fee increase supports student services
Referendum on hike not feasible due to time constraints
By Patricia Eastman As the executive director of the Associated
Students of UCLA, I would like to respond to the April 14 Daily
Bruin editorial regarding the increase in the student union fee.
The editorial appears to focus its attention on the process through
which the fee was implemented, and in this respect, I would like to
clarify the facts of the matter. After quite accurately describing
the value of the student-led association, The Bruin states that
ASUCLA leadership lost sight of that value by not utilizing the
binding referendum process. The Bruin does not feel that time
constraints were the real motivation, and that ASUCLA should have
begun the referendum process earlier in order to make the required
time. When I began as executive director in August 1996, my first
priority was to develop a viable financial plan which involved the
reduction of the operating expenses in the association by $1
million per year and elimination of planned capital expenditures of
$14 million over the next five years. Even so, the association
faced a loss of several million dollars. This led to difficult
choices – become insolvent and allow a takeover of the association,
eliminate services or increase the student-union fee. To assist us
in making such difficult choices, I performed an evaluation of the
cost of providing the facilities and services dedicated to
students. This study indicated that the uncompensated cost of
providing student facilities and services is $1.6 million per year
or $51 per enrolled student. The ASUCLA board reviewed the study in
October and engaged in significant debate over the need for a fee
increase, challenging me to explore all possible options. By
November, it was accepted that an increase was necessary, and the
process of implementation began. Each student group who heard our
proposal and justification concurred that the dissolution of the
student association would be a profound loss. The student-majority
board wanted to place a referendum on the ballot but reluctantly
acquiesced to the time constraints surrounding our financing
request to the UC Board of Regents. Our timing was such that in
order to obtain regent approval of our financing request in March,
the fee increase, which was an integral part of our 5-year
turnaround plan, was required to be finalized by January. All of
this led to the difficult realization that a binding referendum on
the matter could not be accomplished. The ASUCLA board accepted
this. They felt that by keeping the student association intact they
could implement the inevitable fee increase, with provisions
calling for an annual review of the continual need for the fee and
an end to the fee after five years, when the association would be
returned to financial health and could again fulfill its mission of
supporting student facilities and services through its
income-generating enterprise. The Bruin asks,"Will ASUCLA remember
its purpose once it regains financial stability?" ASUCLA management
and the student-led board never lost sight of its purpose and
mission; the process in which the referendum was implemented
reflects that fact. Patricia S. Eastman is Executive Director of
ASUCLA.