Student group funding reflects USAC loyalties

The recent surfacing of an internal document outlining the
undergraduate president’s personal views on student
government have revealed a link between his self-listed student
group allies and the changes in funding those groups received at
the beginning of the year.

David Dahle, president of the Undergraduate Students Association
Council, listed in these documents the students and groups he
considers to be “friends” and “enemies” of
the Students United for Reform and Equality slate which he
heads.

Several groups listed on Dahle’s “friends”
list were also those that received funding boosts in the midst of a
tight budget situation, where council had to deal with a $30,000
cut in its programming budget.

And though the student groups that typically received the
largest base budgets ““ which were substantially cut this year
““ incidentally fell into Dahle’s “enemies”
category, this is not a unique instance of disproportionate
funding.

For several years prior to the current council term, student
groups that backed the Student Empowerment! slate and its earlier
manifestations, Praxis and Students First, often received favorable
base budget funding in relation to other groups.

This year, council revamped the base budget allocation process
to implement increasingly numerical-based evaluations of groups and
their worthiness for USAC funding.

Whereas a majority of the student groups applying for base
budgets received cuts from USAC to accommodate the shortage of
funds ““ Indian Student Union, Interfraternity Council, Jewish
Student Union and Panhellenic Council ““ all Dahle-listed
“friends” ““ got increased and, in some cases,
doubled funding.

But Budget Review Director Justin Levi said the review process
did not allow partisanship to have influence. He said all members
of the Budget Review Committee had equal input in the allocations,
and argued that the top-funded groups still received the most money
of all the groups, but not the majority.

“The system holds every member of the committee
accountable,” Levi said. “The numerical system enforces
fairness.”

In addition, the document reveals that Dahle politicized the
process of choosing members of the BRC.

He wrote that he chose Facilities Commissioner Andrew LaFlamme
““ formerly of the SURE slate, but recently defected ““
to add slate support and Community Service Commissioner Suzanne Yu,
an independent, to include a nonpartisan perspective.

However, Dahle wrote that he chose Cultural Affairs Commissioner
Robbie Clark over Academic Affairs Commissioner Chris Diaz, an
Empowerment! member, “because she is easier to
control.”

Clark took offense at the accusation.

“I’m very unhappy about that statement; I
don’t think it’s true,” she said.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *