The Jewish Student Union base budget appeal has once again put
the process of student group funding under scrutiny. Although JSU
certainly provides valuable programming to the student body and
merits Undergraduate Students Association Council funding, the
Judicial Board should not alter JSU’s funding status.
JSU has not proven there was any wrongdoing on the part of the
Budget Review Committee, and it seems the BRC’s funding
decision was largely a product of JSU’s flawed proposal and
lack of communication with the BRC.
According to the USAC Web site, a base budget is intended
primarily to pay for “routine” expenses, such as
supplies, graphics and organization retreats. In terms of
programming funding, a base budget is intended as a supplementary,
rather than a primary, source of money. The initial JSU proposal
did not address clearly how JSU programs and efforts would meet BRC
priorities.
The BRC requires each student group to submit a proposal early
in the summer and attend a hearing during which the group leaders
are questioned about their spending priorities and reasons for
requesting a particular amount of base budget funding.
The proposals are then assessed using a set of priorities
derived from USAC bylaws and approved by the current council. This
year, a point system was used to measure how well different
priorities were met.
JSU received $3,242.05 out of $9,569.73 requested. The
programming total of this allocation was $1,541. In September, JSU
appealed to USAC to grant it more money. This appeal was denied,
and the issue is now in front of the Judicial Board for final
resolution.
In his Judicial Board brief, JSU President Gideon Baum argues
that among the priorities set by the BRC in determining funding,
areas dealing with retention and outreach “led to a severe
procedural error, as well as inadvertent discrimination.”
Baum says this priority was defined “far too
narrowly.” JSU feels this priority entailed a requirement for
structured retention programs, which resulted in a bias. The group
says several of its programs, such as a bowling night, would help
serve the purpose of membership retention.
JSU also raises issues with another BRC priority: community
service. The BRC priority description states a program must
“provide avenues for undergraduates to serve and assist the
community in addressing societal problems.”
JSU also feels this requirement is too narrowly understood by
USAC. According to JSU, organizations such as Hillel and Bruins For
Israel conduct off-campus service. JSU believes service is
accomplished in a variety of ways, including through a program that
brings kosher food into dining halls on a weekly basis and through
the group’s dealings with UCLA’s administration.
Certainly, these JSU programs are not only commendable but also
vital to the UCLA community, as they help serve and represent
diverse communities at UCLA. Such representation is crucial to
fostering understanding and identity in the campus environment.
However, it is unclear why JSU did not choose to expand on and
clarify these examples in its initial funding proposal. Although
the bowling program is mentioned in the proposal, it is not cited
in terms of its success in outreach and retention, which is one of
the priorities the BRC required. Similarly, the community service
value of JSU’s work to provide kosher food to dining halls is
not clearly articulated in the group’s written proposal.
Considering this omission, the BRC’s claim that JSU also
failed to address fully this issue at the hearing is clearly
credible. If JSU fails to articulate how a program would meet a
requirement, how can the group expect the BRC to give funding
reflective of a strong proposal?
It appears JSU effectively opted out of the funding process when
it failed to clarify its programming goals with the BRC. As Finance
Committee Chairwoman Priscilla Chen told me in an interview, the
responsibility to articulate how programs meet BRC priorities lies
with the individual groups and their proposals. The BRC cannot be
blamed for JSU’s failure to fully communicate its programming
goals.
If JSU had specific problems with the requirements of the BRC,
the group had ample opportunity to raise the issue with the BRC and
USAC. BRC priorities were approved by USAC two weeks before budgets
were due.
During that time, JSU certainly had the opportunity to discuss
the priorities with BRC or USAC. Yet JSU chose not to do so. Both
prior to and at the time of the hearing, JSU did not articulate its
concerns.
JSU argued, in its appeal before USAC, that this was at least
partially due to difficulties in the leadership transition for the
new year. According to USAC minutes, the early departure of the
outgoing president harmed JSU and hindered communication during the
adjustment period, preventing effective discussion about funding
priorities. As a result, the issue of problems with priorities was
not raised.
This argument, however, is flawed in that it expects USAC to
take responsibility for internal organizational leadership
problems. Guided by such a standard, every group that has
leadership issues should have its funding proposals reconsidered.
That would set a dangerous precedent that must be avoided for the
sake of both fairness and efficiency. Hopefully, the Judicial Board
will recognize the dangers of granting poorly justified appeals for
significantly flawed proposals and will rule accordingly.
Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail
him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint
@media.ucla.edu.