Using a modified funding allocation process for only the third
time, the undergraduate student government voted Tuesday to
distribute $52,863 to student groups for spring quarter.
The money came from the Student Organization Operational Fund,
which comes from student fees, and was doled out to 96 student
groups. Groups’ individual allocations were determined by a
scoring system, which was first implemented fall quarter.
Budget Review Director Diem Tran said each group was evaluated
on a number of factors, including demonstrated financial need and
the quality of their budget-review hearing. Groups earned points
based on the evaluation, and the total point scores were used to
determine how much money a group received.
This year marks the first time groups were required to apply for
funding on a quarterly basis, as opposed to yearly. For spring
quarter, 105 groups applied for funding.
Still, the number of student groups applying for funding has
dwindled since last quarter. In the fall, 123 student organizations
applied for funding. Only 84 of the 105 that applied this quarter
also applied in the fall.
Some members of the Undergraduate Students Association Council
have raised concerns about the new allocation process, specifically
about whether the point system led to fair fund allocation.
USAC General Representative Brian Neesby said he was worried
groups with similar overall scores did not necessarily receive
similar amounts of money.
He pointed to Bruin Democrats and the Chinese Cultural Dance
Club as examples. Bruin Democrats received $1,024 more than the
Chinese Cultural Dance Club, even though the two groups’
scores differed by only 1.35 points out of a possible 50.
The largest amount allocated to a student group this quarter was
$1,319, to the Vietnamese Student Union.
“I think the discrepancy’s a little too much this
time,” Neesby said. “Obviously, with any new system
there’s going to be a learning curve, but that’s a huge
distinction.”
Tran said the difference between point scores and allocation
amount is mostly due to how much money a group requests and the
formula the Budget Review Committee uses to calculate
allocations.
She added that the formula forces the committee to allocate
based on a group’s total request, eliminating subjectivity
from the process.
“(Operational fund allocations) are not designed to pick
and choose the “˜right’ items,” she said.
The committee set $3,371 as a reasonable amount for a given
organization to request, and adjusted all groups’ requests
accordingly.
Funding requests for a specific purpose are also adjusted to an
amount the committee sets. Therefore, groups that request a large
amount of money for only one purpose sometimes receive less overall
than groups that diversify their requests.
USAC President Jenny Wood said basing allocations on
groups’ requested totals makes sense. She said that because
the formula leads to proportional allocation, it will be more fair
to all groups because it prevents any one group from receiving more
than it requests.
The money student organizations receive from the operational
fund is limited to expenses such as supplies, advertising, officer
stipends, and travel and registration for retreats and conferences.
Programming funding is allocated through a separate process.
Many student groups said they prefer quarterly allocations to
yearly funding.
“If you do miss the deadline for whatever reason, the rest
of the year isn’t so terrible because you can apply again the
next quarter,” said Aria Link, a co-chair of the UCLA chapter
of CalPIRG.
But some student groups said there are still problems with the
funding allocation process.
“We usually have a lot of trouble getting funding,”
said Chad Hansen, the external vice chairman of L.O.G.I.C.
“The funding process seems to be biased toward groups that
put on types of events that we don’t put on.”
L.O.G.I.C. was allocated $187 for the spring quarter.
Tran said the committee looks for groups that reach out to the
campus.
Eight groups were denied funding this quarter due to failures to
submit parts of the application or to appear at budget
hearings.
Tran and some councilmembers stressed that the allocation system
could still benefit from some changes, possibly including fewer
steps in the application process.
“A lot of things will be taken into consideration for
planning next year,” Tran said. “There are some ideas
for how we can protect the equitable nature of the process without
having unnecessary work.”