Student oversight is central to ASUCLA
Alex Pherson, in his Feb. 12 Viewpoint column “In light of financial crisis, students must actively oversee ASUCLA expenditures,” presents factual errors and misconstrues a number of aspects of student oversight on the ASUCLA Board of Directors. For example, he states that “ASUCLA funds all non-academic services including the United Students Association Council, or USAC, which runs Student Media and student government.” USAC actually stands for Undergraduate Students Association Council and it does not run Student Media.
Though Pherson does highlight the importance of accountability and ethical business practices, especially during difficult economic times, he does not accurately or fairly represent the central role that undergraduate and graduate students play on the Board of Directors. The ASUCLA Board of Directors is by design a student majority board with four undergraduate and four graduate students appointed by their respective student governments; it was designed this way over many years in order to provide students representing their constituencies with a central role in the decision-making that directly affects all students’ daily lives.
The Board also has two administrative representatives, two alumni representatives, and one faculty representative in order to provide a broad perspective on issues affecting the UCLA community. The Board of Directors oversees the financial, service-related, and personnel actions of the Association (of which all students are automatically members).
In addition to the student majority representation on the Board itself, the Executive Director and the Student Union/Student Supports Director regularly participate in USAC and GSA meetings in order to ensure open communication between ASUCLA and UCLA students.
Pherson discusses some of the most current ASUCLA financial figures. First of all, according to the January financial statements, ASUCLA has made money (with a net income of $240,000 for the month and $526,000 for the fiscal year so far).
In addition, one must keep in mind that all financial figures are in relation to budget, and that the ASUCLA budget is in great shape in relation to both previous years’ figures and other retailers’ figures. Pherson talks about the Dyson hand dryers (which were discussed during a number of meetings, were decided upon because of their sustainable qualities and service to students, and in fact save us money since we were previously spending $4,000 per year on paper towels) and the Cooperage video wall (which provides a central place for students to congregate during events such as the Inauguration and indirectly bring more customers to the ASUCLA restaurants) as reasons for current discussions of tuition increases.
In fact, ASUCLA receives no money from the state or the university and therefore ASUCLA’s expenditures have nothing to do with any university decisions regarding tuition. In addition, no member of the Board or the Executive Management Team has thus far “poo-pooed the idea of tapping into its almost $16 million cash reserve in the event that it begins to lose revenue.”
The cash reserve is meant to be used during difficult economic times; however, just as with every ASUCLA action, decisions are discussed in detail during Board meetings such that important judgments are made among the collective body.
Pherson states, “As principals of our money, the board is responsible to us.” This is exactly how the ASUCLA Board and EMT view it as well. During these unusually tough economic times, the Association’s Executive Director and Executive Management Team, with the oversight of the Board, is proactively seeking workable actions and solutions for the entire UCLA community.
The ASUCLA Board of Directors and Executive Management Team consistently work on behalf of those it serves in ethical, responsible, and accountable ways, and are always open to suggestions and ideas from the entire UCLA community. This will continue to be the case no matter what the national or international economic situation is.
Netta Avineri, Chair, ASUCLA Board of Directors
Jesse Rogel, Vice-Chair, ASUCLA Board of Directors
Column misrepresents College Affordability Act
In the recent inflammatory viewpoint column “College Affordability Act offers no answers,” (Feb. 17) columnist Kelly Bowers misrepresented both the College Affordability Act and the current postcard campaign that students are running to see the act passed.
The College Affordability Act would provide much-needed relief to students who have been victim to nearly 100 percent increases in fees over the past 10 years. This has occurred while class sizes have increased and enrollment and financial aid have been cut. The simple fact of the matter is that students are paying more for their education and receiving less.
The act would tax only those who make over $1 million in the state of California ““ an income bracket that can afford to invest in a stable and educated workforce that the UC provides. For every $1 invested in the University of California, the state earns $3 down the line through research benefits and taxes paid by UC-educated workers.
And while the bill may have failed last year because of budget issues, students have been working with State Assemblyman Curren Price and the Legislative Analysts Office to craft a stronger bill that will benefit higher education in California.
The postcards that members of the University of California Student Association have been collecting at UCLA are only a small fraction of a statewide student movement. So far, students have collected more than 8,000 postcards to deliver to our state legislators. After this year of record student voting turnout, legislators care more than ever what students have to say.
Brandon Harrison
Fourth-year, history
Legislative Liaison, USAC EVP Office
Chair, Legislative Affairs Committee of the University of California Student Association