_Editorial Board USAC Endorsements: Council candidates lack solution for USAC’s financial situation_

With 10 out of 13 seats in the Undergraduate Students Association Council uncontested this year, it won’t be much of an election.

And concernedly, next year’s council seems unprepared to resolve the serious financial problems that have come to light.

The trouble began last year, when far more student groups began requesting USAC funds. With a large surplus at the time, the council fulfilled its mandate to distribute this money.

But when surplus projections came back in November, there was so little that USAC requested a $100,000 bailout from Associated Students UCLA in January.

Instead, ASUCLA allowed USAC to spend into next year’s surplus. To the council’s credit, it chose not to do so, which will prevent the shortage from getting worse. Many offices also reduced their surplus fund requests, leaving more money for student groups.

This debacle revealed three critical dysfunctions in student government finances.

“¢bull; USAC depends too heavily on the surplus from the previous year to support student programming.

“¢bull; Most of the council’s money is locked into specific offices or efforts, so when programming funding comes up short, the council can’t always move money around.

“¢bull; Each year’s council is short-sighted ““ USAC has no incentive to save its money. There is an absence of coordination from year to year.

To reduce reliance on the surplus, the council put a referendum on the ballot to increase student fees by $9 a year, which would go directly into student programming.

But the referendum, ironically named CURE, is no such thing. It is a tax that would allow USAC to spend at unsustainable levels.

The council should cut frivolous spending, decrease the complexity of its financial web and move money from other funds into programming. USAC should also create stricter guidelines that emphasize spending on things that benefit a larger number of people.

Proponents of the referendum argue there is no good alternative. We disagree. Far too much money is used for awareness weeks, officer retreats, food and the $23,700 Homecoming carnival that many students criticized.

Finding ways to reduce spending is more difficult than simply asking for more money. But it is the council’s job to do this. Supporting CURE perpetuates the idea that more money can easily be gained from students in lieu of making tougher cost-cutting decisions.

If the referendum fails, funding for some student groups will be in jeopardy next year. But this is a sacrifice that must be made for USAC’s long-term fiscal health.

Unfortunately, most of this year’s candidates have no clue what to do about USAC’s financial mess. Some don’t even appear to understand how funds are distributed.

Normally, students can voice their dissatisfaction with USAC by voting the slate in power out. This year that isn’t an option.

But we can do one thing, at the very least. Please, vote “no” on the CURE referendum.

See who the board endorsed:

Leave a comment

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