The UCLA Graduate Division released crucial information midway through a vote on a referendum to fund the struggling Graduate Writing Center – a slip-up that is disappointing.
In an election that ended Monday, the writing center referendum was invalidated because students failed to make the threshold of a 10 percent voter turnout, falling only seven votes short. Of those who voted, 66 percent favored funding the center.
The UCLA Office of Academic Planning and Budget analyzed the center’s funding last month and announced a plan to cut $30,000 from the center’s budget because they found money was being distributed against University policy, Samuel Bersola, assistant vice provost of the UCLA Graduate Division told the Daily Bruin.
The analysis began last month and officials knew they would present a cut to the center’s funding two weeks prior to the beginning of the graduate student government elections, which included the writing center referendum.
However, UCLA officials did not make this information public until Friday, more than halfway through the election, which began April 9.
This board believes that voters in any election should have all the relevant information before casting their vote. Many – at least 44 percent of the voters in the election cast their votes before 10 a.m. on Friday – did not.
We do not believe the Graduate Division had bad intentions in holding off their announcement of the cut, but their actions were avoidable. The Graduate Division should have known about the financial struggles of the center – a well-known resource that hundreds use – and issued their announcement prior to the elections.
Further, though we can only speculate, the election may have had another outcome had such an announcement been made. For instance, more students may have turned out to vote, or changed their vote, had they known about the proposed funding cut. Perhaps the referendum would have achieved a 10 percent voter turnout and passed.
Had the advocates of the referendum known about the cut, they would have done things differently, said Nicole Robinson, current vice president of academic affairs and GSA president-elect.
They would have written the referendum to account for the looming $30,000 cut, and they would have doubled their efforts for voter outreach.
Granted, the referendum would have reduced the shortfall by $30,000, cutting the deficit in half, but in the case of such a valuable student resource, every dollar counts.
In the future, administrators should ensure that they have better communication with the students their decisions will affect.