You wouldn’t buy a car with next year’s paycheck.
In the same way, student government should not look to an undetermined pool of money like an annual surplus to fund a large-scale venture like the annual welcome-back event, Bruin Bash.
Currently, the Undergraduate Students Association Council funds Bruin Bash, which is composed of a large concert, dance party, movie screening and the Enormous Activities Fair, with surplus, or money student groups did not use the previous academic year. In August, USAC typically allocates about $80,000 of the surplus to Bruin Bash, long before the total surplus number is published in November.
The fee increase referendum represents the latest example of an emerging mindset across the slates represented at the council table to find preemptive and permanent solutions to longstanding fiscal problems. In fact, in early April, the current council voted unanimously to put the referendum on the ballot.
This year also saw the inception of the $100,000 endowment, which with a 5 percent interest rate and a yearly investment of surplus funds will generate significant returns in coming years. Because we will not see the benefits of the endowment immediately, sustainable funding is all the more important.
The soon-to-be elected council, whether it comes from one, two or three slates, should collaborate to apply this forward-looking philosophy to funds and services that, like Bruin Bash, benefit all students.
The current Bruin Bash funding model is not responsible. It simply does not make sense to allocate so much money to an event before we know we have enough, even if this tactic has been successful in the past.
While proponents of the Bruin Bash referendum have exaggerated the severity of the situation, with catchphrases like “Save Bruin Bash” and tactics like waving a dollar bill on a stick, the proposed increase would provide the long-established event with a stable source of funding.
The referendum would create a separate funding source for the event in the form of an additional $1.33 per quarter student fee and would free up surplus to go back to student groups and USAC offices.
The surplus is volatile and has fallen from more than $500,000 to just under $250,000 in the space of a year, said David Bocarsly, USAC president and fourth-year economics student.
He said the idea for the referendum has been two years in the making, and resulted from conversations with the many affiliated offices, including those in the Associated Students UCLA and the Community Programs Office. It is therefore not only a preemptive solution, but a representative one as well.
As students have seen the past two years, without months ahead of time to plan the event, the quality of the concert can vary greatly. The event has gone from hosting A-list artists like LMFAO in 2009 to arguably subpar artists like Major Lazer in 2011. The referendum would allow planners more time to find quality headliners.
If Bruin Bash is reduced in size or if the planned entertainment is mediocre, it might not attract the mass of students for whom it was intended to create a safe environment, Nelson said.
The chancellor‘s office, university administration and Interfraternity Council originally funded the event, Nelson said. In recent years, the event has been funded primarily through the USAC surplus.
Arguably, the referendum could set precedent for student groups to advocate for separate, hardwired funding for each of their own programs – causes that don’t extend to all students.
However, more than 15,000 students typically attend the Bruin Bash concert and the entire undergraduate population serves to benefit from the Enormous Activities Fair. The event also benefits the community at large – the more students at on-campus events, the fewer on the streets.
This year’s councilmembers – both independent and slate-affiliated – appear to have set an ideological example for their successors: that sensible, workable solutions to financial instabilities are not far out of reach.
Major Lazer is subpar? #YourArgumentIsInvalid
how did the surplus fall from 500k to 250k in the span of a year??
I’m not sure about the actual amount, so I won’t speak to that. But I do want to point out that having a small surplus isn’t necessarily a bad thing because it reflects how the funding process should work. The reason that there is a surplus is because student groups are not spending the money that has been allocated to them so there’s money left over that rolls over to next year. Having a lower surplus in any given year means that groups efficiently used their allocated funds the previous year.
But having a small surplus is not good for activities like Bruin Bash or other items that rely on surplus funding.
This is a common misconception regarding surplus. USA contingency doesn’t allocate effectively to student group requests, that’s why they have surplus. When requests are made they include budgetary breakdowns and quotes. Jasso and the neo-cons in USAC are fiscally conservative and hoard money for David’s pet projects
if they have to raise student fees because they overspent, it sounds like a bad thing to me