A recent proposal to increase stipends for Undergraduate Students Association Council members to be discussed Tuesday is well-intentioned, but clearly treads on basic ethical principles of public office.
Currently, councilmembers receive a monthly $355 allowance, which is lower than the stipend offered to undergraduate student officers at some other UC campuses. Increasing this sum would expand access to council positions for students who can’t afford to set aside so many hours each week for such a small return and help current councilmembers focus on their government duties – both worthy goals.
However, it is not acceptable for the council to approve an increase in their own compensation. That is a basic conflict of interest. There should be a change to the council’s stipend, but it should only take effect next year.
For a group of student leaders with less than three months of experience in their positions, such a move, which would use student fees for immediate personal benefit, sends the wrong message. This risk is heightened during the summer, when a significant portion of the undergraduate population is away from campus and few have their eyes on the council.
Serving on USAC is a worthwhile undertaking, but councilmembers should remind themselves of the hundreds of undergraduates who tackle projects and provide services for the benefit of the campus community but receive no pay in return.
Furthermore, when applying for a council position, it is incumbent on each candidate to take stock of their personal situation and to decide whether they will be able to balance the time commitment with the small stipend offered by the position. And while any qualified candidate should have a shot at a leadership position regardless of financial standing, they must keep in mind that, while in office, they will be asked to balance a much larger budget – that of the entire undergraduate population.
The new model outlined in the proposal would pay councilmembers by the hour, based either on a 20-hour workweek, a 15-hour workweek or an 11.5 workweek at $8 an hour, the state’s minimum wage.
As the Daily Bruin’s Natalie Delgadillo wrote on July 22, other UC campuses also use an hourly system to pay out stipends to representatives of their undergraduate student governments. At UC Irvine, student government leaders are paid $9 an hour for a 16-hour workweek, or $576 a month.
Creating equal access to leadership positions in USAC is a commendable aim for the council, but this proposed bump in their monthly stipend would only be a start, not a silver bullet.
If this goal is truly a priority of council, they should identify additional ways to encourage students of diverse financial backgrounds to work in USAC offices at every level. The current proposal would only improve access at the top – the tip of the iceberg.
A better course of action would be to approve an increase for next year’s council leaders. This would demonstrate fiscal foresight and attention to student need, but just as importantly, it’s the ethically responsible thing to do.
I would like to give my input on this. As a disclaimer, I am the Student Body President at UCSB and as an AS Senator my 2nd year I wrote sweeping legislation reforming our stipend system and reducing spending on stipends by around $150,000. Our Associated Students at the time had around 300 different positions receiving varying amounts of honoraria while the 5 executive officers had their tuition paid for (my bill reduced it to $9,000 instead of the full ~$12,000).
1. This shouldn’t be voted on over the summer. Our vote took place in mid-Spring Quarter at the end of the term. We took all of winter to review honoraria and come up with a proposal.
2. The philosophy behind our honoraria cut, despite claims of access, was that honoraria was not compensation for time. Student government is not a job, it is volunteerism.
3. We did choose to preserve most of executive officer tuition funding since those positions demand 30-40 hours a week (I personally do 60-80 hours). Therefore, if we did not preserve that, we would either exclude students who need a job to get through school or get in a situation where an exec is also employed, causing them to dedicate less time to AS OR end up working for some facet of the university and therefore lose some autonomy. Again the tuition being paid for IS NOT compensation for time served, but a means of access. I cannot stress it enough that honoraria/stipends ARE NOT compensation for time.
4. UCLA has a radically different system of student government (only UCLA and UCSC have this kind of structure), therefore our situation might not apply as much. I could see a grated scale working, where the positions that require students to be busier receive a higher stipend than others.
5. The reason we went in and cut our stipends was because it was taking up a bigger percentage of the budget than we were happy with, and wanted to make sure more money was directly benefiting students.
6. One idea is to the provide units through the student government for being involved, I wasn’t a big fan, but a lot of people were.
7. Again, I would highly recommend more consensus building before this actually blows up in anyone’s face. As much as I wanted to be a hardline fiscally responsible senator and charge ahead with a bill early on, I was glad our honoraria committee conducted the research before we proposed a bill and made it known the whole year that something was coming.
8. My main advice would be to truly analyze and break down the “why” of this situation. Why do council members need higher stipends and how can we reach that why with a different route. Could it be through greater efficiency mechanisms which reduce the amount of time needed to dedicate to the positions? Also look at council members workload compared to the staff members. Will they now require a stipend? How much work do they put it? Food for thought.
I agree with Jonathan and this article. I’m disappointed in my council not necessarily for increasing their stipend (which I am agianst) but for the process they used.
Shame on the council for approving it over the summer when they are damn aware that there is a lot less student oversight
Shame on the council for approving it without the input of the students (or if you use the DB poll about this topic, shame for going agianst the students
Shame for being arrogant enough to think that you deserve to more then double your stipends because you were popular enough to get elected, while the rest of your staff who do a lot of work too (in some offices I have been in even more) get nothing
Shame for approving your own stipends which as the article mentions and I agree with is a clear breach of conflict of interest and potentially should be brought to the judicial board
Shame for now being the best paid student government officals and losing sight of the fact that this is volunteerism
Shame for further ruining the already bad reputation USAC as among most students and reaffirming to un involved students that it is plain stupid and meaningless
All the council members (except Avi [who got a lot more respect in my eyes]) should really reevaluate their decision and really think about ethics in politics. Its a pitty the two candidates who would have brought this common sense and ethics didn’t win
While I know that council members dedicate a lot of time and energy, I think that it was highly inappropriate for the council to vote to raise it’s OWN stipend.
I think it would’ve been much better of if this was voted on during the regular school year, to increase the amount of oversight done by the student body represented by USAC. It’s shameful that they willing did it during summer when a good portion of the student population is abroad or home.
I understand the implications this holds of allowing more students to potentially join council, a huge conflict of interest was displayed by the increase for this coming year, especially almost doubling the current stipend. Furthermore, USAC, and the public service they are supposed to be performing, should not expect a monetary compensation for their work. The commissioners understand the work they must do when going into office and thousands of other UCLA students give their time to research, projects, volunteerism, and service with no expectations of a stipend and the same absence of expectation should be expected in our student government.
Finally, this couldn’t have happened at a worst time with the recent spending controversies done by the deans as well as the overall financial situation of the UC system and state. It sends a terrible message to our fellow Bruins that, while many are struggling with increasing fees and tuition with, in many cases, a reduction in services, not to mention the increased difficulty of students groups to secure funding, that we are DOUBLING the stipend of the thirteen council members.