Editorial: USAC should reverse pay increase, amend bylaws

The decision by the Undergraduate Students Association Council to approve an immediate stipend increase was a mistake that could have been easily averted.

But instead of properly weighing the consequences of moving ahead with such a conflict of interest, eight of the nine voting members of the council in attendance at last week’s meeting moved to approve the measure.

This board sees a fundamental problem with USAC increasing its own pay, and doing so in the summer months, no less, when most students are away from Westwood and scarcely think of their student government’s agenda.

We urge USAC to heed student response and reverse its decision at its Tuesday meeting, and to vote instead to increase stipends next year if the members feel such a move is necessary.

But they shouldn’t stop there.

Council should also amend USAC’s bylaws to prevent future councils from voting to increase its own compensation, and instead allow its members only to increase stipends for their successors.

Before the increase, USAC officers were paid $355 per month, one of the lowest in the UC system. After urging from some USAC administrators and several councilmembers with financial struggles, councilmembers voted to almost double their compensation to $672 per month.

There is a clear problem of access for students interested in becoming student government officers: While student tuition and fees have increased in recent years, USAC stipends have remained stagnant.

Past councilmembers have struggled to perform their duties while balancing their time commitment as students – and several councilmembers this year face the same obstacles. An increase is needed to make council positions more accommodating to all students who wish to participate in student government.

While it is unfair to assume councilmembers approved the increase with selfish motives, it is clear by students’ reactions that the increase was not undertaken with appropriate consideration of how it would be perceived and without sufficient outreach to USAC’s constituents.

Following this week’s student outcry, councilmembers said they will consider student response and listen to public comment at their next meeting before deciding how to go forward.

There’s a chance USAC won’t change its mind. In that case, some councilmembers are pushing for certain officers to forgo the increase if they find they don’t need the extra financial cushion.

But this has the potential to create divisions among councilmembers, and more importantly, between students and their student government.

“I think we have to first recognize that there is a broken trust,” USAC President John Joanino told the board. “We need to start thinking forward about providing services to the students we represent.”

To move forward and recoup students’ trust, USAC should reverse its decision at its Tuesday meeting. Anything less would be a disservice to the students the council represents.