Members of the undergraduate student government are revisiting last week’s decision to increase their stipends, after students voiced concern that the vote constituted a conflict of interest.
The Undergraduate Students Association Council increased councilmember stipends from $355 to $672 per month in a 8-1-0 vote Tuesday night.
Councilmembers expressed concern that current USAC stipends might prevent some students from serving in student government for financial reasons. They said they think current stipends render USAC positions inaccessible to some students because it can be difficult to hold other jobs while working in USAC.
The decision also increased stipends proportionally for other USAC officers not on the council, such as some students in appointed USAC positions.
USAC President John Joanino, who did not vote in the decision because the president only votes when there is a tie, added an item to the council’s next meeting agenda Thursday, which would allow councilmembers to individually or collectively opt out of the stipend increase.
Joanino said he thinks councilmembers deserve higher stipends and that low stipends can prevent students without stable finances from serving on the council. He said he plans to opt out of receiving an increased stipend this year because he does not think he needs a larger stipend in his financial situation, and that he will encourage the council to reconsider its options.
“There is an access issue, but we want to be cognizant of the conflict of interest,” Joanino said.
By Thursday, a petition was formed asking the council to defer its stipend increase until next year. The petition used the same wording found in a recent Daily Bruin editorial. The individual who created the petition could not be reached for comment.
The motion to increase stipends passed after several weeks of discussion and debate about the change, which was proposed to USAC by two if its administrative representatives, Roy Champawat and Patricia Zimmerman.
Funds for stipends come from mandatory student fees which the student body has approved in past years to fund USAC.
These fees have been consistently underutilized by students, causing surpluses of about $250,000 or more to accumulate in past years, Champawat said.
Following the increase, current councilmembers will be paid for a 20-hour work week at California’s minimum wage of $8 an hour.
In their presentations to the council, Champawat and Zimmerman expressed concern about rising student fees over past years and a static rate of pay for councilmembers. Champawat and Zimmerman compared UCLA’s councilmember stipends with those at other institutions in the University of California and California State University systems, and said that UCLA’s were the lowest they could find.
Some councilmembers at other UC and California State schools make hundreds of dollars more per month than UCLA councilmembers, Champawat said. Student government officers at UC Santa Cruz make $1,000 a month.
Champawat said he has encouraged the council to increase its stipends for the seven years he has worked with USAC, and he thinks councilmembers have been undercompensated for years.
At their meeting Tuesday, councilmembers discussed the possibilities of delaying their vote, increasing their stipends in smaller increments or postponing the stipend spike from going into effect until next year.
But the only vote that took place at the meeting concerned raising stipends this year to reflect a 20-hour work week, after Student Wellness Commissioner Savannah Badalich motioned for the vote.
Some councilmembers said they did not want to delay the vote until the school year because it would change USAC’s budget and prevent the council from having an organized financial plan at the start of the school year.
Internal Vice President Avi Oved was the only councilmember to vote against the stipend increase. Academic Affairs Commissioner Darren Ramalho, Financial Supports Commissioner Lauren Rogers and General Representative Sunny Singh were not present for the vote.
Oved said that he did not feel comfortable raising his own stipend because he viewed the issue as a conflict of interest and did not want to possibly take money away from student groups, even if the funds were typically underutilized.
“Realistically, (councilmembers) deserve higher stipends,” he said. “But (based on principle), you don’t vote to increase your own stipends.”
Oved said he thinks the council’s stance on the stipend increase would have better reflected student opinion if the vote had been delayed and taken place during the school year, when more of the student body is on campus.
On Tuesday, Oved said he plans to encourage councilmembers to change their votes and defer the increase until next year.
Facilities Commissioner Armen Hadjimanoukian, who initially voted for the increase, also said he plans to push for the council to defer the stipend increase at its next meeting in response to some students’ negative reactions to the vote.
“I was elected, as well as the other councilmembers, to
represent our constituents,” he said. “I think the only natural response to (conflicting student reactions) is to realign your stance with your constituents.”
The majority of councilmembers expressed concern about raising their own pay Tuesday, but some argued that they did not want low wages to deter other students from serving on the council in the future.
Multiple councilmembers said they had to quit their jobs because of the time commitment required to serve on the council.
Omar Arce, Community Service commissioner, is one of multiple USAC members who said they had to turn down a different job this year to serve on the council. Arce said he is currently about $20,000 in debt and that it would be difficult for him to hold a job while serving on council, since he is constantly on call and works with student groups for about 40 hours a week.
Badalich and Cultural Affairs Commissioner Jessica Trumble both pushed for the increase at Tuesday’s meeting. They said they work between 30 and 40 hours a week and and think they will be better able to serve the student body if they receive larger stipends and don’t feel the need to work other jobs.
Some students said they were disappointed with the council’s decision to increase stipends during the summer and to implement the raise this coming school year.
Joey Blatt, a fourth-year geography student, said he thinks serving on USAC should not be about making money, and that the council’s decision caused him to lose trust in USAC.
“Stipend increases in themselves aren’t bad, but to pass the stipend increase when students aren’t on campus and to take money from the pool (of student fees) for themselves is bad,” Blatt said. “That’s something I can’t support.”
Joanino said he plans to increase the council’s outreach to student groups to make the organizations more aware of the funding accessible to them.
The next USAC meeting is Tuesday at 7 p.m. in Kerckhoff 417.
If you didn’t want to be $20,000 in debt, maybe you should have another job. I hope they all opt-out of the stipend increase.
Better yet if you don’t want to be $20,000 in debt, maybe you should have reconsidered coming to UCLA altogether. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Because that is what you might as well be saying. Lest we forget that these council members do happen to be students as well. Forcing students to balance more (i.e. 2+ jobs, etc.) on top of school and post-graduation plans is not the answer,it has been the PROBLEM. Deterring students from participating in organizations that they are passionate about is complete nonsense, whether it be orchestrating cultural or musical events, workshops on funding and networking nights, etc. I would hope we would push towards more accessibility for all students rather than perpetuating the cycle of privilege that some students including council members may be accustomed to due to their own personal financial situation. Rather than taking on another job, perhaps if more students rally together to push for decreased interest rates on loans, allow students to declare bankruptcy on loans, improve education about predatory companies and more, we wouldn’t be placing the blame on students and removing them from really enjoying the UCLA experience and their time here as a Bruin. Just some food for thought.
They knew before they got their positions what their position and pay would consist of. If they feel that the pay was not good enough or they could not deal with it, they should not have ran.
If there are surpluses of $250,000 a year, why are our fees always going up?
They aren’t. The USAC fees haven’t gone up in years.
Then they should be going down
The first thing council did was give themselves money? And their reasoning is that they had to give up other jobs to get here? So was that their plan all along? I feel cheated.
First, UCLA is not the lowest paid UC student government. They are on the
lower end, yes, but there are quite a few schools who give smaller
stipends. Many senators at other UCs get less while Execs get more.
Also, the comment about $250,000 in surplus is misleading. That’s money that
wasn’t spent by groups, not money that wasn’t allocated. If they increase stipends, there will be less money for student groups to even tap into, further perpetuating the problem
Read the minutes, everybody. Maybe you’ll get a clear idea of what USAC members talk about instead of convoluted and biased information posted by the Daily Bruin.
“Champawat and Zimmerman expressed concern about rising student fees over past years and a static rate of pay for councilmembers.”
Are. you. kidding. me. ARE YOU KIDDING ME. You should get higher stipends because they raised student fees?? WHAT KIND OF SELFISH LOGIC IS THAT.