A newspaper’s reputation stands on its ability to honor two pacts. One is to the people it reports on, whom the staff must make every effort to represent fairly and accurately.
The second promise is to the reader, who must be confident that the newspaper operates independently, free in its ability to gather and publish news.
If approved, a new financial contract brought to UCLA Student Media by the Associated Students UCLA threatens to trample this second promise.
Under the proposed contract, ASUCLA would grant Student Media – a body comprised of the Daily Bruin, Bruinlife yearbook, UCLA Radio, and seven community-focused newsmagazines – a $200,000 line of credit over two years to help cover a persistent, but steadily decreasing, gap in the media department’s budget.
The four-page contract lists many financial mandates that would hold Student Media accountable to the terms agreement but ultimately oversteps itself in a clause on the final page.
Specifically, in the case of a default, this “trigger” clause allows the ASUCLA Board of Directors to stack the Communications Board, which oversees Student Media and acts as The Bruin’s publisher, with a voting majority.
This editorial board, and the 94-year-old institution it speaks for, believes this condition is unacceptable for the Daily Bruin, its fellow Student Media publications and above all for the students we serve. We are greatly concerned that ASUCLA felt it appropriate to use such an aggressive ultimatum, one that is difficult to describe as anything but bullying.
When the contract was first presented at a Feb. 18 meeting of the ASUCLA Finance Committee, ASUCLA leaders responded to concerns from Student Media Director Arvli Ward and Daily Bruin Editor-in-Chief Jillian Beck by pointing to a similar pact made in 1996 between ASUCLA and the university.
Association officials compared the current contract to a $20 million loan agreement between ASUCLA and UCLA which would allow the university to take over the ASUCLA board if the Association failed to meet the terms.
But the independence of an organization that consists primarily of restaurants, bookstores and rooms for rent is hardly comparable to the ethical contract a newspaper holds with its readers.
At the meeting, members of ASUCLA’s financial committee defended the provision, insisting that in the event of a takeover, the Association would concern itself only with financial issues and hold no interest in editorial decisions.
But control over the Daily Bruin’s budget, which includes travel, equipment and staff stipends, directly impacts the newspaper’s independent editorial vision.
This is not to mention the Communication Board’s duty to appoint the Bruin’s editor in chief every spring, which would fall to ASUCLA in the event of a takeover.
The student-majority ASUCLA board is set to vote on the contract Friday.
It would do well to keep in mind that threatening the sole independent campus-specific news source – one that predates the founding of the university itself – reflects poorly on the ASUCLA leadership and their willingness to live by the Association’s mission of providing for the good of the entire UCLA campus.
Seems to me like a good reason not to default on a loan then, doesn’t it? As I understand it, Asssociated Students of UCLA is itself a non-profit 501( c )3 and for it to provide a loan in the form of a credit line to a struggling media business is a sizable risk. From what is noted in this opinion piece, there are no significant limiting conditions placed on the Comm board unless they default. In my opinion, Comm board needs to make sure the new business plan is solid and is not simply kicking the can down the road, then take the money or don’t. I’m sure ASUCLA could use that money in other ways to benefit the students it serves rather than trying to be a bank. BTW, love the Bruin and campus media but times are tough in media and bills are bills.
If one looks at the history of the budgets of the communications board, it’s painfully apparent that the entire enterprise has been horribly mismanaged for several years. Somehow, however, their board hasn’t considered replacing their director (with results like that anyone would have been fired years ago in any other organization).