Fee referenda have become a recurring aspect of our undergraduate student government elections, with Undergraduate Students Association Council offices and student organizations looking to raise student fees to fund a variety of programs. Most recently, our last USAC election featured four fee referenda, all of which passed.
While fee referenda can fund necessary student programs, the rise of bundled referenda – which contain more than one line item – is more concerning. Fortunately, according to USAC Administrative Representative Debra Geller, the University of California Office of the President is considering enacting policy to place stricter rules on bundled referenda. The board supports this possible effort by UCOP and urges it to pass said policies.
Bundled referenda can be a great way to put together line items that have a common goal and purpose. In addition, they can make it easier for students to make decisions when fees are put together under a common theme. In recognition of this benefit, current UCOP rules on ballot propositions state that referenda can be bundled together in a “single ballot measure” if they “strongly and clearly support a common student life, student services, or other programmatically related goal.”
Unfortunately, due to the rule’s vague language, bundled referenda in recent years have put together fees with little relation to each other in an attempt to simply maximize their chances of getting passed. Last year’s Social Justice Referendum, which will fund a whole host of programs under the vague label of “social justice,” is a perfect example of a bundled referendum gone wrong. The referendum was an amalgamation of fees that went to programs ranging from the Academic Affairs Commission to entities in the Community Programs Office. However, it also featured a fee that would pay to keep the John Wooden Center open for 24 hours a day. The referendum simply tried to fund as many things as possible with little regard to how they actually related to each other – a tactical ploy that, while not wrong, is questionable.
This is not to say the programs being funded by this referendum are not important or do not need funding, but that the haphazard manner in which these fees were bundled together was disingenuous.
When reforming rules on ballot propositions, UCOP should ensure that fees that are bundled together are as specific as possible with regards to what facet of student life they aim to support. For example, the #UCLAwellness Referendum – which provides funding for not only the Counseling and Psychological Services and the Student Wellness Commission, but also the Campus Events Commission and the USAC Contingency Programming Fund – would have been a more appropriate referendum if it simply funded CAPS and SWC, since those are the campus entities most relevant to student wellness.
UCOP’s potential policy change ensures students are being given a fair deal and can better understand what exactly their fees are going toward. It also reduces the likelihood that students will feel compelled to vote for a referendum that funds programs they like, but also includes programs they would not have been willing to support otherwise.
Although these rule changes may make it more difficult to bundle referenda together, that only means voters will have more control in what their fees go toward. As students, we are charged quite a bit in fees – it’s only fair we have greater control over what we pay for.