After hours of grueling and often heated partisan debate, the
undergraduate student government rejected an appeal by one of the
largest student groups on campus that alleged unfair allocations of
student fee-supported funds.
The Muslim Student Association failed in its bid to be
reconsidered for more funding from the Undergraduate Students
Association Council, with the majority of council members citing a
lack of new information on which to change their original
decision.
MSA members argued that the Budget Review Committee, a
subcommittee under USAC, was inconsistent in its funding
allocations to student groups and conducted a clumsy process
overall.
This year, the BRC implemented a tier system to distribute
$98,717.47 in student programming funds to 33 student groups and 13
council offices, with the groups divided into tiers based on what
the BRC called their “size and scope.”
It is this aspect that MSA expressed its concerns with, with
members claiming that a group’s size and reach into the
campus community was arbitrarily decided.
“The notion had never been mentioned before,” said
Yousef Tajsar, MSA outreach coordinator.
Members of the BRC said the size and scope determination was
included on the application student groups filled out for funding,
and they decided to use it as a categorizing factor after hearing
groups’ presentations.
Andrew LaFlamme, financial supports commissioner and BRC member,
said there was strength in considering size and scope after the
process. He said no group knew of it ahead of time and could not
adjust their “size and scope” according to its priority
in the process.
Because size and scope were considered after the fact, Tajsar
said, MSA could not adequately address the issue since the group
did not know it would determine something as significant as tier
placement.
The tier system divided groups into categories according to
their size and scope, with each category having a maximum funding
cap. MSA was placed in the third tier, where in past years it was
consistently one of the highest-funded groups on campus.
But because the appeal could not prove wrongdoing on the part of
the BRC, it had no grounds, said President David Dahle.
The appeal required a three-fourths supermajority to pass, and
the vote was 6-5.
This year’s budget allocation process was considerably
longer than any in recent memory, with a planned approval date of
Aug. 5. Similar size-and-scope arguments ensued on behalf of
several student groups, and the allocations did not pass until Aug.
26.
Also, increased overhead costs reduced the total amount of
student programming funds available by about $30,000 compared to
last year. USAC is primarily funded by the quarterly $24.09 fee it
collects from students.