After a record of 43 student groups were denied base budget
funding by the Undergraduate Students Association Council, a record
12 groups appealed the council’s decision.
Council voted at their Sept. 21 meeting not to grant hearings to
any of the groups that turned in formal base budget appeals.
Instead, councilmembers held a meeting late last week to explain
their decision to the groups that had appealed. They focused on
resolving misunderstandings about the process and emphasized that
funding is available through alternate sources.
Because all $220,037 of the base budget money has been
allocated, councilmembers thought the most productive step to take
at the meeting was to direct groups to other funding sources that
are still available.
But to at least one councilmember, getting money for the
unfunded groups was only part of the issue. Financial Support
Commissioner Alex Gruenberg said that by refusing to hold appeal
hearings, the council was dismissing an opportunity to reevaluate a
funding allocation system that is in need of change.
“It’s not just about money. These groups believe
that it was the process (that was at fault),” he said.
“I want all aspects of our processes to be critiqued by
anybody on this campus. And if (our processes) are as good as they
should be, then they’ll be impervious to those
critiques,” he said.
Other councilmembers believe the special meeting held Sept. 24
served this purpose.
Internal Vice President Daren Chan said the meeting was more
productive than hearings would have been because it allowed both
sides to move forward.
Chan, who initially believed that everyone should be granted
appeals, changed his mind and decided to vote with the majority
when they all agreed to hold the meeting.
“This was probably the best possible outcome,” he
said of the meeting.
President Allende Palma/Saracho agreed that the meeting was
productive, though there was some animosity on both sides. “A
hearing doesn’t allow for the same kind of interaction as
this allowed for,” he said.
Jon Binney, a member of Eda Kappa Nu and founder of UCLA
Robotics, two groups that filed unsuccessful appeals, said the
councilmembers said little at the meeting to justify their decision
to not hear his groups’ appeals.
“Basically, they made the process a black box for
us,” he said. “They wouldn’t talk to us about the
reasoning. They aren’t willing to admit they made a
mistake.”
Others were only marginally pleased that council scheduled the
meeting.
“There was a lot of tension and a lot of unhappy people on
both sides,” said Tracy Chen, president of Asian Greeks of
UCLA Council.
While she said she plans to look into the alternate means of
funding that were brought to her attention, Chen said she is no
closer to understanding why her group was denied an appeal
hearing.
Though the groups that appealed the funding decisions are
diverse in terms of interests “”mdash; ranging from the Lebanese
Social Club to UCLA Robotics to the Transfer Student Association
“”mdash; their grievances were similar.
Most of the groups that appealed cited errors of interpretation
and procedure on the part of the Budget Review Committee as grounds
for re-examining their funding applications.
Base budget allocations are decided by the Budget Review
Committee and approved by USAC.
This five-member committee consists of three councilmembers
appointed by Palma/Saracho, the Finance Committee Director and the
Budget Review Director.
A letter that was included in eight of the groups’ appeals
alleged that the committee used a “subjective and non-obvious
interpretation of the (USAC) bylaws” to allocate funds. It
also accused the BRC of violating USAC bylaws by failing to keep
adequate record of its proceedings, though this is not specified in
the bylaws.
Still, council was united in its decision not to hear the
appeals.
Council voted on each group’s appeal individually, denying
hearings to eight of the groups by a unanimous vote and to four of
the groups by a vote of eight to one.
Most councilmembers said they were justified in refusing to hear
the appeals since they did not provide new evidence that could
overturn the BRC’s previous decision not to grant money.
General Representative and BRC member Anneli Villarin said a
hearing should only be allowed if the basis for the hearing is made
clear in the application to appeal. She also said the accusation
that the BRC was at fault for not taking minutes of its proceedings
was invalid.
“For the last 40 to 50 years, the precedent has been that
no minutes are taken for any funding deliberation
whatsoever,” she said.
Villarin said keeping minutes of the BRC hearings and
discussions could harm the process of fund allocation. “For
the integrity of the process I feel that it should remain a closed
session,” she said in reference to the base budget
hearings.
General Representative Tommy Tseng, who was absent when the base
budget was initially approved by council, also voted against
holding the hearings.
He cast his vote after stating he had not read all the appeals.
Tseng said he had complete trust that the BRC members were fair in
their decisions about which groups to fund.
He did not feel obligated to support his fellow councilmembers
that had served as members of BRC by voting against the hearings,
though, he said.
“I voted the way I did because I felt it was the right
way, not because I was afraid of contradicting somebody,”
Tseng said.