Concerns over vague policies and funding discrepancies have
prompted the delay of student group funding and raised questions
about the budget process.
On Aug. 5 the Undergraduate Students Association Council was
scheduled to pass funding recommendations by the Budget Review
Committee, but ended up tabling the budget to its Aug. 19 meeting,
looking for clarification of the committee’s allocation
procedures.
Student groups, councilmembers and even BRC members expressed
doubt and lack of confidence in the recently revised base budget
allocation process. Many cited drastic funding cuts for some groups
in the midst of increases for others.
For instance, the four highest-funded groups in 2001-2002
““ African Student Union, Asian Pacific Coalition, MEChA and
Samahang Pilipino ““ are projected to take substantial cuts.
Other typically lesser-funded groups such as Interfraternity
Council, Jewish Student Union and United Arab Society are slated
for big increases.
“The meeting led me to question if the process was
consistent and standardized,” said Academic Affairs
Commissioner Chris Diaz.
Other councilmembers said the process was sound, but conceded it
could have been better explained.
“Our methodology was not communicated as well as it should
have,” said Community Service Commissioner Suzanne Yu, also a
BRC member.
Debate is especially heated because there is less programming
money to spread across the groups, which at $98,717.47 is roughly
$30,000 less than it had last year.
USAC’s primary funding source, the Associated Students of
UCLA, is currently in financial straits and many ASUCLA-funded
bodies are absorbing the blow.
“Everyone was expecting to take a cut,” Diaz said.
“But I’m concerned about how those cuts
happened.”
President David Dahle said the combination of a trimmed-down
budget and change of process will naturally be deemed as unfair but
noted many USAC offices are taking substantial cuts as well.
“I feel their pain because I’m taking a huge cut
too,” Dahle said, referring to the projected 65 percent cut
his office would take. “But money is never an entitlement. It
varies according to yearly circumstances.”
The largest concern at the meeting was the BRC’s
assessment of a group’s “size and scope” to place
it in a funding category. Committee members differed in their
definitions of the concept, which was used to categorize groups
after representatives presented their budget proposals to the
BRC.
Members reached a general consensus of size and scope describing
a group’s membership and impact on the university community,
but varied how much they consider each aspect.
By tabling the committee’s recommendations, Budget Review
Director Justin Levi said certain councilmembers “behaved
irresponsibly.”
“The fact of the matter is certain groups did not get
funding they would like to see,” Levi said.
He added the committee did not consider other years in the
2002-2003 budget allocations, but criticized previous BRCs for
unfair funding practices.
“Last year’s system was rigged,” he said.
“When you go from a flawed system to a fair one, there will
be dramatic changes.”
Levi said seven of 25 groups accounting for roughly half of
USAC’s programming funds in 2001-2002 supports his claim.
Mohammad Mertaban, last year’s BRD, explained the top
seven groups in 2001-2002 ““ American Indian Student
Association, ASU, APC, MEChA, Muslim Student Association, Samahang
and Vietnamese Student Union ““ had “excellent”
proposals relative to the rest of the groups applying.
Also, 2001-2002 saw the pool of groups eligible for USAC funding
expand significantly because of a key bylaw revision a year earlier
““ resulting in many groups which had never applied lacking
experience in budget proposals, he said.
Mertaban said this year’s allocation process was too
subjective ““ groups were scored individually by committee
members ““ and did not consider groups’ history of
service to the campus.
“New groups not heard on campus received similar funding
(to effective ones),” he said.
Cultural Affairs Commissioner Robbie Clark, also a BRC member,
said she originally supported the new funding system, but after
hearing the concerns over size and scope, she is not as
confident.
Clark noted there is no place to factor in a group’s
need.
“A group that went from $30,000 to $2,000 has more need
than a group that went from $8,000 to $2,000, but they get the same
funding,” Clark said.
She added groups can also bring up similar concerns in an appeal
hearing.