A student fee increase referendum on the ballot for this year’s undergraduate student government elections is generating mixed reactions from students.
Many student groups say they see a benefit of the additional money, while individual students say they do not want a fee increase or are unaware of the referendum altogether.
The referendum ““ dubbed Contingency USA/BOD Referendum Enactment, or CURE ““ would increase yearly student fees by $9 and split the money among the two separate Undergraduate Students Association Council programming funds that student groups can apply for. The referendum includes a clause that would adjust for year-to-year inflation.
This year’s council has had problems with adequately funding student groups because of a lower-than-expected surplus ““ leftover money from the previous council. The council can spend this money at their discretion before it is filtered into the two programming funds and a third fund for capital items like computers.
The surplus for next year is projected to be just as low, if not lower, than this year.
At the same time, the number of student groups applying for funding has increased, said Roman Nguyen, the USAC Budget Review Director.
“To me, $3 means one fewer cup of coffee in the span of a quarter,” said Azeen Nafisi, a fourth-year psychology student and vice president of holiday planning in Hillel. “That’s more than worth it if it means student groups can plan the events they want to without having to jump through extra hoops to get the funding they need.”
Third-year physiological sciences student Celina Mercer said she hadn’t heard of the referendum, but said $9 per year is not too much to ask of students if it will help student programming.
Mercer is the chief relations officer of the Fellowship for International Services and Health, a student group that would benefit from the CURE referendum if it passes.
Those not involved in student groups have been less likely to support the fee increase.
Second-year political science student Thomas Murray is not a part of any student groups and does not support the referendum.
Murray said he thinks USAC should work with its existing budget and make cuts where needed, even though the $3 increase is relatively small.
The timing of the referendum was a source of concern for Tim Dyess, a third-year theater student.
“Here we all are, protesting against the Regents increasing our fees, and USAC is sitting idly by asking us to bail them out,” Dyess said.
Dyess, an anchor for UCLA Radio News, said he occasionally stops by the weekly USAC meetings, which is how he found out about the proposed fee increase.
“They aren’t allocating their funds right from what I see,” Dyess said.
Dyess said while he will vote no on the referendum, he will not vote for any of the USAC positions because he dislikes the candidates’ platforms.
In an election with 10 out of 13 uncontested USAC positions, achieving the required 20 percent voter turnout for the referendum to even have a chance at passing could pose a challenge.
If the target percentage is reached, the referendum will need a simple majority to pass, said Eena Singh, Election Board chair and third-year anthropology student.
At the USAC candidate debate on Saturday night, most people in attendance left the Northwest Campus Auditorium before the referendum portion of the debate began.
“It worries me when most of those people who were at the debate and at the endorsements who left, are going to be the people affected by this,” said Tamir Sholklapper, a fourth-year neuroscience student and USAC Student Welfare commissioner. “They won’t get it until it happens.”
Jason Smith, a USAC general representative, was the sole councilmember to vote against putting the referendum on the ballot.
He said that while he is concerned about the reduction in funding for student groups, he has not seen an advocacy push from the student body in favor of the measure.
Voting started Monday at 10 a.m., and will continue until Thursday at 6 p.m.
With contributing reports from Erin Donnelly, Bruin contributor.