Friday, October 3, 1997
Budgeting for reality
BUDGET: USAC student groups and SAGs have received only 21.2
percent of their requested monies, which barely covers basic
organizational costs
By Stefanie Wong
Daily Bruin Staff
There’s a difference between what you want and what you get –
especially when you ask for over $850,000.
Student government offices, commissions and Student Advocacy
Groups (SAGs) requested a total of $852,861 from USAC for their
base budgets, but the Budget Review Committee (BRC) only had
$182,395 to allocate.
Of the requested amount, $180,895, or 21.2 percent of the total
requested, was given to 20 USAC offices and 18 SAGs.
"USAC is operating on a very small budget so there’s not very
much money to go around," said BRC member and Academic Affairs
Commissioner Max Espinoza.
"The reality is that BRC and USAC can only provide for basic
organizational operational costs," he added.
The $182,395 total net budgetable funds are used by the groups
for basic supplies and operations, a telephone and limited
advertising. In some cases, if travel is necessary for the
existence of the group, money will be allocated in that area.
Money that is given for base budgets is not used for
programming. Funds for programming are available from other sources
throughout the year.
In order to fairly distribute the money to the offices and
student groups, guidelines were established during the summer which
limited the amount of money that could be allocated.
For example, a maximum of $240 could be given for supplies, and
retreats were limited to $200 per group.
In some cases, the guidelines were also used to cut inflated
budget proposals.
"Clearly there are some very inflated budgets. The guidelines
are designed to cut through any inflation in budget proposal
requests that we obviously would not be able to fund without going
bankrupt," Espinoza said.
"But at the same time, the budget requests are usually pretty
realistic in terms of the actual expenses of most organizations,
offices and commissions," he added.
SAG officers agree that while they do not go into the budgeting
process expecting a full allocation, the amount that they request
is sometimes necessary for successful operations of their
organizations.
"The fact is, we’re trying our hardest to become as active on
campus and substantive in our programming as possible. But we can’t
do everything we want to do with just 18 percent of what we need,"
said Jewish Student Union (JSU) External Vice President Roee
Ruttenberg.
"The amount that we ask for is a figure that we see necessary
for quality programming for an active Jewish community," he
added.
Because none of the SAGs received the amounts they requested,
BRC and USAC are encouraging student groups to co-program, share
the resources that are available and to look for alternative
sources of funding.
"For certain things that we didn’t fund, we talked to certain
council members and they promised to help research ways to find
funding or to just help them out with their own base budget money,"
said BRC Chair Alina Tso.
But despite the low average percentage of allocation, BRC
members are proud to say that the base budgets of all but one SAG
increased from last year. That was the Asian Pacific Coalition base
budget saw a $50 reduction from the previous year.
While SAG budgets went up, money allocations for approximately
half of the USAC offices and commissions decreased.
"It’s a zero sum game, so when you give an increase to one group
or office, someone is bound to get a decrease," Espinoza said.
For example, the President’s office saw a cut of over $3,000 and
the Facilities Commission received $646 less than last year.
"It’s not going to have a noticeable effect on the working of
our offices," said General Representative and BRC member Darnell
Grisby. "We all have resources we can share among each other and
we’re forced to work together."
Even though almost all the SAGs received an increase in funding
this year, some wonder whether the $10,575 needed to pay for the
USAC stipend increases could have been better used if allocated to
base budgets.
If the 12 offices and 18 SAGs who received funding would have
equally split the $10,575, each group would have received
approximately $350 more for their base budgets.
However, that money may not have necessarily been added to the
base budgets of the student groups.
"The $11,000 might not have been able to be reallocated without
becoming inconsistent with the guidelines (established during the
summer)," Espinoza said.
Many of the guidelines established the maximum amount that a
group could receive in any one area.
In some cases, even if the $11,000 was there, student groups and
offices may not have been able to receive more money because of the
caps set by the guidelines.
"Also, the money for the stipend increase came primarily from
cost-saving measures within the administrative overhead budget," he
continued, not from base budget money.
Specifically, the budgets for the Election Board and the
contribution to the University of California Student Association
(UCSA) were cut a total of $20,501 to fund the stipend increase.
Aside from the stipend increase, the other $9,000 went to fund base
budgets.
The money that was taken from these two line items will be
replaced later on in the year from the 1996-1997 surplus fund.
"We consulted (Student Support Services and Student Union
Director) Jerry Mann about (the surplus fund) and he gave us
approximate figures of what the surplus would look like," Tso
said.
"Council agreed to make UCSA and (Elections) Board a priority
and they would get first crack at the surplus funds," she
added.
According to Mann, a preliminary review of last year’s records
shows that the surplus amount will be similar to previous years.
Last year’s surplus fund was approximately $115,000, but this
amount was caused by a change in the fiscal year calendar.
This year’s projected surplus most likely will not be as
high.
"(It may) not be as much as prior years but it is still a
significant chunk of money," Mann added.
However, despite this guarantee, External Vice President Stacy
Lee is still concerned that UCSA will not receive the full UCLA
contribution.
"My understanding from talking to (Finance Committee Chair)
Robert Rhoan and other council members is that the money is
supposed to come from surplus, which it usually does every year,"
Lee said. "They never put the full amount in at once."
Lee is concerned because there is no guarantee that surplus will
be able to cover the rest of the contribution to UCSA.
Despite the concerns over UCSA and not being able to fully fund
the offices and student groups, BRC members are satisfied with the
work they accomplished this summer.
BRC was able to find money to fund the pay raise and increase
the base budgets for SAGs despite the controversy of the stipend
increase and having to replace a committee member in the middle of
the process.
"Since were we able to find (money for the stipend increase), I
feel that we did a pretty good job in terms that all the bases are
covered," Grisby said.