RSS
Correction: The original version of this editorial contained several errors. The registrar’s office collects $121.38 in Undergraduate Students Association fees from every student per year and then distributes these funds to various departments and projects, including the Undergraduate Students Association Council. USAC does not have discretion over funding to the Community Programs Office.
The one-time, $76,000 loan to the undergraduate student government will prevent student group funding from going off a cliff this spring. Here we propose a few solutions that would provide for better money management going forward.
First, the facts: The registrar’s office collects $121.38 in Undergraduate Students Association fees from every student per year and then distributes these funds to various departments and projects, including the Undergraduate Students Association Council.
Only about 9 percent of this money goes toward general funds for student groups.
USAC allocates far more to student groups than the original 9 percent allows, relying heavily on surplus money from the previous year. But the surplus, which wasn’t added up until mid-November, turned out to be far below what was expected, and the council found itself in need of a bailout.
The solution to this problem is twofold. To begin with, the council needs to rely less on surplus money for student group funding. It should vote on a referendum for the next election that would allocate more of its budget to programming funds for student groups.
Second, the council must ensure that funds for student groups are well spent.
Current levels of funding are unsustainable, and as USAC decides where to cut, it should prioritize causes that benefit as many students as possible.
Officer retreats, though they can strengthen leadership ties, benefit only a small number of students and are not open invitation.
In September, USAC green-lighted $6,400 to subsidize retreats for 18 groups, 11 of which were USAC offices. This made up just more than half of what was allocated from the programming contingency fund that month.
The council should put a cap on how much it gives to retreats each quarter, and the amount given to each group should depend on how many apply for funding.
A cap would encourage groups to focus on planning events for the wider community, while being more frugal when spending for themselves.
Money given to groups for food should also be trimmed.
For the past two years, student groups have regularly been requesting, and receiving, up to $250 in food for a single event. This is supposed to go toward snacks and refreshments; of course $250 buys an awful lot of chips and soda.
While snacks do help attract students to events, the food cap should be lowered considerably, at least to $100.
This year’s council has done a good job addressing concerns with their finances and trying to come up with viable solutions. We encourage them to continue this much-needed process of reform.
Unsigned editorial represent the majority opinion of the editorial board
Join the discussion
You Should Know: Any comments posted on dailybruin.com may be printed in the Daily Bruin. the Daily Bruin reserves the right to remove any comment deemed racially derogatory, inflammatory, or spammatory. Repeat offenders may have their IP address banned from posting future comments. Please be nice.
If this is the first time you've commented, your comment won't appear until you've verified your email address.
1 comment
This week, the Daily Bruin editorial board implied that the ASUCLA one-time $76,000 bailout for USAC was caused by funds being tied up in, among other places, the Community Programs Office. We feel this argument is misguided and uninformed.
In order to address student access, retention, and community service needs, UCLA students created many of the programs at CPO through passing a series of student referenda. To clarify, the Community Programs Office is a university department, not an elected student government body.
Students have repeatedly trusted the CPO, Campus Retention Committee (CRC), Student Initiated Access Committee (SIAC), and the Community Programs Office Student Association (CPOSA) with funds specifically allocated to ensure student needs are met.
What makes the Daily Bruin’s editorial more disappointing is their purported notion that funds are “locked up.” That idea demonstrates the Daily Bruin’s failure to perform adequate research on how student fees are disbursed.
This editorial lacks integrity, as it fails to disclose the Daily Bruin’s partnership with student leaders from CPO to successfully run the 2009 PLEDGE referendum, which in part saved the Daily Bruin from cutbacks. It also fails to specifically identify the Daily Bruin as one of those non-elected entities that receives ASUCLA dollars.
It is our belief that this year USAC suffers from poor fiscal advice given by ASUCLA which resulted in over allocation of surplus money.
As Bruins, we challenge the Daily Bruin editorial board to heed the advice of legendary coach John Wooden, “Your integrity begins with you. If you are not true to yourself, how can you be true to others?”