• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

The dispute between the Jewish Student Union and the undergraduate student government regarding JSU’s appeal for additional funding will be settled tonight by the Judicial Board when both parties meet for the hearing in the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

This is the first time since 2000 an Undergraduate Students Association Council case of this magnitude will be opened to the public.

JSU filed an appeal alleging it did not receive adequate council funding from the base budget due to what it believes to be narrow criteria used by the Budget Review Committee in reviewing JSU’s proposal.

In 2000, the Interfraternity Council lost a similar case to the Undergraduate Students Association Council on funding allocations.

“This will give students the opportunity to get a feel for how the judicial branch of the student government works,” said Chief Justice Mark Belgen.

Both sides spent the weekend preparing for the case.

Finance Committee Chair Priscilla Chen met with External Vice President Matt Kaczmarek to provide the BRC arguments for tomorrow’s hearing. Kaczmarek will represent USAC.

JSU President Gideon Baum said he has reviewed all the argumental briefs filed by both sides in preparation for tonight’s hearing.

Both parties said they are looking forward to resolving the issue.

Baum believes regardless of the decision made tonight, JSU has already “won” the case because of the awareness the case has raised about the USAC funding process.

“We brought attention to an issue we were unhappy with, which is the politicization of a budget process that leads to unfair results and handicaps groups like ourselves,” Baum said

The case raised concerns about the legitimacy of the funding allocation process and has been called “politicized” by both leaders of JSU and one councilmember. Allegations have been made that funding is allocated on slate lines. Slates are coalitions of students with similar ideologies that help each other win seats on council.

BRC members have refuted the allegations and said certain groups received more funding because the quality of their proposals were better than those of other groups.