By George Fujii
Daily Bruin Staff
After eight months, the Interfraternity Council had its day in
court ““ but it wasn’t a good day.
After a three-hour formal hearing Monday night, the
Undergraduate Students Association Council Judicial Board rejected,
by a 6-0 vote, IFC’s claim that it was awarded an unfairly
small amount of money last year by USAC’s Budget Review
Committee.
“The Judicial Board concluded that there was a lack of
substantial evidence in support of the Petitioner’s case.
Therefore, the Judicial Board ruled in favor of the Budget Review
Committee,” said Chief Justice Jose Gutierrez.
IFC officials were dismayed by the decision.
“I’m kind of shocked. I knew we were going in as
underdogs, but I was surprised that it was unanimous,” said
Jake Heath, IFC internal vice president. “Personally, I take
it as an insult to IFC.”
IFC, which represents most campus fraternities, complained in
the summer because it received $680 instead of the approximately
$94,000 it requested from the 1999-2000 USAC budget.
But this fiscal year, student groups collectively requested
about $1 million in funding, while BRC could ultimately allocate
only about $100,000.
Heath said the original figure was a wish list.
“We never thought we would get $94,000,” Heath said,
adding that he thought about $13,000 would be a realistic figure.
“IFC’s tired of sacrificing constantly to fit
USAC’s political agenda.”
Gardenia Gonzalez, BRC chair, said the decision demonstrated
that the BRC was fair to all groups. BRC reviews funding requests
from student groups and recommends to USAC how much money each
organization should receive.
“Unfortunately, the BRC became a target for
unsubstantiated criticism, which led to the undermining of our
numerous accomplishments and our overall integrity,” Gonzalez
said.
While IFC filed its case during fall quarter, the case was not
heard until now because the J-Board had difficulty meeting quorum
of at least four out of its seven members.
Because one justice was studying abroad and the J-Board had
several unfilled vacancies, quorum was not reached until winter
quarter. The J-Board then had difficulty finding a time when all
its members could meet.
Mike Vines, the IFC president, said he felt the hearing was
unfair.
“I do believe this hearing was very typical of campus
politics,” Vines said. “The heart of the issue was
danced around; what was discussed in the hearing were
technicalities.”
He added that the hearing was scheduled at the same time of a
IFC and Pan-hellenic sponsored program. He asked to reschedule to
hearing but was refused, Vines said.
Both parties were confined to the central question which the
justices debated ““ whether the BRC balanced allocations among
similar groups and was content-neutral in nature when it reached
initial funding decisions, Gutierrez said at the beginning of the
hearing.
IFC argued that it was like other campus groups, except its
funding was unfairly low.
“Is the IFC of similar circumstances to every other group
on campus? Yes,” said Heath, during the hearing.
“Basically we have the exact same goals and purposes as other
student groups.”
Heath noted that IFC, with about 1,100 members, received less
funding than some groups with 300 members.
“I don’t see anyway how it’s balanced,”
Heath said, during the hearing. “If that’s balanced
then the scales themselves are off.”
But Gonzalez, who presented the defense, refuted IFC’s
claims.
“We like them to show where the money is going to be
spent,” Gonzalez said during the hearing. “Last year,
IFC did not apply, so it was difficult to recommend a funding
basis.”
One distinction BRC members made between IFC and other groups
was its collection of membership dues.
“The only organization that can be viewed remotely even
close (to IFC) is the National Pan-hellenic Council (which
represents African American fraternities and sororities),”
said Ramon Richardson, USAC internal vice president and a BRC
member, referring to NPHC’s collection of dues.
Gonzalez said that IFC’s collection of dues is considered
an alternate funding source and is a factor in BRC’s funding
allocations.
IFC officials, however, said that its dues, which amount to $4
per member per quarter paid by the member’s fraternity, exist
only because of USAC’s low funding allocation.
“We tax our members only when we don’t receive
enough funds from USAC or other sources,” Heath said.
“I don’t see how anyone can say that taxing members is
an alternative source of funding.”
Heath said that before 1992-1993, when IFC received more funds
from USAC, it did not collect dues.
Gonzalez also told the justices that IFC spent $30 of the $680
it was allocated this year and asked why IFC should receive more
funds if they had not spent their existing allocation.
After the hearing, Vines said that, except for $30 automatically
deducted for telephones, IFC has not spent the money as a form of
protest.
“You can trust that money will be gone by the very last
day possible,” Vines said.
Adrian Manalang, USAC Finance Committee chair and a BRC member,
said out of the 10 funding guidelines, four were prioritized in
August: strength of proposal, the availability of additional
funding sources, the strength of the group’s presentation to
the BRC, and the success of its programming.
Heath asked why the number of members a group has is not a top
priority in funding allocations.
“Size was considered, however, it was not
prioritized,” Gonzalez said, adding that programming outside
that group was considered. “We look at the specific target
population.”
Gonzalez said the real issue with the funding of student groups
is the $20,000 decline in the amount of money the BRC had to
allocate this year from the previous year, and the $50,000 drop
from less than three years ago.
“Instead of pitting organizations to fight for crumbs, we
should demand that the university provide student government and
student groups with additional funds,” Gonzalez said.