By Justin Levi
This year the Budget Review Committee was faced with two
monumental challenges. First, it had roughly $30,000 less in base
budget funds to allocate than last year. Secondly, it was
confronted with the task of creating a system which would eliminate
huge disparities in the allocations to similar groups.
To solve these problems the BRC created the category system.
It’s a system in which groups are placed in certain
categories based on their size and scope. This helped the committee
allocate similar funds to “groups in similar
circumstances,” which it is bound to do by ASUCLA bylaws.
Although certain members of USAC claimed they were dismayed by
this process, it was quite clear to anyone in the meeting two weeks
ago that the primary motivation to steamroll the budget was
politics. Last year the seven most highly funded groups received
nearly 65 percent of the entire budget. The process was highly
subjective, the methodology was suspect, and no concrete rating
system was used. It was an arbitrary process that was subject to
the biased whims of a politically stacked committee.
In addition, nine groups were not funded at all. The excuse was
that the groups did not “stimulate on-campus discussion and
debate” but this defense is problematic.
Under the new process, the BRC considered such factors as group
membership, the number of students benefiting from its programming,
and an estimate of the size of the community represented by the
group. We also considered each organization’s historical
contribution to campus life. Groups were required to address all
these factors in both the initial budget proposal as well as the
budget hearing.
Within each category, groups were ranked based on the aggregate
score of all the members of the budget review committee, which
looked at the group proposals as well as budget presentations. A
group’s rank within each category ultimately determined the
total amount of the group’s allocation.
The result was a far more balanced budget allocation. The 10
most highly funded groups received roughly 30 percent of the total
available budget this year and only two groups were denied funding
because their proposals were submitted late.
This system was created to decrease the arbitrary nature of the
funding process and to ensure that groups in similar circumstances
were given the same consideration, something that has not happened
in past years.
Last year’s Budget Review Director Mohammed Mertaban
claims the drastic discrepancies in last year’s allocations
occurred because some six or seven groups simply had vastly
superior proposals (“New budget process vague, raises
questions,” Aug. 12, 2002). But superior proposals are the
result of years of unequal allocations. If a group continues to
receive huge allocations year after year of course its programs
will be more successful, more widely attended and broader in scope,
which will result in an impressive proposal. In contrast, groups
regularly shut out of the funds will have a harder time programming
and subsequently will have a less impressive budget proposal. This
type of reasoning allows certain groups to perpetually receive a
disproportionate piece of the pie while other organizations
don’t even get a chance at increased funding.
Even if Mertaban’s statement was true, it wouldn’t
apply this year because many groups had impressive proposals. In
fact, if the committee hadn’t used the category system this
year, many of the highly funded groups from last year would have
received even less funding. The categories are a way to account for
the history of a group’s contribution to the UCLA
community.
Any opposition to the budget this year is solely based on
politics. Certain interest groups did not receive the funding they
were expecting, and they are understandably upset. However, as I
have said before, whenever you go from an unfair system to a fair
one, you have to expect dramatic changes. The BRC must evaluate all
groups fairly and try its best to decrease the amount of
subjectivity inherent in any funding process.
USAC is to debate this budget again on Aug. 26. I call on all
students to hold their representatives accountable so fairness is
brought back to the process. As budget review director, I am not
about to the let the committee become a rubber stamp for last
year’s farcical excuse for a budget process.
Levi is a fourth-year political science student and this
year’s budget review director.