Before UCLA students allow members of student government to
steal directly from our pockets, let’s take a stand and vote
no on the proposed USAC referendum. Contrary to what USAC officers
are telling us, the referendum is a corrupt ploy to funnel our cash
into USAC offices without a clear need for additional funds.
Although the proposed $27.75 yearly student fee increase would
benefit student groups, only about $12 of the total $27.75 would go
toward funding sources available for all eligible student groups.
USAC offices would pocket the rest.
We must be critical of the process undertaken by our student
government revolving around this referendum. Although there is a
need for some offices to increase their funding due to rising
costs, this referendum has too many issues around it to provide a
sound solution.
It is clear that the referendum would increase funds to cover
the costs of basic functions of USAC and student organizations. It
is also clear that the USA Programming Fund will receive an
additional sum of money. This will benefit student groups by
allowing them to function more efficiently.
Nonetheless, as you move down the referendum to see its other
components, specific USAC offices (i.e., the Student Welfare
Commission, Campus Events Commission, Cultural Affairs Commission,
Community Service Commission and External Vice President’s
Office) also receive an earmarked allocation.
The referendum proposes to increase the collective pot of money
for all USAC offices and student organizations, adding an estimated
$210,000 to be allocated to applying groups. Some USAC offices will
be getting earmarked funds without having to undergo the same
application process that all student organizations will have to go
through. In addition, these same USAC offices will still be
eligible to apply to the collective pots of money (i.e., base
budgets and USA Programming Fund). They’re not only getting
funds straight to their offices, but they also have the ability to
take more money that is supposedly for “student
programming.”
The assumption that USAC offices are the only spaces on campus
that need additional money to program is absurd. The need for
additional funds stretches across the board. Not one of the offices
that are on the referendum stand as the only means by which
students can get involved. There are other organizations, for
example, that work on health issues that the Student Welfare
Commission does not address. There are student organizations that
work on cultural events that the Cultural Affairs Commission does
not focus on.
If anything, this referendum assumes that no other organization
is in the similar financial position of the USAC offices. In
reality, everyone is experiencing a financial crunch and USAC
offices shouldn’t be guaranteed funds just because
they’re part of USAC.
As a member of a student organization, I feel that it is very
problematic that USAC offices feel the only work that gets done on
this campus comes from their offices. The Student Welfare
Commission, for example, hasn’t provided any proposal that
illustrates a need for the additional money. Everyone has ideas
about what they’d like to do with money, but not everyone has
the need for it.
Finally, the referendum assumes that all students agree with
whatever is included in the referendum language. As a student,
I’d like to have more discretion to determine how my money is
spent. I might not want to give money to the External Vice
President’s Office or the Student Welfare Commission, but I
would like to give money to the Community Service Commission. Under
this referendum, I have no choice on such issues.
To assume students all approve an increase in our student fees
without having the option to direct them toward a particular
interest is ridiculous. It would’ve been a different story if
the referendum were broken up into smaller referendums in which
students could support only the ones they wanted. By clumping it
all together and forcing students to agree or disagree with all of
it at once, this referendum is preventing students from making
conscious decisions about their money.
It is true that student groups need money for programming.
Inflation and budget cuts have cut the pool for student programming
to shreds. However, we must not allow USAC offices to think they
can piggyback on this referendum and increase student fees at our
expense for their own personal benefit.
It is easy for supporters of the referendum like President David
Dahle to tell students that we need this referendum for
“student programming.” But can we really trust the
authors of the referendum to be objective in their opinions of
whether we should support it?
With the exception of privileged individuals like Budget Review
Director Justin Levi, who consider $30 “a rather unnoticeable
sum,” most students notice when $30 is missing, especially
when it is spent on fraudulent student government initiatives
without their discretion. The referendum has corruption written all
over it.