Last Wednesday’s Daily Bruin article (“Student group
funding reflects USAC loyalties,” News) implied that this
year’s base budget process was motivated by political aims
resulting from my affiliation with the Students United for Reform
and Equality slate.
Unfortunately, such an accusation is wholly untrue.
Last year’s base budget process, led by a politically
stacked Budget Review Committee, featured no concrete system for
allocating funds ““ the result of which was a set of
allocations not even remotely fair to the student population.
Specifically, over half of the total funds were given to a mere
seven groups, and nine groups were outright denied funding on the
basis of technicalities stemming from gross misinterpretations of
Undergraduate Students Association Council bylaws.
It was partially a result of this ridiculous excuse for a budget
process that the S.U.R.E. slate was elected and that I was
appointed to bring fairness back to one of USAC’s most vital
functions ““ allocating funds to student groups.
Under my leadership, as well as the leadership of S.U.R.E., USAC
funded more groups than ever before. It did not deny funding to any
group that turned its application in on time. If USAC wants to
represent all students, rather than a select few political interest
groups, the key is to open up the funding process to as many groups
as possible.
Specifically, The Bruin accused my committee of allocating funds
based on an over-dramatized list of the president’s
“friends” and “enemies” (in reality merely
supporters and non-supporters). If one looks at the front-page
graph alongside the article, one would think this was true.
However, the graph did not reflect the actual amount of funding the
groups received. In reality, the top four groups funded were all
affiliated with Student Empowerment! The highest
“friend” group was only number eight on the list. If my
committee were truly politically motivated, this would not have
been the case.
In reality, S.U.R.E. and I were able to implement certain
safeguards preventing us from allocating funds on an unfair basis.
First, we implemented a numerical system holding all members of the
Budget Review Committee accountable and making each member’s
opinion count equally. Secondly, of the members appointed to the
committee, two were from S.U.R.E. (one has since left), two were
independents, and one was from Empowerment!. This was done to
insure all points of view were heard.
Under Empowerment!, no concrete system was used. Allocations
were completely arbitrary, and all members of the committee were
from their own slate. Anyone who denies that this year’s
allocations were fairer than last year’s is not examining
reality.
Furthermore, the article completely neglected to mention the
student fee referendum passed mid-fall quarter. As a result, USAC
received enough money to double the funding for these groups, as
well as fund a set of new groups. The referendum passed as a result
of the work of S.U.R.E. and certain independent members of council.
Not one member of Empowerment! helped campaign for the measure, and
several Empowerment! council members were vocal in their opposition
to it. Had they gotten their way, their own groups (some of those
named in the graph) would have received far less than they did as a
result of S.U.R.E. administration.
Perhaps the most disturbing parts of the article were the
glaring factual errors. Once again, it was reported that the
majority of groups this year received less funding than last year.
I do not know who is counting, but 20 groups out of 33 received
more than last year, not less.
By funding certain Empowerment! groups more than any other and
by giving fair and equal consideration to all groups, my committee
proved it was not politically motivated in its allocations. To
believe otherwise, as The Bruin does, is absurd.
Levi is the 2002-2003 budget review director.