Student-initiated programming and organizations fill an
important need at UCLA. Without a doubt, the organizations on
campus give students the opportunity to seek out information and
avenues that are not always presented in the classroom setting.
Therefore, when the Undergraduate Students Association Council
approved the base budget funding recommendations made by the Budget
Review Committee on Aug. 5, they were not just approving a monetary
budget or allocating money. They were, in fact, supporting the
existence of student programming on this campus. Over $200,000 was
allocated directly to campus programming for the 2003-2004 academic
year.
This year’s base budget process marks an unprecedented
increase in the number of student organizations who applied and
were funded, as well as an improved process. The BRC, which is the
USAC-appointed subcommittee that oversaw the base budget process,
strived to make the process as accessible, open and effective as
possible.
While a base budget is only meant to cover an
organization’s day-to-day expenditures ““ and not to be
the sole funding source for an organization’s programming
needs ““ there is nevertheless an understanding that recent
budget cuts have led to a greater need for student group funding.
Thus, the BRC made a huge effort to inform officially recognized
student groups about the base budget through aggressive advertising
and outreach. The increased visibility of this funding source is
demonstrated by the dramatic increase in the number of groups who
applied ““ several of which were newly formed or had never
applied before.
The committee’s organization and preparation allowed us to
effectively handle this large influx of applicants. Immediately
after being appointed to the BRC this past June, we met to create
priorities and financial guidelines by which we would judge
applicants. Groups were provided with these priorities and
guidelines in advance ““ a stark contrast to previous years
when groups were not aware of this information until their
hearing.
The BRC also prepared to assess groups and their proposals by
creating a standardized means of evaluation. Prior to receiving
proposals, we defined a one-to-five scale for each priority. This
system limited subjectivity in the process, and its success is
evident in similar score totals by all five members of the
committee.
Groups were evaluated based not only on how they addressed BRC
priorities, but on the quality of their proposals and hearings. In
reviewing proposals, we looked for quality in program planning and
justifications of costs.
Hearings played a key role in supplementing a group’s
proposal. It gave the group’s representatives a chance to
explain what was not effectively conveyed in their proposal. In
addition, groups were given an opportunity to provide feedback and
recommendations to improve the base budget process for future
years.
Recognizing that an unprecedented number of groups applied this
year, the committee lowered the maximum cap from $8,600 to $6,600
so as not to create a huge disparity in allocations between higher-
and lower-scoring groups. In allocating funds, the committee
determined ranges based on the maximum allocation and average
allocation per group. Furthermore, during deliberations we strove
to ensure that adequate funds were available by the time
low-scoring groups were funded.
Finally, this year’s BRC strove to address concerns of
bias and to promote a system built on fairness. First, the BRC made
every attempt to inform applicants of the guidelines that would be
used in assessing their proposals. This allowed each group an equal
opportunity to address the issues that the BRC and USAC deemed most
important for the creation and facilitation of quality
programming.
Second, the BRC gave equal opportunity to both USAC programs and
student organizations. USAC offices were not given priority, but
were funded equally with other organizations. All groups were
evaluated based on their ability to show the need, reasons and
goals of their programming. These policies represent a large step
toward the removal of bias in funding and in adequately addressing
any concerns presented during the budget discussion.
The 2003 base budget process is unprecedented in many ways
““ from the early group notification that started during
spring quarter 2003 to the staggering 77 student groups that
applied for a base budget. It is the BRC’s hope that we have
set a new standard by which base budget funding should be
addressed. Now, more than ever, it is no longer enough to turn in
this past year’s proposal. New and established organizations
alike have equal footing in demonstrating their needs through a
quality, well-documented and well-written proposal.
We urge all Bruins to take advantage of the plethora of
programming in this upcoming year. Having had the opportunity to
meet and interact with so many student leaders and organizations,
there is no doubt that UCLA can look forward to a year full of
diverse and quality student programming.
Bukirin is a member of the Budget Review Committee.