The long and controversial 2004-2005 Undergraduate Student
Association Council’s base budget process appears to have
come to a close. For nearly three months, an epic battle has been
waged over the base budget allocations totaling $220,037, or 10
percent of USAC’s about $2.2 million annual budget. This
budget comes from the approximately $100 every undergraduate
student at UCLA contributes to the student government.
After council’s decision last week not to hear the appeals
of 13 groups, debate over the funding process has subsided ““
for now. Now that the dust has settled and 134 groups have been
funded to varying levels ““ or not funded at all ““ we
must ask the question “Where do we go from here?”
Lengthy disputes over the funding processes are not a new
phenomenon, and in fact have been a staple for the past 10
years.
How can this process be changed to adequately address the needs
of all students? In past years, the level of funding has often been
used as a rebuttal to student group complaints because groups
usually appealed to receive more money.
This year, however, the majority of these complaints were not
about a lack of funding ““ or even that the groups received no
funding ““ but instead that they were ineligible even for
consideration. This indicates that the root of the problem is the
process itself. When minimum criteria excludes almost a third of
the applicants, it is not an adequate definition of minimum
criteria.
The funding process for other UC campuses are strikingly
dissimilar to ours. Notably, UCLA is the only school without an
independent senate or legislative body. Such bodies may allow for a
more concentrated look at the budget process and ultimately yield
results that are more in line with student desires.
The council system as it stands today is by no means a perfect
system. The council was created 40 years ago, and the needs of UCLA
students have drastically changed since then. It’s time to
update to USAC 2.0. It would be irresponsible not to consider
large-scale reform above and beyond simple budgetary processes.
The USAC funding processes, including the base budget, are
overly complicated and have been criticized for being unresponsive
to the needs of many students and student groups.
We, as your student leaders, have an obligation to take a
serious look at the effectiveness of the current government system
that we have in place. Both in terms of funding and in other areas,
USAC’s bylaws, which are derived from the Undergraduate
Student Association’s national bylaws, have proven
insufficient.
Over this past summer, we have seen the council structure prove
inadequate a multitude of times when the obscurity of the bylaws
have left important rules up to debate. One of these rules is the
ability of council to overturn a judicial-board ruling ““ one
of the only checks upon council itself ““ as occurred this
past July when USAC overturned the decision in USAC v. Lawson. In
another incident, USAC held a controversial closed session in
August where the press and members of the public were forced to
leave.
It is only because the USAC bylaws are heavily problematic or
simply unclear that this closed session was permitted. Accordingly,
all of these issues are indictable on a systemic level and must be
addressed there. USAC members have inherited a flawed system, and
USAC members are limited by that system.
This year, USAC has a comprehensive action agenda item meant to
address several important student-based issues. Additionally, USAC
just produced a highly successful week of programming for students
to begin the year. We must not let the institutional deficiencies
of our council system overshadow these victories.
However, the successes of USAC can be undermined by
institutional structures. If the foundation of our government is
flawed, those defects will resonate even through the most
well-intentioned actions.
Striving for a system that truly represents all UCLA students
should be our first priority. We, as a council, must be proactive
in addressing the needs of reform.
Gruenberg is the USAC Financial Supports
commissioner.