In a Sept. 26 Viewpoint submission (“USAC doles out funds
based on groups’ support”), allegations were made that
this year’s Base Budget process was heavily influenced by
favoritism rather than merit. The submission states that Students
First! and “opposition” organizations received almost
the same amount of money per point, speculating that these
“bizarre results imply that the system may have been
manipulated.”
Firstly, it is a misconception that each point equates to a
dollar amount. These points are used only to sort organizations
into ranges so the Budget Review Committee can more easily
distribute the funds.
Secondly, why must something seemingly fair be the result of
manipulation and scandal? Could it simply be that the Base Budget
process does not take into account whether or not a student
organization supported a particular slate during elections?
As an Undergraduate Students Association Council member who did
not run on a slate and sat on the committee, I can assure everyone
that only Base Budget proposals and hearings were taken into
account when distributing funds.
We have gone above and beyond our duties as committee members to
ensure that the process was the best it could be, especially given
the unprecedented number of student groups that applied and the
shrunken pool of funding.
The submission also accuses the Budget Review Committee of
violating the Undergraduate Students Association bylaws for not
having accurate records of our meetings, even though the Daily
Bruin reported in “USAC Refuses Appeals Hearings,”
(News, Sept. 30) the infraction did not take place. Because the
Budget Review Committee is dedicated to being as thorough as
possible, we did in fact keep records of our proceedings.
All hearings were taped and the entire Base Budget process is
detailed in a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation, which are both
available for public review through the Student Government
Accounting office. The presentation even includes examples of how
allocations were made.
The Sept. 26 article also states that one of the criteria for
funding was whether student groups provide community service
opportunities, which is a misleading interpretation of the
questionnaire. It mentions student groups providing avenues to
addressing societal problems, which can be anything from helping
dispel stereotypes or, more blatantly, doing community service.
However, even if a student group does not provide avenues for
addressing societal problems, it is not disqualified.
Additionally, the submission asks, “Why must community
service clubs, like the unfounded Circle K and VITA, be political
or educational to be relevant or important?” The committee
does not question the relevancy or importance of these groups;
however, there is a separate funding source specifically for
community service organizations ““ the Community Activities
Committee fund.
The Base Budget fund is meant to be used for student groups that
specifically do work on campus; community service groups would fare
much better with the Community Activities Committee fund, where the
maximum cap is nearly twice as much as Base Budget’s maximum
cap ($8,500, compared to $4,400).
Sadly, there is a false impression that Base Budget is the
end-all of funding sources. However, Base Budget is only one of
many funding sources ““ and a smaller one at that. There are
programming funds much more suitable for some groups that applied
for Base Budget, and the Budget Review Committee has held workshops
to notify these groups about these funding sources.
USAC also has plans to heavily promote these funding sources
through programming workshops that will hopefully make these
under-utilized funding sources more visible to student groups.
My hope is that if student groups or leaders have any questions
about the Base Budget process, or any other funding sources, they
will speak to the Budget Review Committee members or other USAC
officers; it saddens me to see misinterpretations of the Budget
Review Committee’s intentions.
Lee is the USAC Community Service commissioner and a member
of the Budget Review Committee.