Dedication, progress for Financial Supports
For two years, I have worked in the Financial Supports
Commission saving students money through the book lending program.
As someone who has faced financial difficulties in the past and as
a peer counselor at the Student Retention Center, I firmly believe
that no matter what financial background a student comes from it
should never hinder his or her ability to succeed academically.
However, as a Financial Supports commissioner candidate, I also
have a long-term vision beyond book lending. To mitigate financial
burdens for students at a time of increasing student fees and
decreasing financial aid, I will establish the Student Lecture
Notes Exchange program, whereby class notes donated by students and
faculty will be scanned, posted online and made available for
downloading to enhance academic experience.
So that students need not worry about personal finances, I will
establish the Financial Management Series, whereby representatives
from the Financial Aid Office, Scholarship Resource Center and
Student Retention Center will provide one-on-one consultations on
how to fill out the FAFSA, scholarship applications, personal
statements, tax forms and debt consolidation agreements.
Furthermore, I will fight for increased financial aid by working
with Student Power! candidate Jeannie Biniek to place return-to-aid
back at 33 percent ““ adding an additional $6 million to the
financial aid pool.
With my concrete goals tied with my experience, leadership and
passion, I will work hard as Financial Supports commissioner to
make sure economic barriers do not stymie the academic endeavors of
all students!
Peter Bautista Financial Supports commissioner
candidate
PULSE referendum vital to community
projects
This week as you vote for your student government
representatives, don’t forget there are other important
issues on the ballot. Promoting Understanding and Learning through
Service and Education is a $6.50 student-initiated referendum that
will be used to sustain projects and services that directly benefit
UCLA students and the surrounding community.
Several student organizations have come together to initiate
this referendum in order to ensure that future funding is available
to support vital student-run programs that benefit our
community.
The passage of PULSE will help stabilize the funding of
student-run campus organizations that design and implement service
programs and projects. These programs provide valuable services to
the L.A. community and demonstrate UCLA’s commitment to
collaboration with community members on local needs.
In recent years, large cuts in state funding have taken their
toll on these programs. The $6.50 fee will be distributed across a
number of student groups to alleviate the funding shortage. The
Community Service Commission funds 22 service projects each year,
that impact an estimated 1,500 students.
This commission is the largest student-run and student-initiated
community service organization in the nation. The organizations
initiating this referendum are vital to the UCLA community. These
programs are something that we should all be proud of. I encourage
you to vote yes on the PULSE referendum.
Jodi Anderson UC student regent
Student fees bad solution to bad management
Students should reject both the SAFE and PULSE proposals because
both fail to prioritize current students and exhibit a complete
disregard for good business practices.
Implicit in both referenda is a transfer of resources from
current students to non-students and future students. As opposed to
a pay-per-use system, students are unlikely to benefit from these
contributions; much of the revenues from the proposed SAFE fee
increase will be set aside for construction that may take several
years to complete.
Though funding construction may benefit future students, they
have no voice in the debate. This sort of convoluted system makes
little sense as a strategy for maximizing students’
well-being.
Proponents maintain that the fees are a legitimate funding
source because they are proposed and approved by students.
Nonetheless, individual students have little control over the way
their money is spent, and certainly don’t receive any
guarantee that they will ever stand to benefit from their
contributions.
Supporters of the SAFE initiative argue that renovations of
existing establishments are necessary, and that they should be
funded through student fees. Yet such assertions do not explain why
the campus eateries, which are operated as businesses and charge
typical prices, require funding from student fees at all.
If revenues are insufficient to cover operating costs, either
the costs are unreasonable or the services provided are not
valuable enough to students. The notion that students should
subsidize the eateries, yet pay unsubsidized prices, is entirely
absurd.
Fiscal irresponsibility is certainly another factor in this
situation, though it has received little mention. As reported in
the Daily Bruin, Associated Students UCLA may run the risk of
bankruptcy within the next 10 years if the association goes through
with its planned projects, such as the Bombshelter renovation. This
begs the question why ASUCLA would plan to spend money based on
student fees that had not yet been approved. The referenda will do
little to resolve existing problems of fiscal irresponsibility.
Students should vote against both upcoming referenda because
both represent trends toward fiscal irresponsibility and a
willingness to sacrifice the well-being of current students for
other concerns.
The present costs of matriculating at UCLA, high as they are,
should not be raised to provide services for only a small minority
of students.
Instead, the misguided proponents of these measures should
embrace a more effective pay-as-you-go funding system, in which the
party that pays for services more closely aligns with that which
benefits. This sort of scheme would go far to discourage the more
egregiously irresponsible practices that have culminated in the
demands for fee hikes.
David Lazar Second-year economics student