Different interpretations of the use of student fees recently have highlighted a need for greater student oversight and clarification of the appropriate use of these fees once approved.
A state audit last month zeroed in on UCLA’s use of campus-based fees for the renovation of Pauley Pavilion and the construction of the South Campus Student Center. The audit reported that UCLA inappropriately allocated $23 million in fees, voted on by students for the maintenance of the Student Activities Center and the John Wooden Center, to these facilities. While UCLA was right to dispute the audit because they had received approval from student advisory boards for the projects, administrators should not have asked to use the student fees for alternative facilities in the first place.
This is not the first time ambiguity surrounding the use of student fees in the UC system has cropped up this summer. In June, the Daily Bruin reported on disagreements between UCLA administrators and the Student Fee Advisory Committee over the use of the student services fees to fund a new campus learning center.
Administrators asked the committee for about $93,000 in emergency funds. The funds would be applied toward staff salaries at a new Student Writing Center.
SFAC rejected the request, saying that the center was part of the core academic program of the university ““ and this would make it ineligible for Student Services Fee funding. Administrators disagreed at the time. The incident revealed that diverging interpretations of “core funding” exist within the UCLA leadership, which is a cause for concern.
The right and wrong in this case is less easily interpreted. But, clearly, the definition of “core funding” needs to be much more strongly specified. The changes or clarifications then need to be put to student approval for the purpose of transparency.
The university needs to establish more definitively who oversees the student fees. At $100 a year, the Student Programs, Activities, and Resource Center Fee ““ which was used for the construction projects ““ is nominal compared to the total cost of tuition. But fees add up, and the university needs to ensure that approved funds are fully supporting the intended use of the fees. Specific language needs to be in place to stave off future controversies or negative audits.
To solve the issue raised by the audit, SFAC should oversee the use of student referendum fees.
And as it is now, the university should not depart from the spirit of what students originally approved. If that needs to change, then put it to a vote.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the editorial board.