This post was updated Nov. 11 at 8:51 p.m.
The Undergraduate Students Association Council, UCLA’s undergraduate student government, manages about $10 million in student fees each year. It serves as the voice of roughly 33,000 undergraduate students.
When it comes to budget cuts to the Undergraduate Students Association Judicial Board – the one body meant to keep council members accountable – USAC is operating without oversight. When institutions defund their watchdogs, accountability suffers.
USAC must prioritize transparency and limit further cuts to the Judicial Board’s funding.
In 2024, USAC decreased the Judicial Board’s stipends. The chief justice received $1,500, while associate justices received $1,200. In 2025, the council again cut the board’s stipends, with the chief justice only earning $750 per year and associate justices earning $600 per year.
According to Article VI, Section B of the USA Constitution, the Judicial Board has a wide range of responsibilities. These include the authority to review the constitutionality of USAC legislation and actions, the ability to resolve disputes about the interpretation of USAC guiding documents and the capacity to provide advisory opinions on USAC matters.
Despite the Judicial Board’s increased presence last year – including two petitions filed over alleged antisemitic practices – it still faced a significant budget cut. The tense political climate on campus remains fragile, yet funding for the Judicial Board continues to stay low.
Eli Sepulveda, the chief justice of the Judicial Board said, “Last year, … we were about to hear a very sensitive case of alleged antisemitism, and being able to handle cases like that are very sensitive – that quickly is to everyone’s benefit, the sooner those issues get resolved.”
USAC’s structure promises robust checks and balances on paper. But its recent budget tells a different story.
USAC President Diego Bollo said the large stipend cut for the Judicial Board reveals tension between fiscal responsibility and functional oversight. The fourth-year labor studies and political science student added that money was instead directed to discretionary funds and offices that don’t receive referendum funding, like the president’s and general representatives’ offices.
“It’s not to say that we don’t value labor,” Bollo said. “We stipend as many as we can. I would say that in an ideal world, we could stipend part-time positions the same amount as I get – to my directors, to J-Board, to E-Board (the USA Elections Board), to Academic Senate appointments.”
These cuts raise doubts about USAC’s transparency to the student body.
“When it comes to transparency, the most we can do is put up Instagram posts like what these fees are going to, but I think what I would really encourage students, and I hope that students see this, is that we have an enormous budget, we need accountability, we need transparency,” Bollo said.
He added that student participation in USAC has declined in the past few years, in which case transparency should expand, not shrink.
Talia Davood, a USAC general representative, said in an emailed statement that transparency is important. She added that the issue is often one of communication rather than intent.
“USAC owes students a great deal of transparency regarding how money is spent,” said Davood, a third-year political science student, in the emailed statement. “At the end of the day, students are directly electing USAC officers to represent them. As long as we ourselves have all the facts, we have what we need to keep students informed.”
But transparency should not just lie in the hands of USAC. A credible, official body such as Judicial Board is an essential facet of a functioning, representative government. If the $300 supply fund for the Judicial Board isn’t even enough to cover rent for a meeting room, that funding can’t then ensure USAC prioritizes students’ needs fairly.
“Last year, we had $300 in supplies, and we reached out multiple times to try and see if they could allow us to use that money for something as simple as headshots,” Sepulveda said. “They never got back to us, … this year, we don’t even have a supplies fund.”
Sepulveda explained that the funding cuts affect two main areas: the board’s ability and timeliness in holding hearings and the long-term sustainability of the board itself.
Although Bollo said discretionary funding could be allocated to the Judicial Board, Sepulveda said that with the new funding structure, the Judicial Board might have to wait for discretionary funding before holding a hearing, which could delay proceedings beyond what their bylaws dictate.
Sepulveda added that the financial cuts risk discouraging students from serving on the Judicial Board in the first place.
“I can see this being a potential barrier for students who don’t have that same financial flexibility,” he said.
Regardless of how many cases the Judicial Board hears in a year, USAC needs to evaluate the message it sends when its own system of accountability is underfunded.
Beyond participation, Sepulveda expressed concern about the message the cuts send. In a time of deep political polarization, an impartial body that upholds fairness and accountability, regardless of personal or political bias, is more essential than ever.
An underfunded Judicial Board risks eroding students’ trust in their own student government.
Comments are closed.