Editorial: USAC should put surplus funding requests on public view
By Editorial Board
Jan. 16, 2014 12:00 a.m.
Faced with a room full of more than 100 concerned students, the Undergraduate Students Association Council performed a startling about-face by reversing $78,500 in fund allocations it approved last week. In doing so, USAC demonstrated a serious inconsistency in the way it allocates its yearly surplus funds.
The crux of the students’ complaints was that USAC officers were able to draw on surplus for their programs before student groups had a chance to access that money via programming funds. The students’ point has merit, as several councilmembers acknowledged.
But by catering to the students who made public comments during Tuesday’s meeting, the council also dismissed the concerns of the students who showed up a week earlier to voice support for the programs councilmembers sought to fund with surplus.
The problem was that this week’s public commenters and last week’s public commenters never found themselves in a room together – indeed they probably would not fit in the council chamber at the same time. The events of the last two weeks demonstrate that as far as USAC is concerned, the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.
To allow even footing between council and the student groups it serves, USAC should require councilmembers to submit a detailed application for surplus funding by a specific deadline for review by the public. Some permutation of this proposal was brought forward by Finance Committee Chair Cynthia Jasso on Tuesday, but the key element is making sure applications would be available for public review.
Mandating that councilmembers provide full reports on how they plan to spend their allocations would subject them to the same scrutiny student groups undergo when they seek to draw on funds.
And indeed, USAC’s discussion of councilmember requests on Jan. 7 would likely not have passed the hurdle required by a formal funding application. Councilmembers discussed their programs’ needs in ballpark estimates, and the bargain that proceeded was unscientific at best.
By formally vetting surplus proposals before the public, USAC would avoid fiascos like the events of Tuesday night, where four potentially worthwhile programs were entirely defunded because of concerns about equity and transparency.
The fact is that councilmembers have as much of a claim to surplus money for their programs as do other student leaders. But at no time were these funding uses compared head-to-head, so the latter won by default.
Besides, a formal application deadline would require punctuality with funding requests, forcing the council to spend a set period of time mulling its funding priorities.
Putting a new funding apparatus in place would require a number of technical details to be worked through, such as how to deal with surplus requests for programs that come early in the year.
Part of the student government’s job is to build better student government. On Tuesday night, students pointed out a flaw in USAC’s rules and procedures; the council now has a responsibility to provide a viable remedy for the situation.
