Are students last in USAC’s selective budget?

Monday, October 6, 1997

Are students last in USAC’s selective budget?

USAC: Hypocrisy apparent as council ups own pay, withholds money
from two advocacy groups

All the SAG children gathered around the table, waiting for
their parent, the USAC, to come home. With their arms stretched out
and palms up, they waited anxiously for their yearly allowance.

But two walked out of the room empty-handed.

Simply because USAC favors some of its constituent groups over
others.

USAC’s denial of base-budget funding for the Interfraternity
Council and the Panhellenic Council is unsubstantiated and
unfair.

In the budget, money was doled out to each of the student
advocacy groups, of which IFC and Panhellenic are officially
recognized members. But neither group received any of the money
that other SAGs did.

USAC officials claim that the organizations were not allocated
any money because they have alternate sources of funding. But we
don’t buy it.

In creating a 1997-1998 budget which excluded any funding for
the IFC and Panhellenic Council, USAC is simply telling us it does
not want to include those groups and its students in its mission to
serve the undergraduate population.

USAC’s job is to encompass the entire undergraduate student body
at UCLA, not to pick certain groups over others.

These are the same politicians who promised to represent all of
our interests. These are the same people elected into power on the
premise of working hard to empower all students. Maybe students
forgot to read the fine print: USAC will only work for certain
students and groups. We will choose who we want to include in our
agenda.

Maybe they hold something against fraternities and sororities.
But interestingly, USAC did allocate funds for the Asian Greek
Council and National Panhellenic Council. It’s just a matter of who
the politicians like – and if they don’t like you, they won’t give
you money.

All this relates to the controversial summer stipend increase.
USAC’s financial inconsistencies are problematic. All groups cannot
be satisfied with the funds they’re given, because of tight funds.
But the purse strings were not so tight that USAC officials could
forgo a pay raise.

The two groups could use the $11,000 that went toward paying for
the USAC stipend increase in order to cover their base-budget
funding. But it seems as though these two groups don’t matter to
USAC. The power that student government affords should not be used
to enact political retribution against former campaign
opponents.

If USAC President Kandea Mosley truly opposes the stipend
increase and is earnest about putting "students first," then she
should use the power of a presidential veto to reject both
measures. Such actions on her part would display moral
forthrightness and political courage.

As for USAC as a whole, it’s a sad state of affairs when its
first two policy decisions – the stipend increase and the
withholding of funds – serves no one but themselves. The officers
get more money, and they get to keep funds away from the people
they don’t like. In the sake of fairness, we hope USAC will
reconsider both actions. Maybe then you will fulfill your
self-proclaimed mission and represent "Students First!"