Cases could change group funding

By Michael Weiner
Daily Bruin Senior Staff

Members of the Undergraduate Students Association Council are
engaged in a process that could radically change the way the
council distributes funds and other resources to student
groups.

The process, which has been going on for the past month, arose
out of questions regarding the fairness and legality of the annual
base budgets assigned to student advocacy groups. But the
council’s inquiry could have implications far beyond this
year’s budget allocations.

That’s because university administrators fear USAC’s
current funding system may not be in compliance with U.S. Supreme
Court decisions that govern distribution of student fees.

The most recent decision, University of Wisconsin v. Southworth,
confirmed in March that public universities can collect activities
fees from students as long as those fees are distributed on a
content-neutral basis.

That case essentially certified an earlier decision,
1995’s Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, which decreed
that such fees must be allocated without regard to the political,
religious or ideological agendas of the groups being funded. It
also provided a refund mechanism for students who disagree with the
way their fees are used.

Now, with two decisions by the high court more clearly defining
the legal issues surrounding the collection and distribution of
mandatory student fees, university officials are pushing USAC to
ensure compliance with the court by adopting specific criteria for
funding groups on a content-neutral basis.

“The way we allocate resources will change substantially
because of this,” said Lyle Timmerman, the administrative
representative to USAC who will judge whether the council is in
compliance with the law.

“I believe that Southworth raised as many questions as it
answered,” he continued.

Timmerman said he believes USAC must be prepared to answer three
questions about all its funding allocations. First, was the money
distributed without regard to the type of group or program being
sponsored? Second, does the group or program have a
“legitimate university purpose?” And third, were the
allocations balanced among comparable groups, with similar
membership numbers and appeals to the campus at large?

Historically, the council has mainly given base budgets to the
20 SAGs, sponsored by student government.

These groups, which include the African Student Union, Asian
Pacific Coalition and Gay and Lesbian Association, are defined in
USAC’s bylaws as “representing student populations
which have historically been denied access to power and the
decision-making process.”

But with the doctrine of content-neutrality set forth by the
Supreme Court, the council may no longer be able to give SAGs
special privileges ““ including base budgets, office space and
access to computers ““ based on who they represent. This means
SAGs could be treated no differently than any other group
registered with the Center for Student Programming. As a result,
all 450 groups would then have unprecedented access to USAC’s
resources.

Timmerman’s doubts that this summer’s budget process
followed the doctrine of content-neutrality, even among
organizations that received base budgets, prompted the funding
inquiry. He cited that four of the groups ““ ASU, APC,
Samahang Pilipino and MEChA ““ were given more than 40 percent
of the total funding.

At the end of August, an ad hoc committee made up of ASUCLA
Student Support Services Director Jerry Mann, President Elizabeth
Houston, External Vice President Portia Pedro and other council
members addressed the problem.

While the committee is seeking an immediate solution to this
year’s base budget issue, dramatic changes in the way USAC
allocates funds and office space may be in store as the school year
progresses.

In addition to base budgets, USAC distributes money to groups on
a programmatic basis through contingency funding. Additional
questions about content-neutrality are likely to arise as those
funds are distributed throughout the year.

“Our entire funding system is a little out of line and it
needs to be adjusted,” said Houston, who ran in May as an
independent candidate with significant support from the Greek
system and Christian groups on campus.

But Pedro, whose Praxis slate controls a majority of seats on
the council, disagrees. Praxis represents some of UCLA’s most
active SAGs, organizations that stand to lose significantly if the
funding process is open to every group on campus.

Pedro agreed the allocation process for funds and office space
may need to be changed, but she emphasized that well-established
SAGs with large memberships should not be treated exactly the same
as smaller organizations with more narrow interests.

“There are definitely improvements that can be made and
this is a good time to make them,” Pedro said.

“We need to look at ways to define what the actual
difference is between groups,” she continued.

For her part, Houston supports dramatic changes in the way USAC
allocates its resources, including the complete elimination of base
budgets in favor of funding groups on a program to program basis as
well as the regular redistribution of office space.

But she doesn’t expect such far-reaching changes to be
adopted by the current Praxis-controlled council.

“They want things to stay the same, the status quo,
because there are a lot of groups that are comfortable,”
Houston said. “But that doesn’t make it
right.”

Ultimately, any decisions the council makes must be approved by
Timmerman or a more senior administrator, such as Assistant Vice
Chancellor of Student and Campus Life Bob Naples, Vice Chancellor
of Student Affairs Winston Doby or even Chancellor Albert
Carnesale. And Timmerman believes significant modifications,
including amending the USAC bylaws, are in order.

“It’s going to be a real change in the
landscape,” he said.