Council approves revision of USAC’s funding policies

By Robert Salonga
Daily Bruin Reporter

Mission accomplished … almost.

Members of the Undergraduate Students Association Council
breathed a sigh of relief Tuesday when they finally approved
revisions of USAC bylaws regarding student group sponsorship by a
vote of 9-0.

The unanimous vote was a sign of council unity, according to
Community Services Commissioner Fannie Huang.

“We wanted to make sure everyone’s on the same page,
because this is going to affect so many groups on campus,”
Huang said.

Since summer, the council has been in the process of revising
its bylaws to comply with guidelines set by the University of
California Office of the President. UCOP guidelines dictate that a
student government must distribute student fees to groups without
regard to viewpoint.

During Tuesday’s meeting, council members heavily debated
whether USAC should consider only officially recognized student
groups or all registered groups eligible for funding derived from
mandatory student fees.

President Elizabeth Houston criticized the council’s
failure to make all registered student groups eligible for
funding.

“I feel the decision to (fund only recognized groups) is
inherently flawed in that it is exclusive,” she said.

Because of this disagreement, Houston wrote a letter of dissent
to Chancellor Albert Carnesale on Wednesday, arguing the revisions
were incomplete.

“I feel that the process was left incomplete and not in
compliance with UCOP funding guidelines,” Houston said.

Student groups recognized by USAC are currently eligible for
university resources, including funding. There are also independent
student groups ““ mainly political or religious, ““
registered with the university but who do not have access to its
resources because of their inherent partiality, which puts them in
conflict with current USAC bylaws.

Facilities Commissioner Steve Davey said while revisions were a
step in the right direction, further efforts are necessary to
ensure equal funding access for student groups.

“USAC should not close its doors to any group for funding
and support,” Davey said. “As long as we do it on a
neutral basis, then we should go ahead and do the best we can to
include all groups.”

Internal Vice President Elias Enciso argued that the
unrecognized student groups do not fulfill the goals of both USAC
and the university.

“Even if we allowed these registered groups access to
funding, they still wouldn’t meet the criteria of being
university-related,” he said.

He added that the council’s efforts to revise its bylaws
were in the spirit of clarification rather than substantial
change.

“Even before we made the amendments, we were very much in
compliance with the court cases and UCOP guidelines,” Enciso
said.

Three court cases ““ the 1993 California Supreme Court case
Smith vs. UC Regents, 1995 U.S. Supreme Court cases Rosenberger vs.
Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, and Southworth
vs. University of Wisconsin in 1996 ““ dealt with similar
issues that addressed how mandatory student fees were allocated to
student groups on their respective campuses.

Technically, USAC was already compliant with all three cases
because the Smith case prompted the establishment of a refund
mechanism by which students can get their money back if they
don’t agree to certain groups their fees are funding.

Despite the refund mechanism, Houston said UCOP’s specific
statement that the council’s use of mandatory student fees
makes it a political entity, USAC must distribute funding
fairly.

Regardless of this conflict, council members agreed progress was
made.

“I’m relieved that we were able to move forward on
this and get it done,” Huang said.

Davey echoed these sentiments, but reiterated there is more work
to do.

“It’s not an end; it’s only a first
step,” he said. “USAC is still a closed organization. I
hope our successors will take what we’ve done and build on
these accomplishments.”

Among the work left to be done is office space allocation to
student groups. Davey, who chairs the Office Space Allocation
Council, said this will be a daunting task.

“The changes in bylaws we let slip for a year. It would be
shameful to let the office space guidelines slip that long,”
he said.