Student fee allocation under review

Click Here to See Larger Image

By Robert Salonga
Daily Bruin Staff

Students and administrators are determining how student
governments across the University of California can legally
distribute money to campus groups, revising fee guidelines that
have not been updated in nearly eight years.

The UC Students Association is also fighting for autonomy from
the UC Office of the President in deciding where their collected
student fees go.

“These are our own fees, and we should not have
administration come in and handle our fees for us,” said Evan
Okamura, external vice president for the Undergraduate Students
Association Council. As EVP, Okamura serves as liaison between USAC
and UCSA.

UCOP spokesman Hanan Eisenman said the office is consulting with
the UC General Counsel ““ UCOP’s legal authority ““
and administrators at each campus for revision suggestions.

At UCLA, undergraduate students pay $72.27 per academic year in
mandatory campus fees to USAC. The council has discretion over
which student groups receive this funding, and the amount to give
them.

The debate over student fee allocation stems back to 1996 when
Scott Southworth, a student a the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights. He
claimed he unwillingly financed campus groups he did not support
when they received portions of his student fees.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously
in March 2000 that student governments could distribute mandatory
student fees only in a “viewpoint-neutral” manner. Both
UCSA and UCOP are in agreement with their own viewpoint neutrality
clause.

Funding cannot consider a group’s ideology, said UCSA
Chair Kenny Burch. But this does not necessarily mean every group
will receive the same amount of money.

“Different allocations to different groups are allowed so
long that viewpoint is not considered in the process,” Burch
said.

To qualify for funding at UCLA, a student group must show that
it provides educational programming and community service for all
interested students.

Though the viewpoint neutrality policy is in place, it has not
been added to UCOP guidelines. Also, any revisions made will not
affect the viewpoint-neutral process, Eisenman said.

USAC can choose to fund organizations based on their different
needs, Okamura said. For instance, larger and established groups
will often receive more money than smaller and relatively newer
ones.

Groups recognized by USAC are eligible for university resources,
including funding. But independent student groups ““ mainly
political or religious ““ registered with the university have
no access to the resources because their inherent partiality puts
them in conflict with current USAC bylaws.

USAC has a lengthy past in achieving compliance with the
policies. Last year’s council spent nearly all of its term
working to comply with UCOP and needed two deadline extensions
before completing its revisions in May.

Technically, the council complied with UCOP because of the 1993
California Supreme Court case, Smith v. UC Regents, which
established a mechanism for students to apply for a refund if they
object to groups that receive a portion of their mandatory
fees.

Because of the mechanism, the fees are not mandatory and
therefore not subject to the Supreme Court ruling ““ but
council members at the time said they were reaching clarity more
than compliance. Most of the council’s work geared toward
expanding the pool of groups eligible for USAC funding.

But the fight for student fee autonomy is not limited to the
UC.

Also on the UCSA agenda is control over student-approved
referenda. Initiatives passed at UCLA as well as the Riverside and
Santa Barbara campuses to fund the non-UC affiliated United States
Student Association are on hold pending approval by the UC
Regents.

“If students want to run a referendum to give money to an
external organization, they have the right to choose to do
so,” Burch said.

UCOP reviews guidelines every few years, but the current review
was initiated by the student contingent.

“Usually (UCOP) drafts it and then sends it to us. This
time, we drafted it first,” Okamura said.

All parties involved said they hope to finalize guideline
revisions by the end of spring quarter.