USAC rejects slashed budget for 2002-03

JONATHAN YOUNG/Daily Bruin ASUCLA executive director
Patricia Eastman (center) suggests raising student
fees to compensate for inflation, a step not taken since the
1980s.

By Anna Paningbatan and Marcelle Richards
Daily Bruin Senior Staff
[email protected]
[email protected]

The Undergraduate Students Association Council voted down a
budget proposed by the Associated Students of UCLA for the 2002-03
fiscal year because it would dramatically cut funding that the
council has discretion over.

The budget, which would slash USAC discretionary funds by 55
percent, failed in a 0-8-4 vote Tuesday night. The decision will
allow USAC and ASUCLA to try and find alternatives and reinstate a
$40,000 subsidy that would help pad the deflated allocations.

In a heated discussion over the topic, council members
criticized ASUCLA’s management and called for the budget to
be more heavily scrutinized.

With one meeting left for USAC this school year, the budget must
be approved before ASUCLA begins its next fiscal year in August.
Since the new USAC members will take office next week, the deadline
for action is pushed up significantly.

The ASUCLA Board of Directors, scheduled to meet Friday to
approve its budget, cannot approve USAC funding until USAC does
so.

The association is facing massive budget cuts in light of the
potential unionization of many workers that would cost from
$500,000 to more than $1 million to pay for benefits and higher
wages.

Compounding the effect of that cost to ASUCLA is a decrease in
revenue due to the end of a student fee of $51 after this year that
brought the association more than $1 million.

This is the second week USAC has looked at the issue; at its
last meeting they tabled the budget.

Those who voted down the budget said the cuts would jeopardize
much-needed funding for various commissions and student interest
groups.

“ASUCLA needs to support student programming,” said
Bryant Tan, academic affairs commissioner. He sees the situation as
a management issue and said ASUCLA has the responsibility to help
the student government during the budget crisis.

Council members did not have suggestions on how to better
allocate funds, other than reinstating a $40,000 subsidy the ASUCLA
Finance Committee decided to omit for next year.

Jared Seltzer, undergraduate representative on BOD, said the
figures are still just recommendations and that several BOD members
attended the council meeting to solicit input.

In return, several students and council members accused ASUCLA
of poor management and lack of foresight in paying for unionized
laborers, which they said accounted for a large portion of the
cuts.

But Seltzer said cuts are being handed to just about everyone,
not just undergraduates.

“Some cut at some level is inevitable,” he said,
adding that the cuts are a result of several factors, not just
paying for unionized workers ““ an expense USAC advocated on
behalf of earlier this quarter.

For example, student fees are declining from $51 to $7.50 next
year, which will mean less incoming revenue for ASUCLA.

ASUCLA executive director Patricia Eastman suggested increasing
student fees to keep up with inflation as an option, as done by the
Graduate Students Association in its spring ballot referendum.

“Student fees have not been increased in UCLA since the
early ’80s,” she said.

USAC President Karren Lane,who said the council “needs to
figure out how (USAC) will survive,” proposed that members
draft a letter to the BOD and to request time to speak at the
board’s Friday meeting.

A visibly aggravated Eastman left the meeting after ASUCLA
agenda items were finished. Seltzer, who later proposed a
discussion after the meeting, asked to continue talk about the
budget, saying he did not have a chance to get out his entire
opinion during the meeting.

After the council adjourned, Lane called a closed session
meeting to discuss the issue. The Bruin was barred form attending
as BOD and USAC members met.

The closed meeting appeared to be a violation of USAC’s
own bylaws and media law. The council stopped the meeting when told
about the possible violation and council members declined to
comment on what was said.

Internal Vice President Kennisha Austin said the meeting was in
line with USAC bylaws, citing Article 1, Section A which reads:
“(USAC, or any board or council) may hold closed sessions
only if a majority of those voting in the affirmative or negative
approve.”

Lane said the council never voted to hold the meeting, nor was
the meeting ever defined as an executive session.

The meeting also appeared to violate the Ralph M. Brown Act, a
California law regulating open meetings, which allows the public,
including the media, to attend meetings. It defines a meeting as
“any congregation of a majority of the members of a
legislative body at the same time and place.” USAC had 11 of
13 members present.