Committee inconsistent in its budget allocations

By Mohammad Mertaban

The appointed Budget Review Committee’s presentation at
the Aug. 5 Undergraduate Students Association Council meeting was a
clear example of the discrepancies that occurred throughout the
entire process. Not only was the process ambiguous, but the
outcomes do not reflect the process.

Last year, about $131,000 was available for distribution to
about 42 groups. This year, about $98,000 was available to 60
groups. One would normally think every group would get a cut due to
the decreased amount of funding and the increase in people
receiving that funding. But is this the case? Let’s take a
look at the outcomes.

Almost every group got a cut with the exception of a few groups
like the Interfraternity Council and the Jewish Student Union . Is
it coincidence that the former JSU president, Justin Levi, acts as
budget review director the same year JSU gets a 118% increase in
its budget? Although Levi claims he has “disaffiliated
himself from JSU,” the outcome shows certain biases may
exist. In addition, why did the IFC, an organization whose
membership is limited to only a select few from the UCLA
population, also get a substantial increase in its funding? These
important questions must be raised so students know where their
money is being spent.

In order to look back at the supposed “process” used
by the BRC, a couple of points should be examined. First and
foremost, the agenda which included the BRC recommendation was not
available until the school day before the USAC meeting to approve
these recommendations. According to the USAC bylaws, the items in
the agenda must be submitted three school days before the USAC
meeting. The agenda was available Aug. 2 around 5:00 p.m., and the
USAC meeting was Aug. 5 at 4:00 p.m. This demonstrates a lack of
preparation on the BRC’s side.

In addition, it is implied that the recommendations are supposed
to be made by the BRC, not the budget review director. Anyone who
was present at the USAC meeting on Aug. 5 would have noticed the
BRC was not in agreement on many of the things presented. This
could have been prevented had there been some kind of documentation
provided for BRC meetings, but unfortunately, when asked if there
were any official minutes taken at BRC meetings, Levi responded
with a simple no.

The major concern and the highlight of the discussion was the
BRC’s definition of size and scope. One would think the BRC
reached a consensus on the definition of those terms given that it
was the most important factor it considered. Unfortunately, this
was not the case. At the table, there were three different
definitions given by different members of the BRC.

The definition given by Levi was the number of students involved
in the organization and the number of students that directly
benefit from the organization. This is where pure subjectivity
becomes a huge factor.

From my experience as last year’s budget review director,
the decisions on allocation should be based solely on the
information presented within the proposal and the hearing. When you
leave it up to yourself to determine how much a group
“impacts” campus, subjectivity creeps into what is
ideally an objective matter. The role of the BRC is to follow
the set criteria and allot funds based on those criteria. If
groups don’t meet the criteria, they won’t get as much
funding; if they do, then they would obviously receive more
funding.

Furthermore, according to the USAC bylaws, funded groups must
meet the minimum criteria required for funding. Certain groups,
namely, the Chess Club and the Rally Club, did not meet the minimum
criteria (as stipulated by the BRC) but were still given money that
could have gone to other organizations that provide educational
programming, rather than to groups who play chess when they meet.
This is clearly a violation of the USAC bylaws because if a group
does not meet minimum criteria, it should not receive funding.

In addition, the BRC, especially the budget review director,
needs to understand its role on campus. The BRC’s
accountability is to student groups, and if it is not doing a good
job, students need to question its methods. This policy applies to
everyone that has been appointed to work for the students because
in the end, we are all accountable to them.

What this all comes down to is the appointment process that was
undertaken by USAC President David Dahle. Dahle appointed Maggy
Athanasious and Dria Fearn, USAC candidates who lost under the SURE
slate last year, to the ASUCLA board of directors. Justin Levi, who
was a losing candidate for internal vice president was appointed to
budget review director.

In essence, everyone who lost on the SURE slate was given an
appointed position. Students need to question those that
“govern” this campus and make sure they are effectively
working for the students. It is obvious from the way things are
being run so far that student concerns are secondary to personal
benefit.

Mertaban was last year’s budget review director.