Revenues from fee increase helped no one

During fall quarter controversy arose over a programming
referendum to raise student fees. Among the strongest proponents of
the referendum were the USAC commissions (particularly Student
Welfare, Community Service and Cultural Affairs). They argued the
extra money would bring new life to commissions that have not seen
an increase in funding for over 10 years. Due to a lack of student
interest, only a pro-referendum stance was presented to the student
body. After all the arguing, the referendum passed, likely a result
of some intense lobbying by the interested parties.

What happened with the resulting money was, in my opinion, a
huge farce. The commissions that benefited from the increase in
revenue have yet to spend the extra money. Instead the Student
Welfare, Community Service and Cultural Affairs Commissions, as
well as the External Vice President’s office, now have huge,
end-of-the-year budget surpluses. In the case of Student Welfare,
the amount of unspent revenue is over $22,000, which is almost half
of the commission’s total budget. While there may be
perfectly legitimate reasons for why the money has not been
utilized by this late in the academic year, it serves as a huge red
flag that the money has not been allocated for any purpose.

At least one commissioner was aware that having more money would
not necessarily lead to additional enhanced student programming.
Chris Diaz, the academic affairs commissioner, removed his office
from the list of entities being considered to receive money from
the programming referendum. This decision deserves applause,
because he acted in the best interest of students without trying to
increase the powers of his office with a larger budget.

Furthermore, with respect to the Student Welfare Commission,
with which I have worked, the increase in funding led to a very
frivolous attitude. It seemed that the extra funds gave the office
a reason to spend money without properly examining how the student
body would benefit. An example of this is the thousands of dollars
spent by the commission on publicizing itself. At the beginning of
winter quarter a shipment of about 1,500 multi-colored click pens
with the SWC logo emblazoned on the side came into the office.
Distributing these pens at random to the public was supposed to
“promote student welfare” and increase awareness of the
office. It’s doubtful that students voting for the referendum
had such spending in mind.

The money allocated by the measure will not be coming back to
the students. It is highly irresponsible on the part of the elected
commissioners of such offices to have taken funds from the student
body and not put them to use. While necessary programs like
BruinGo! suffer for lack of funds, it is a shame that these USAC
offices have student funds sitting around doing nothing.

It is my opinion that the Student Welfare Commission could
function as well as it did this year, if not better, if it did not
have these surplus funds. Further, students would reap greater
benefits if this money were either accessible for student groups or
put back into their pockets.

Abraham is former Campus Safety director and a Student Welfare
Commission candidate.