Editorial: Future head must address ASUCLA’s model

In her tenure as executive director of the Associated Students
of UCLA, Patricia Eastman led one of the country’s largest
student enterprises from near financial ruin to relative stability.
But ASUCLA’s student-majority board of directors would be
remiss to choose a new executive director who would not consider
serious financial reform for the association ““ including
the possibility of raising student union fees.

Eastman was brought to ASUCLA as part of a recovery team charged
with saving an enterprise facing bankruptcy. A $20 million loan
from then-Chancellor Charles Young saved ASUCLA and helped pay for
much-needed renovations to Ackerman Union. ASUCLA agreed that the
administration would approve its financial decisions until the loan
is paid in full. Additionally, an emergency $43 student union fee
increase was levied on students to move their student association
toward recovery.

The problems of the mid-1990s were a threat to ASUCLA’s
uniqueness. Few student-run enterprises are responsible for so
much: ASUCLA controls trademarking and licensing of the UCLA logo
and oversees campus eateries, stores and textbook sales. Both
student governments and student media fall under ASUCLA’s
umbrella. At most universities, administrations run many of the
services that instead fall under the ASUCLA umbrella at UCLA.
Still, since its creation in 1919, ASUCLA has kept its
independence.

Under Eastman’s leadership, the association climbed out of
the red, posting net incomes of $2.8 million in 2001 and $2.1
million in 2002. During the spring of 2002, it became clear that
2003 would not be as promising. The emergency fee expired and the
association was charged to find a way to take out roughly $700,000
from its business model after dozens of non-student food employees
won the right to unionize.

After indications that the association might find itself back in
the red throughout the spring of 2003, ASUCLA ended with a $557,000
net gain. The gain largely was due to surprising computer store
sales.

But other areas suffered. In 2003, ASUCLA’s restaurants,
BearWear and textbook sales have not been as good as predicted.
And, unless computer sales stay high ““ unlikely, as
students can buy personalized computers for cheaper online or from
outlets ““ ASUCLA may have difficulty posting even
moderate net gains. Although in better shape than during the
mid-1990s, ASUCLA’s finances are still somewhat unsettling:
BearWear and concessions sales fluctuate depending on how well
UCLA’s sports teams do. Were it not for just five events
throughout the year ““ the UCLA Store’s Halloween sale,
Valentine’s Day sale, Dads and Grads sale, the Mercedes-Benz
tennis tournament, and The Los Angeles Times Festival of Books
““ the association would be operating with huge
losses.

Whereas students at most universities pay high student union
fees, sometimes more than $100, UCLA students only pay $7.50. That
small amount of money essentially is invested in a variety of
businesses whose revenue is relied upon for student services. Thus
ASUCLA’s ability to serve students can be hampered seriously
by slowdowns in consumer spending. For example, when faced with the
costs of unionizing workers, ASUCLA allocated a smaller amount of
money for both student governments.

Whoever replaces Eastman will have to make the
association’s finances the top priority, just as Eastman did.
Depending on the association’s outlook halfway through this
year, the executive director should perhaps endorse the potentially
unpopular idea of raising student union fees ““ an option
which appears to have been abandoned by the board of directors for
this year.

The UC Regents unfairly slapped students with massive student
fee increases after the state of California failed to fund the UC
adequately. But student union fees more directly benefit UCLA
students and have never been permanently raised ““ ever.

Furthermore, if ASUCLA, under its current business model, again
endures problems like it did in the mid-1990s, its independence
from the administration could be threatened. That would be far more
harmful to UCLA students than would a small increase to what now is
an incredibly small student union fee.