Editorial: USAC’s hazy allocation of funds unfair, inconsistent

Funding student groups has been a bumpy ride for the
undergraduate student government.

Slow to change and entangled with potential conflicts of
interest, the undergraduate students association council has yet
again made funding allocations that will leave many students
scratching their heads.

An unprecedented 134 groups applied for funding this year
““ more than quadruple the number four years ago. Meanwhile,
the total funds available have yet to even double in the same
amount of time.

To determine how those limited funds are dispersed, the
Undergraduate Students Association Council relies on a nebulous
point-based system that supposedly serves as an objective guideline
during the allocation process. Groups requesting funding are
assigned a score between zero and 35 by each of the five members on
the Budget Review Committee, which makes recommendations to the
council. A high average score is meant to indicate that the group
warrants significant funding.

The problem is that the council’s system does not produce
consistent results ““ especially for groups not already
well-established in campus political circles.

A quick survey reveals that some groups received more funding
per point than others. For example, MEChA received about $139 for
each of its 31.9 points while Amnesty International’s 20.6
points were worth roughly $42 each.

As strange as that might seem, the discrepancy is not viewed as
a problem by USAC. The council has always said that the point
system is merely a guideline, and that final funding allocations
are decided using more subjective measures.

It’s too early to say if this year’s allocations
were fair, there are thousands of documents and hours of interviews
underlying the process. But, if and when appeals emerge, it should
become apparent whether the decisions were fair.

What is unclear today, though, is how those subjective measures
are defined or decided. USAC bylaws merely state that
“uniform, objective, content and viewpoint neutral criteria
must be used in the allocation of mandatory fees.” But budget
committee members are not required to explain why some groups can
get over $100 per point while others get less than half.

That many council members have direct ties to groups receiving
the most money each year complicates the situation even further.
Most notably, MEChA, the Vietnamese Student Union and the African
Student Union all had members on council within the last year.

All were formerly classified as “student advocacy
groups,” the only type of groups that could receive money
four years ago. And, in general, most former SAGs received much
larger funding levels than less established groups this year.

Although it didn’t have much of a choice in the light of
recent Supreme Court rulings, it is good that USAC has finally
opened the funding process for all ““ political and religious,
new and old.

But some relics of the old system still remain. The funding
process remains difficult to understand and USAC hasn’t done
much to level the playing field between the new and old groups. For
example, newly eligible groups had only three weeks to prepare
their proposals.

If new student groups are ever to have the chance to grow, and
if student fee money is ever to be allocated fairly, USAC must take
the lead in implementing a just and clear funding policy.