Groups given fair chance for funds

This year’s Undergraduate Student Association
Council’s base-budget process was unprecedented because the
funding source was opened up to all student groups ““ whether
they were officially recognized or independent.

The Budget Review Committee received a record-breaking number of
applications as a result of the committee’s heavy outreach to
student groups via Daily Bruin ads, e-mails and phone calls. With
over 130 student groups vying for a small pool of money, the
committee realized the importance of ensuring that the money
available went to student organizations that proved to meet the
minimum criteria as stated in the USAC bylaws. The bylaws state
that the organization must: “(a) Provide opportunities for
the educational benefits and personal and social enrichment that
derive from participation in extracurricular activities” and
“(b) Stimulate on-campus discussion and debate on a variety
of issues.”

USAC approved the priorities and guidelines that BRC would use
to judge applicants ““ which included the minimum criteria
stated above. These priorities and guidelines were promptly posted
on the USAC Web site alongside the base-budget application.

The availability of our judging criteria and guidelines enabled
student groups to know exactly what BRC and USAC were looking for
in groups’ proposals and hearings. BRC also held extensive
office hours prior to the base-budget application due date ““
totaling 25 hours per week ““ to ensure that all questions
regarding the base-budget process would be answered.

BRC carefully assessed each proposal and hearing to make certain
that student groups not only met the requirements, but also would
provide opportunities that would benefit the entire UCLA campus
rather than solely its members. It was also important to BRC that
student groups had detailed narratives for their programming as
well as supporting documentation in the forms of estimates and
invoices. Equally important was the quality of the hearing, where
student groups were given a chance to emphasize important
attributes of their organizations. After carefully considering both
the proposal and the hearing, BRC only denied funding to a student
group with a full consensus.

But it is important to realize that base budget funding is just
one of many funding sources. Many student groups requested funding
for programming that can be funded more adequately through other
sources. For example, the Campus Programs Committee fund has a much
higher cap than the base-budget cap.

It is no stretch to say that this year’s base-budget
process was historical, with funding opened to all student groups
and a record number of groups applying. I am thankful I was able to
share this experience with four of the most dedicated funding
committee members.

Committee members sacrificed summer school grades and risked
losing their jobs because of skipping work to hold hearings and
deliberate. Not including office hours, BRC easily spent over 300
hours on the base-budget process. These countless hours were spent
contacting student groups, reading proposals, holding hearings,
deliberating, preparing for presentations, and holding funding
workshops. As an independent, I can assure the UCLA campus that BRC
did a commendable job keeping the process fair and free from undue
bias.

After interacting with so many student leaders from the
different student groups, I am excited to see the wonderful
programming that will be put on this upcoming school year. I expect
a year of quality and diverse programming for the entire UCLA
campus.

Lee is the Community Service commissioner and a Budget
Review Committee member.