Closed system eliminates accountability for funding

On Tuesday night, the Undergraduate Students Association Council
approved blatantly flawed changes to the student group funding
process. Though the new system is expected to be more equitable,
its positive aspects are unfortunately overshadowed by unnecessary
provisions that increase secrecy and remove much-needed
accountability.

The new rules make the notes, deliberations and votes of all
funding committees closed and sealed ““ raising serious
questions about fairness and transparency. Such openness is
desperately needed, considering that final funding decisions are
almost always approved by USAC with no additional analysis or
debate.

Because of the importance of these decisions, it is preposterous
for USAC to block students from investigating the details of
funding allocations.

Funding student groups is one of USAC’s most important
responsibilities. Each year, hundreds of thousands of dollars are
distributed for operational and programming needs, such as office
supplies, advertising and venue rentals.

For most of USAC’s history, only a small number of chummy
organizations, called officially recognized groups, were allowed to
apply and receive funding. Hundreds of other student groups,
regardless of their value to the campus, were prevented from
accessing the bulk of student funds.

But a mix of U.S. Supreme Court cases, pressure from University
of California administrators and campus outcry slowly forced a
reluctant USAC to open its funding process.

This school year, USAC permitted funding of any registered
student group in a “viewpoint neutral” manner ““
creating equal funding opportunities for all groups, regardless of
their political or religious orientations or campus popularity.

But now, at a moment of historic openness, USAC has decided to
push its funding process back into the shadows. The argument in
favor of closed sessions ““ that they will prevent
“lobbying” ““ is absolutely absurd. It is naive
for USAC to suggest that the funding process has ever been, or ever
will be, free of lobbying and political maneuvering.

No matter what their intention, funding choices are an
unequivocally political act and shielding the decision-makers from
public scrutiny is cowardly.

Furthermore, Tuesday night’s meeting illustrated the
council’s hypocrisy: Before passing the bylaw changes,
members were ecstatic about receiving university documents and
communications obtained under state open-record laws related to
their campaign against the Expected Cumulative Progress
requirement. Within hours, the council simultaneously celebrated
their access to administrators’ notes while preventing
similar access to their own.

The poorly worded changes also create potential for serious
abuse. The council seems to believe their moral standards will
remain constant in subsequent years, but it’s a dangerous
assumption, and the new bylaws don’t protect student
interests adequately.

Students must question whether USAC’s new secrecy
provisions are the result of ignorance or conscious deception
““ both scenarios are troubling.