Submission: USAC participation in financial committee is necessary

By David Bocarsly, Tamir Sholklapper and Madison Murphy

At its first meeting of thewinter quarter, the Undergraduate Students Association Council decided to take over half of its limited surplus funds from student group programming for its own initiatives. We are pleased the council recognized its mistake and overturned this decision a week later. Every student pays these fees, so the body responsible for representing all students should seek to spend them accordingly.

While much attention has been directed to the poor initial decision and its repercussions, one issue that has been overlooked is the foundational cause of this decision and its recurring nature. Every week, the Finance Committee, which is appointed by the council and not elected by the student body, reviews funding applications for student programs and makes recommended allocations that USAC typically rubber-stamps.

In our two years of experience with USAC, no councilmember attended a Finance Committee meeting, which is where applications are reviewed. Hence, the council that supposedly oversees more than $4 millionof student fees in actuality applies little scrutiny to how those fees are spent. Councilmembers are not expected to read any applications and have little comprehension of the needs student groups express for their programs.

Additionally, because of councilmembers’ lack of engagement with the Finance Committee, they cannot fully grasp the impact of surplus funds on the yearly budget. Despite the current Finance Committee chair’s repeated warning that they would have to significantly cut funding to student groups, the councilmembers unanimously approved all four of their own surplus requests – totaling about $78,500 – to the detriment of the programs of student groups they represent.

Every year councilmembers promise to be more engaged in the Finance Committee’s dealings, but rarely have councilmembers appeared at the weekly review of funding applications.

This is unacceptable for a governing body.

Last year, Tamir Sholklapper, 2012-2013 co-chief of staff in the USAC Office of the President and 2011-2012 Student Welfare commissioner, drafted a proposal for a bylaw change to fix this glaring problem. Sholklapper recognized that the root of the issue lies in the disconnect between councilmembers and the Finance Committee based on an irrational fear that the former’s involvement would make the allocations appear biased. In the current system, councilmembers sit on the Budget Review Committee and review USA/BOD applications, but for some reason the same system is not in place for the Finance Committee. After much research and preparation, Sholklapper proposed that the three general representatives serve as voting members on the Finance Committee and engage in their weekly deliberations of funding allocations for the following reasons:

First, students would elect general representative candidates that they trust to make appropriate decisions with their money rather than hope for an appointed committee’s “impartiality.” Second, councilmembers will actually be involved in the allocations they vote on, eliminating rubber-stamping and increasing accountability. Third, as funding is the most direct way students engage with USAC, issues of disconnect between elected officials and the needs of their constituents would be minimized, thus avoiding issues like the present one.

Furthermore, by nature of the election process for general representatives – the single transferable vote system – votes are reallocated, ensuring a diverse political representation and eliminating the concern for bias.

To our dismay, the proposal was tabled by the 2012-2013 council because members felt the newly elected councilmembers should determine their own fate. Unfortunately, aside from a brief conversation over the summer and dispersed comments here and there, the current council has yet to revisit this proposal.

If general representatives sat on the Finance Committee, there is no way they would have allowed their fellow councilmembers to request so much money from such limited surplus. Thankfully, with pressure, the council had the wherewithal to undo their mistake, but similar predicaments must be prevented in the future. For USAC to maintain any credibility, it needs to be more engaged in the funding system and implement this proposal.

The authors graduated UCLA in 2013. Bocarsly was the 2012-2013 USAC president. Sholklapper was the 2011-2012 Student Welfare commissioner and 2012-2013 co-chief of staff for the USAC president. Murphy was the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 co-chief chief“ of staff for the USAC president.