When ASUCLA was first founded, it was created to serve students.

But today, with the Bruin Life and Undergraduate Experience Fee Referendum, ASUCLA is asking for $27 per quarter from those same students – and through referendum language that is unacceptably vague.

$12 of the fee increase is designated to supporting ASUCLA-operated services and facilities, without specifying why ongoing money is insufficient.

This is especially concerning given that ASUCLA executives earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. ASUCLA has prime real estate, exclusive access to over 40,000 students and holds major business franchises. It made $84 million of income and only spent $70.1 million in operating expenses, according to its 2024-25 Accountability Report.

Why does it need more than $1.1 million from students to support core operations?

The referendum’s language also references building inclusivity, equity and community. But the vague references don’t explain in real terms how the $27 will tangibly improve these areas.

$3.75 of the fee increase would go towards establishing an Undergraduate Catering event fund. While catering food could support community building at campus events, it doesn’t seem to be very equitable or inclusive to ask students who are struggling to pay their BruinBill to fund it.

Even promises of a student wage increase are misleading. Although referendum sponsors have pledged a student wage increase, wages will only increase by $1 per hour, a small amount compared to the money that seems to be designated toward subsidizing a bookstore and a handful of restaurants.

An annual report to the chancellor is also not enough of a guarantee against waste and mismanagement – if the enterprise wants our money, they should offer more student oversight over its expenditure. ASUCLA should publish its line-by-line financial statements, including clearly articulating what it is paying management and where it is losing money each year.

Without more information about alternative funding sources and how the money will benefit students, the referendum fails to justify its cost.

The editorial board refuses to back a blank check bailout.