• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

The undergraduate student government approved the allocation of a total of more than $220,000 to various student groups and council members, bringing the number of groups who received funding to an all-time high since base-budget funding was opened up to all groups for the first time.

The budget was approved during a Aug. 24 meeting when 92 groups received funding.

After years of discussion, and the interference of the UC Office of the President, the Undergraduate Students Association Council made funding available to all groups on campus regardless of their status.

In previous years, only officially recognized student organizations were eligible to receive funding from the council. Any organization with a political or religious ideology was not able to become officially recognized, and as a result, these independent groups were not able to apply for funding.

The groups receiving the highest amount of funds this year were MEChA, the Muslim Student Association and the Asian Pacific Coalition, along with four other groups that received more than $4,000, a large sum considering that the maximum a student group could receive was $4,400.

Past councils have been accused of making more favorable allocations to groups that typically support certain councilmembers during elections. With a majority of councilmembers being from the Students First! slate and most of the highest benefactors being Students First!-supporting groups, similar accusations could emerge this year. Still, several factors such as group size and campus contribution are considered in the funding process.

The Budget Review Committee, which makes recommendations to the council, has stood by its decisions and believes that it allocated funds fairly considering the large volume of applications that had to be considered.

The committee used a point system to determine how much each group will receive.

In a number of cases, some discrepancies can be seen in regards to the number of points a group has earned and the amount of money they were allocated. These discrepancies indicate that the points a group receives during the application and hearing process do not directly correlate with the amount of money they receive.

Tracy Ohara, the budget review director, said the point system was not used on a dollar-per-point basis. Instead, the points were used to help the committee follow a downward trend when allocating funds.

Ohara added that another reason that some discrepancies exist in the allocations is that some groups did not request funding for certain line items. She gave the example of money allocated for phones. A group can get up to $800 for that specific line item, but there are a number of groups who do not have a phone line.

“That automatically made the (group’s) allocation lower,” Ohara said.

The number of groups that applied for the funds more than doubled compared to last year, and contrary to previous expectations, the added groups are not all of independent status.

Only 24 out of the 200 independent groups chose to apply – nine of which received funding.

During the meeting, USAC President Allende Palma/Saracho said the low number of the independent groups could be due to a number of reasons, the main one being the timing at which the process was opened, leading to groups not having adequate time to complete the application.

One of the independent groups who have been pushing for the funding of independent groups and successfully received funding is Bruin Republicans.

Christopher Moritz, the group’s president, believes that this is “very very positive step for UCLA” but added that the application process should be simplified.

A new issue that the council expects to address in coming months is the potential appeals of the groups denied funding. The Budget Review Committee turned down 42 groups, citing that most of these groups did not meet the minimum criteria stated in USAC bylaws.

The bylaws call for funding to be provided to groups that “provide opportunities for the educational benefits and personal and social enrichment that derive from participation in extracurricular activities” and also stimulate on-campus discussion.

An issue surrounding the process is the interpretation of the above guidelines by the committee, which led to Financial Supports Commissioner Alex Gruenberg’s abstaining from the vote to approve the budget during the meeting.

Gruenberg said that after reviewing some of the applications for the groups denied funding, he did not feel that he could fully approve the allocations. He believed that certain groups had comprehensive applications comparable to those of groups approved for funding.

Any group which chooses to appeal their allocation has two weeks from the date of the decision to do so. In order for requests to be considered, the group is required to submit a formal letter of appeals to the USAC president, internal vice president and budget review director.

Aside from student groups, USAC officers also receive their base funding through the same process.

This year’s allocations show the Internal Vice President Darren Chan receiving a surprisingly low amount considering his position.

He believes the low funding his office received is due to the way he prioritized the items on his application and not the fault of the process.