By Mohammad Mertaban

The appointed Budget Review Committee’s presentation at the Aug. 5 Undergraduate Students Association Council meeting was a clear example of the discrepancies that occurred throughout the entire process. Not only was the process ambiguous, but the outcomes do not reflect the process.

Last year, about $131,000 was available for distribution to about 42 groups. This year, about $98,000 was available to 60 groups. One would normally think every group would get a cut due to the decreased amount of funding and the increase in people receiving that funding. But is this the case? Let’s take a look at the outcomes.

Almost every group got a cut with the exception of a few groups like the Interfraternity Council and the Jewish Student Union . Is it coincidence that the former JSU president, Justin Levi, acts as budget review director the same year JSU gets a 118% increase in its budget? Although Levi claims he has “disaffiliated himself from JSU,” the outcome shows certain biases may exist. In addition, why did the IFC, an organization whose membership is limited to only a select few from the UCLA population, also get a substantial increase in its funding? These important questions must be raised so students know where their money is being spent.

In order to look back at the supposed “process” used by the BRC, a couple of points should be examined. First and foremost, the agenda which included the BRC recommendation was not available until the school day before the USAC meeting to approve these recommendations. According to the USAC bylaws, the items in the agenda must be submitted three school days before the USAC meeting. The agenda was available Aug. 2 around 5:00 p.m., and the USAC meeting was Aug. 5 at 4:00 p.m. This demonstrates a lack of preparation on the BRC’s side.

In addition, it is implied that the recommendations are supposed to be made by the BRC, not the budget review director. Anyone who was present at the USAC meeting on Aug. 5 would have noticed the BRC was not in agreement on many of the things presented. This could have been prevented had there been some kind of documentation provided for BRC meetings, but unfortunately, when asked if there were any official minutes taken at BRC meetings, Levi responded with a simple no.

The major concern and the highlight of the discussion was the BRC’s definition of size and scope. One would think the BRC reached a consensus on the definition of those terms given that it was the most important factor it considered. Unfortunately, this was not the case. At the table, there were three different definitions given by different members of the BRC.

The definition given by Levi was the number of students involved in the organization and the number of students that directly benefit from the organization. This is where pure subjectivity becomes a huge factor.

From my experience as last year’s budget review director, the decisions on allocation should be based solely on the information presented within the proposal and the hearing. When you leave it up to yourself to determine how much a group “impacts” campus, subjectivity creeps into what is ideally an objective matter. The role of the BRC is to follow the set criteria and allot funds based on those criteria. If groups don’t meet the criteria, they won’t get as much funding; if they do, then they would obviously receive more funding.

Furthermore, according to the USAC bylaws, funded groups must meet the minimum criteria required for funding. Certain groups, namely, the Chess Club and the Rally Club, did not meet the minimum criteria (as stipulated by the BRC) but were still given money that could have gone to other organizations that provide educational programming, rather than to groups who play chess when they meet. This is clearly a violation of the USAC bylaws because if a group does not meet minimum criteria, it should not receive funding.

In addition, the BRC, especially the budget review director, needs to understand its role on campus. The BRC’s accountability is to student groups, and if it is not doing a good job, students need to question its methods. This policy applies to everyone that has been appointed to work for the students because in the end, we are all accountable to them.

What this all comes down to is the appointment process that was undertaken by USAC President David Dahle. Dahle appointed Maggy Athanasious and Dria Fearn, USAC candidates who lost under the SURE slate last year, to the ASUCLA board of directors. Justin Levi, who was a losing candidate for internal vice president was appointed to budget review director.

In essence, everyone who lost on the SURE slate was given an appointed position. Students need to question those that “govern” this campus and make sure they are effectively working for the students. It is obvious from the way things are being run so far that student concerns are secondary to personal benefit.

Mertaban was last year’s budget review director.