By Justin Levi
This year the Budget Review Committee was faced with two monumental challenges. First, it had roughly $30,000 less in base budget funds to allocate than last year. Secondly, it was confronted with the task of creating a system which would eliminate huge disparities in the allocations to similar groups.
To solve these problems the BRC created the category system. It’s a system in which groups are placed in certain categories based on their size and scope. This helped the committee allocate similar funds to “groups in similar circumstances,” which it is bound to do by ASUCLA bylaws.
Although certain members of USAC claimed they were dismayed by this process, it was quite clear to anyone in the meeting two weeks ago that the primary motivation to steamroll the budget was politics. Last year the seven most highly funded groups received nearly 65 percent of the entire budget. The process was highly subjective, the methodology was suspect, and no concrete rating system was used. It was an arbitrary process that was subject to the biased whims of a politically stacked committee.
In addition, nine groups were not funded at all. The excuse was that the groups did not “stimulate on-campus discussion and debate” but this defense is problematic.
Under the new process, the BRC considered such factors as group membership, the number of students benefiting from its programming, and an estimate of the size of the community represented by the group. We also considered each organization’s historical contribution to campus life. Groups were required to address all these factors in both the initial budget proposal as well as the budget hearing.
Within each category, groups were ranked based on the aggregate score of all the members of the budget review committee, which looked at the group proposals as well as budget presentations. A group’s rank within each category ultimately determined the total amount of the group’s allocation.
The result was a far more balanced budget allocation. The 10 most highly funded groups received roughly 30 percent of the total available budget this year and only two groups were denied funding because their proposals were submitted late.
This system was created to decrease the arbitrary nature of the funding process and to ensure that groups in similar circumstances were given the same consideration, something that has not happened in past years.
Last year’s Budget Review Director Mohammed Mertaban claims the drastic discrepancies in last year’s allocations occurred because some six or seven groups simply had vastly superior proposals (“New budget process vague, raises questions,” Aug. 12, 2002). But superior proposals are the result of years of unequal allocations. If a group continues to receive huge allocations year after year of course its programs will be more successful, more widely attended and broader in scope, which will result in an impressive proposal. In contrast, groups regularly shut out of the funds will have a harder time programming and subsequently will have a less impressive budget proposal. This type of reasoning allows certain groups to perpetually receive a disproportionate piece of the pie while other organizations don’t even get a chance at increased funding.
Even if Mertaban’s statement was true, it wouldn’t apply this year because many groups had impressive proposals. In fact, if the committee hadn’t used the category system this year, many of the highly funded groups from last year would have received even less funding. The categories are a way to account for the history of a group’s contribution to the UCLA community.
Any opposition to the budget this year is solely based on politics. Certain interest groups did not receive the funding they were expecting, and they are understandably upset. However, as I have said before, whenever you go from an unfair system to a fair one, you have to expect dramatic changes. The BRC must evaluate all groups fairly and try its best to decrease the amount of subjectivity inherent in any funding process.
USAC is to debate this budget again on Aug. 26. I call on all students to hold their representatives accountable so fairness is brought back to the process. As budget review director, I am not about to the let the committee become a rubber stamp for last year’s farcical excuse for a budget process.
Levi is a fourth-year political science student and this year’s budget review director.