In her tenure as executive director of the Associated Students of UCLA, Patricia Eastman led one of the country’s largest student enterprises from near financial ruin to relative stability. But ASUCLA’s student-majority board of directors would be remiss to choose a new executive director who would not consider serious financial reform for the association – including the possibility of raising student union fees.
Eastman was brought to ASUCLA as part of a recovery team charged with saving an enterprise facing bankruptcy. A $20 million loan from then-Chancellor Charles Young saved ASUCLA and helped pay for much-needed renovations to Ackerman Union. ASUCLA agreed that the administration would approve its financial decisions until the loan is paid in full. Additionally, an emergency $43 student union fee increase was levied on students to move their student association toward recovery.
The problems of the mid-1990s were a threat to ASUCLA’s uniqueness. Few student-run enterprises are responsible for so much: ASUCLA controls trademarking and licensing of the UCLA logo and oversees campus eateries, stores and textbook sales. Both student governments and student media fall under ASUCLA’s umbrella. At most universities, administrations run many of the services that instead fall under the ASUCLA umbrella at UCLA. Still, since its creation in 1919, ASUCLA has kept its independence.
Under Eastman’s leadership, the association climbed out of the red, posting net incomes of $2.8 million in 2001 and $2.1 million in 2002. During the spring of 2002, it became clear that 2003 would not be as promising. The emergency fee expired and the association was charged to find a way to take out roughly $700,000 from its business model after dozens of non-student food employees won the right to unionize.
After indications that the association might find itself back in the red throughout the spring of 2003, ASUCLA ended with a $557,000 net gain. The gain largely was due to surprising computer store sales.
But other areas suffered. In 2003, ASUCLA’s restaurants, BearWear and textbook sales have not been as good as predicted. And, unless computer sales stay high – unlikely, as students can buy personalized computers for cheaper online or from outlets – ASUCLA may have difficulty posting even moderate net gains. Although in better shape than during the mid-1990s, ASUCLA’s finances are still somewhat unsettling: BearWear and concessions sales fluctuate depending on how well UCLA’s sports teams do. Were it not for just five events throughout the year – the UCLA Store’s Halloween sale, Valentine’s Day sale, Dads and Grads sale, the Mercedes-Benz tennis tournament, and The Los Angeles Times Festival of Books – the association would be operating with huge losses.
Whereas students at most universities pay high student union fees, sometimes more than $100, UCLA students only pay $7.50. That small amount of money essentially is invested in a variety of businesses whose revenue is relied upon for student services. Thus ASUCLA’s ability to serve students can be hampered seriously by slowdowns in consumer spending. For example, when faced with the costs of unionizing workers, ASUCLA allocated a smaller amount of money for both student governments.
Whoever replaces Eastman will have to make the association’s finances the top priority, just as Eastman did. Depending on the association’s outlook halfway through this year, the executive director should perhaps endorse the potentially unpopular idea of raising student union fees – an option which appears to have been abandoned by the board of directors for this year.
The UC Regents unfairly slapped students with massive student fee increases after the state of California failed to fund the UC adequately. But student union fees more directly benefit UCLA students and have never been permanently raised – ever.
Furthermore, if ASUCLA, under its current business model, again endures problems like it did in the mid-1990s, its independence from the administration could be threatened. That would be far more harmful to UCLA students than would a small increase to what now is an incredibly small student union fee.