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

The Jewish Student Union base budget appeal has once again put the process of student group funding under scrutiny. Although JSU certainly provides valuable programming to the student body and merits Undergraduate Students Association Council funding, the Judicial Board should not alter JSU’s funding status.

JSU has not proven there was any wrongdoing on the part of the Budget Review Committee, and it seems the BRC’s funding decision was largely a product of JSU’s flawed proposal and lack of communication with the BRC.

According to the USAC Web site, a base budget is intended primarily to pay for “routine” expenses, such as supplies, graphics and organization retreats. In terms of programming funding, a base budget is intended as a supplementary, rather than a primary, source of money. The initial JSU proposal did not address clearly how JSU programs and efforts would meet BRC priorities.

The BRC requires each student group to submit a proposal early in the summer and attend a hearing during which the group leaders are questioned about their spending priorities and reasons for requesting a particular amount of base budget funding.

The proposals are then assessed using a set of priorities derived from USAC bylaws and approved by the current council. This year, a point system was used to measure how well different priorities were met.

JSU received $3,242.05 out of $9,569.73 requested. The programming total of this allocation was $1,541. In September, JSU appealed to USAC to grant it more money. This appeal was denied, and the issue is now in front of the Judicial Board for final resolution.

In his Judicial Board brief, JSU President Gideon Baum argues that among the priorities set by the BRC in determining funding, areas dealing with retention and outreach “led to a severe procedural error, as well as inadvertent discrimination.”

Baum says this priority was defined “far too narrowly.” JSU feels this priority entailed a requirement for structured retention programs, which resulted in a bias. The group says several of its programs, such as a bowling night, would help serve the purpose of membership retention.

JSU also raises issues with another BRC priority: community service. The BRC priority description states a program must “provide avenues for undergraduates to serve and assist the community in addressing societal problems.”

JSU also feels this requirement is too narrowly understood by USAC. According to JSU, organizations such as Hillel and Bruins For Israel conduct off-campus service. JSU believes service is accomplished in a variety of ways, including through a program that brings kosher food into dining halls on a weekly basis and through the group’s dealings with UCLA’s administration.

Certainly, these JSU programs are not only commendable but also vital to the UCLA community, as they help serve and represent diverse communities at UCLA. Such representation is crucial to fostering understanding and identity in the campus environment.

However, it is unclear why JSU did not choose to expand on and clarify these examples in its initial funding proposal. Although the bowling program is mentioned in the proposal, it is not cited in terms of its success in outreach and retention, which is one of the priorities the BRC required. Similarly, the community service value of JSU’s work to provide kosher food to dining halls is not clearly articulated in the group’s written proposal.

Considering this omission, the BRC’s claim that JSU also failed to address fully this issue at the hearing is clearly credible. If JSU fails to articulate how a program would meet a requirement, how can the group expect the BRC to give funding reflective of a strong proposal?

It appears JSU effectively opted out of the funding process when it failed to clarify its programming goals with the BRC. As Finance Committee Chairwoman Priscilla Chen told me in an interview, the responsibility to articulate how programs meet BRC priorities lies with the individual groups and their proposals. The BRC cannot be blamed for JSU’s failure to fully communicate its programming goals.

If JSU had specific problems with the requirements of the BRC, the group had ample opportunity to raise the issue with the BRC and USAC. BRC priorities were approved by USAC two weeks before budgets were due.

During that time, JSU certainly had the opportunity to discuss the priorities with BRC or USAC. Yet JSU chose not to do so. Both prior to and at the time of the hearing, JSU did not articulate its concerns.

JSU argued, in its appeal before USAC, that this was at least partially due to difficulties in the leadership transition for the new year. According to USAC minutes, the early departure of the outgoing president harmed JSU and hindered communication during the adjustment period, preventing effective discussion about funding priorities. As a result, the issue of problems with priorities was not raised.

This argument, however, is flawed in that it expects USAC to take responsibility for internal organizational leadership problems. Guided by such a standard, every group that has leadership issues should have its funding proposals reconsidered. That would set a dangerous precedent that must be avoided for the sake of both fairness and efficiency. Hopefully, the Judicial Board will recognize the dangers of granting poorly justified appeals for significantly flawed proposals and will rule accordingly.

Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint @media.ucla.edu.