All student groups are equal, but the Undergraduate Students
Association Council funding process makes some groups more equal
than others. While the budgeting process has been touted as
“consistent” and “standardized,” as a USAC
general representative I can no longer support that contention.
Two weeks ago, Brian Neesby, my chief of staff, and I were
stunned as we reworked the numbers for the beginning of the year
budget allocations. Delving deep into the dollars and cents of
inequitable allocations, a picture of the process emerged in which
student fees were being divvied out along clearly political lines
in cleverly subtle ways.
The process that was purported to work one way in fact worked
quite another, and in my view, truly equal access was compromised
for the sake of political advantage.
Here’s how it was supposed to work: A group would apply
for base budget funds; that group would then be evaluated by a
points system using standardized criteria; money would then be
allocated to that student group based upon the number of points
earned. The greater score a group earned, the more money it would
receive.
The assumption on the part of many, students and representatives
alike, was that the points earned had a direct bearing on the
dollar values allocated. Unfortunately, this was not at all the
case.
How it really is: While each point was earned in the same manner
under the same criteria applied to every group, some points were
more valuable than others when it came to money distribution. A
group would earn points for their application and presentation, but
were unfortunately given inconsistent compensation for those
points.
For example, a single point varied in value from $42.33 per
point (Cultural Affairs Commission) to $4.79 per point (Le Cercle
Francophone). Thus, while all groups were led to believe that their
efforts in accumulating points would be equally rewarded, this
perception could not have been further from reality. In fact, even
if two groups (e.g. Cultural Affairs Commission and Le Cercle
Francophone) were to earn the exact same score of 152 points, there
would still be a $5,706 disparity between them.
This inconsistency blatantly contradicts the entire reason that
a point-based process was established in the first place, and is
anything but fair and objective.
This biased variation led us to examine the dollar-to-point
correlation in terms of an “exchange rate.” The lack of
a fixed rate for any given point can be clearly seen in a graph
where each group receiving a base budget represents one bar.
Even worse, we found these inconsistent “exchange
rates” were sharply drawn down the lines of political
alliance and affiliation. For instance, any given point earned by a
student representative affiliated with the Students First! slate
was worth an average of $40.14 per point. However, the average for
a Students United for Reform and Equality representative (an
organization of which I was formerly a member) was $27.56 per
point.
The same points were earned, but something happened between the
score evaluation and the distribution of funds. Among USAC
Sponsored Groups that endorsed a majority of Students First!
candidates during last spring’s election, each group averaged
an allocation of $40.44 per point, while those that did not endorse
SF! averaged only $28.56 per point.
These and other figures ““ which both Neesby and myself
filed with the Judicial Board ““ should prompt all of us to
re-evaluate our support for such a politically corrupt process and
call for truly equal access to funding.
The process as it has been used is unfair, and at its very root
violates the spirit of tolerance and equality that my office has
tried to make permanent at council this year.
We cannot allow politics as usual to define the parameters of
what we can become. This year’s budget only proves that there
are still many who haven’t gotten the message that equal
access is what this campus is about. My office will continue to
call for change and hold USAC accountable, and will relay that
message loud and clear.
Lawson is a USAC general representative.