Whereas, The full proposal document to institute a Student Advocacy, Governance, and Engagement (SAGE) fee, adopted by the University of California Student Association (UCSA) Board of Directors, is not a public document, easily accessible on the UCSA website; and

Whereas, The minutes for the UCSA Board of Directors meeting held on June 27th, 2015 indicate that the Board entered into a closed session in order to discuss and vote on a SAGE proposal; and

Whereas, The minutes for the UCSA Board of Directors meeting held on June 27th, 2015 do not disclose the attendance of the meeting, representing a neglect of duty by the Vice Chair of the Board at the time, who was required under Section 3.1 of the UCSA Bylaws to note this information in the minutes; and

Whereas, While the UCSA Board of Directors are not required to disclose in the minutes the vote of each Director on closed session items, the lack of this information in conjunction with the lack of attendance information for the UCSA Board of Directors meeting held on June 27th, 2015 interferes with the democratic right of students to hold their elected External/Executive Vice Presidents accountable for voting on the SAGE proposal; and

Whereas, Section 2.3 of the UCSA Bylaws states that the Board of Directors may “discuss or act” on a list of topics in a closed session, but this language is potentially superseded in item 2 of the same section which allows only for “[d]iscussion,” thereby creating doubt as to the legality of the Board’s decision to adopt the SAGE proposal; and

Whereas, Section 2.3 of the UCSA Bylaws permits, but does not mandate, the UCSA Board of Directors to enter into a closed session meeting to discuss matters relating to the organization’s budget; and

Whereas, Such an important policy decision as the SAGE proposal should have been made in open session to allow input from the general student population, as well as to increase transparency and instill greater public trust in UCSA as an organization; and

Whereas, The SAGE proposal acknowledges the necessity of input from the general UC student population but the UCSA Board of Directors did not – nor did it plan to, as the proposal document shows – involve them until after a final proposal had been adopted; and

Whereas, The SAGE proposal calls for the emendation of UC Regents’ Policy 3302, which requires that “satisfactory arrangements are made for the participation by the Regents in the financial direction of the affairs of said student body” (i.e. UCSA), causing concern that UCSA will become a less independent organization and potentially vulnerable to being defunded by action of the Regents; and

Whereas, No proposed language for an amended Regents’ Policy 3302 has been made public so that students can ensure UCSA remains an independent organization and is invulnerable to being defunded by action of the Regents; and

Whereas, No benchmarks have been publicly proposed for UCSA to meet in order to continue receiving funds under SAGE, as have been statutorily required of the SSCCC; and

Whereas, No mechanism has been proposed that would allow SAGE fee-paying students to hold UCSA accountable should their student association not be members of UCSA; and

Whereas, No proposals have been made to bring the transparency requirements of UCSA in line with the much more stringent statutory requirements of CSSA and the SSCCC6,; and

Whereas, No proposals have been made that would require the SAGE fee opt-out method be included on the same form used to collect the fee, as is statutorily required of the fee collected by SSCCC6; and

Whereas, No proposals have been made that would require the SAGE fee opt-out method be explained in clear and unambiguous terms, as is statutorily required of the fee collected by CSSA7; and

Whereas, No clear proposals have been made regarding the adoption of the SAGE fee by the students of each UC campus, including whether referenda would need to be held or not, and if so, whether each referendum would be governed by the specific policies of the relevant campus or just by UC Policy PACAOS 80.00 and whether separate referenda should be held for undergraduate and graduate students; and

Whereas, The SAGE proposal includes several different potential fee levels but there are no clear indications in that document, or in any publically available document, as to who would decide the final fee level charged to students, and no publically available documents reveal whether or not the UCSA Board approved proposing a particular fee level, and if so, which level was adopted; and

Whereas, The student governments of UC campuses are being asked to unconditionally support a “final” SAGE proposal before concrete language to institute this fee has been proposed, which curtails the rights of students and student governments to influence and approve the language that may be developed; and

Whereas, No clear plan has been proposed regarding dues to and membership in UCSA for campus associations where the student body does not pay the SAGE fee, such as in cases of the defeat of a SAGE referendum, failure to ever reach the necessary turnout required to pass the fee, failure to renew the fee after its expiration, or the passage of a referendum repealing the fee; and

Whereas, The current “pay-to-play” membership fee model of UCSA is financially unstable, unsustainable, and ethically dubious, in that it requires member student associations to pay a fee in order to have the needs and concerns of their students properly addressed; and

Whereas, Despite the claim that UCSA represents all UC students regardless of whether their student association pays dues or not, there is no mechanism for these students to effectively voice their opinions unless the Board of Directors waives the membership dues; and

Whereas, UC students deserve to be properly represented by UCSA regardless of whether their student association can afford or wishes to pay dues; therefore, let it be

Resolved, That the Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine (ASUCI), in accordance with Section 2.7 of the UCSA Bylaws, hereby objects to the decision by the UCSA Board of Directors to adopt the SAGE proposal during a closed session meeting on June 27th, 2015; and

Resolved, That ASUCI urges the graduate student association of the University of California, Irvine; the undergraduate and graduate student associations of the University of California at Berkeley, Davis, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz; and the graduate and professional student association of the University of California, San Francisco to adopt similar resolutions objecting to the UCSA Board of Directors adoption of the SAGE proposal during a closed session meeting on June 27th, 2015; and

Resolved, That ASUCI demands UCSA amend their current SAGE proposal to address the concerns stated herein or form a funding model committee that shall:

1. Be composed of members appointed by each UC student association, according to that association’s policies, including associations that are not members of UCSA;

2. Not have any members who are UCSA Directors in any capacity, whether voting or nonvoting;

3. Be charged with investigating various funding models for UCSA that adhere to the following principles:

   1. Long term financial stability and independence of UCSA,

   2. Unanimous approval of the proposed UCSA funding model by all 10 University of California campuses,

   3. Accountability mechanisms and greater direct participation by the general student population in how their fees are used,

   4. Standards of transparency and effectiveness in order to continue receiving funds,

   5. Adopting generally accepted accounting and financial disclosure practices,

   6. Regular auditing by an outside agency,

   7. Regular budget reports disseminated to student governments and publically posted on the UCSA website,

4. Recommend the best models to the UCSA Board of Directors for referral to the next Student Congress, which will recommend one model to go to a referendum;

5. Be empowered to recommend amendments of the UCSA Bylaws and/or Charter as deemed necessary for the funding models to adhere to the principles outlined above;

6. Conduct all business in open, public meetings, with reasonable efforts made to include the general UC student population in all deliberations;

7. Publicly release on the UCSA website the agendas, meeting minutes, reports of discussions, and any other documents used by the committee in making their recommendations in order to increase transparency and allow UC students to become informed of the conversations occurring at board meetings;

Resolved, That the ASUCI Legislative Council requests that the ASUCI Executive Vice President introduce a resolution to the UCSA Board of Directors as soon as possible that would create the funding model committee; and

Resolved, That the ASUCI Legislative Council requests that the ASUCI Executive Vice President introduce amendments to the UCSA Bylaws and/or any modified Regents’ Policy 3302 which may be presented, that would establish benchmarks of performance, higher standards of transparency, and greater methods of accountability as a condition of receiving SAGE fee funds, should UCSA continue with the current SAGE proposal.

[1]  http://ucsa.org/ucsaprod/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/June2015Minutes.pdf

[2] http://ucsa.org/ucsaprod/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UCSABylaws.pdf 

[3] http://ucsa.org/ucsaprod/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UCSABylaws.pdf

[4] http://ucsa.org/ucsaprod/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UCSABylaws.pdf

[5] http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/governance/policies/3302.html

[6] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&sectionNum=76060.5.

[7] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division=8.&title=3.&part=55.&chapter=3.&article=1.5.

[8] http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2710528

[9] http://ucsa.org/ucsaprod/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UCSABylaws.pdf