In a political climate of scandal, transparency and accountability to our student body are two principles that the Student Sustainability Collective (SSC) values highly. In Gianino’s op-ed piece “The 5.2 Million Dollar Question”, accusations were leveled against the SSC to paint a picture of irresponsible spending, selfish stipends and corrupt conduct.
We take these accusations seriously and want to address each of them with care and thought. Constructive criticism is always welcome; this year has been a year of change for the collective and for our structure and goals. This is an opportunity to shape a new structure that will work best for students and for our campus – we want to work better for you, the students.
The first claim in the article is our spending does not “have any oversight….because of the referendum lock-in and organizational chaos”. We are held accountable to AS and have been working closely with both President Daniel Juarez and Financial Controller Justin Pennish on revising the charter and structure since spring of 2016. The charter has not been changed since 2010, an oversight that the SSC takes responsibility for; regardless, the charter must continue to change as the collective evolves. Our goals are to improve fiscal sustainability, creating a structure that will ensure accountability to invested parties such as sustainability organizations, and working on transparency through our website and social media.
The second claim is that the SSC has irresponsibly and illegally spent money on airfare. While the SSC functions as an independent commission from AS, it abides by AS funding guidelines. To quote from the official AS funding guidelines for 2016, funding is allowed for “event[s] if the mission of the event falls within the funding principles of A.S….include: competition and registration fees, lodging, transportation from a third-party vendor (ex. airfare, bus).” Furthermore, the SSC went through a strict process of purchasing tickets through our AS advisor – had there truly been a legality issue with this, it would have been noted long ago.
The collective sent four directors to Berkeley, California for Powershift, a conference on social activism and climate change. Expenditures of $1730.33 included airfare, car rental, gas money, parking fees, and conference registration. The conference mission aligns with the environmental and social justice principles of the SSC; our four directors came back with more knowledge of local environmental issues and strategies for grassroots organization. Other typical expenditures for the collective are event-related spending on food and marketing; investments into campus infrastructure like bike fix-it and hydration stations; and TGIF grants.
The third claim is that “$64,200…almost a third of their budget, is used for student stipends while only $28,719, roughly 13 percent, is used for external operation.” The budget breakdown shows that TGIF (The Green Initiative Fund, a pool of money available for sustainable student projects) funds are unaccounted for. About 50% of our funding goes back to students both directly through TGIF and programming events as well as indirectly through work on core campaigns. The remaining amount is split between 20% to career staff at UCSD while the remaining 30% is allocated for student stipends.* To discount TGIF is to discount a huge part of what makes sustainable student projects possible at UCSD. We have a large number of “green-oriented” projects and sustainable student organizations that take advantage of these funds, such as Engineers for a Sustainable World. Sustainability is highly visible at UCSD, as can be seen in projects like the solar umbrellas in Price Center and the first few hydration stations on campus. Policy-driven initiatives are the core of our work and do not cost money to the students besides student stipends supporting the directors.
The fourth claim is that the collective’s student stipends are too high. While we acknowledge the seeming disparity in pay and responsibility, we operate on the principle of fair wages. All directors are expected to work 15 to 20 hours per week. At $120 per week, we are paid anywhere from $6 to $8 per hour. The minimum wage for UCSD contract employees $13, while the minimum wage in San Diego County is currently $11.50. By either standard, $120 per week is below this and is thus termed a stipend. A discussion of our work and its worth on this campus is an entirely separate discussion, which the SSC welcomes as well.
We hope that you will consider the information given here and form your own conclusions on the ethics and accountability of the Student Sustainability Collective. We consider it a great responsibility to use student fees, and we aim for our campaigns, policy initiatives and programming events to reflect the wants and desires of the student body. We want a dialogue not only about sustainability, but about building a sustainable relationship with you.
*Please note that the budget has been updated since the writing of Gianino’s article to reflect the departure of two of our directors, putting us at 16 instead of 18.
If you have questions, concerns, or want to learn more about the SSC, please visit our website, come to our office hours in the Sustainability Resource Center near Price Center Theater on Mondays – Fridays from 9 am to 5 pm, or email us at sscucsd@gmail.com.
This piece was written collectively by the Student Sustainability Center and the positions stated here do not necessarily represent the opinions of The Triton, any of its members, or any of its affiliates.
We welcome responses to opinion pieces. If you’d like for us to publish a response, please do so here. If you’d like to comment on a different issue affecting the UCSD or UC community, you may also so here.