The recent delays and budget overruns in the construction of the University Centers Expansion — paid for by student fees — have again made it clear that there are some serious problems with the way UCSD students’ money is being handled. Weather-related problems are unavoidable, but they provide an opportunity to more closely scrutinize how the rest of our fees are being spent.

Built 10 years ago, RIMAC was heralded as a necessary improvement to the campus. A venue for concerts and events, and a world-class athletics facility, RIMAC would put UCSD on the map and give a new home to our then-Division III athletics.

Ten years later, the $92 quarterly fee that paid for its construction is still being assessed to every student, every quarter.

Also completed more than a decade ago, Price Center was funded in part by a $37.50 fee paid by every graduate and undergraduate student every quarter. As with the RIMAC fee, students still pay the $37.50 University Center fee three times per year.

Despite the fact that students pay for Price Center, pay for RIMAC and will pay for the future expanded University Centers, they still do not have real control over them. Nor do they have any assurances that the buildings will be run as intended, or that the administration won’t come begging for more money later on.

A large portion of Price Center office space, for example, is allocated to UCSD administrators and staff. Ask student organization leaders what they would like to see done with half of Price Center’s second floor. They will not say, “Give it to UCSD Catering and a couple of administrators.” The building, paid for by the students, is not being used in the best interests of the students.

This, despite the fact that we have an allegedly student-dominated board running Price Center, Student Center and related entities: the University Centers Advisory Board. This board is purely advisory, since University Centers Director Gary Ratcliff, among other administrators, has the power to overrule any UCAB action. He does not often overrule the board, but that is only because UCAB usually operates within parameters he finds acceptable. Should UCAB ever stray from the overarching vision of the administration, it would find itself dissolved, rendered irrelevant or overruled — as it did in the early 1990s, when it tried to fire its adviser and was summarily “de-established.”

UCAB is one of the primary examples of how undemocratically our fees are spent. UCAB’s annual budget greatly exceeds that of the student government: Every quarter we pay $37.50 to UCAB, but only $21 to A.S. Council. With the income from the food vendors, the board’s annual budget grows to a few million dollars. All this money, and not a single member of UCAB is directly elected by the students. Each college council and a couple of special-interest groups, like the Student Affirmative Action Committee, have a representative on the board, but the student body as a whole has no elected representatives.

But at least students have some control over how the University Centers Fee is spent. No similar “RIMAC Advisory Committee” gives input on the expenditure of the $92 quarterly RIMAC fee.

The biggest problem with UCAB is its slowness to act. UCAB should make sure that Price Center businesses that profit from our student fees are following the law and keeping their promises.

When Panda Express originally moved to Price Center, it was supposed to sell food by the ounce. A student could walk into Panda with any amount of money in his pocket, and be able to buy at least some amount of food. This Panda policy, advertised in the University Centers insert that often appears in the Guardian, was one of the reasons Panda was chosen over other potential restaurants. Once moved in, however, Panda went back on its word, refusing to sell food by the ounce. Instead of saving students money, Panda Express now ranks as one of more expensive vendors in Price Center.

Another violation is the common practice of charging a transaction fee for credit card purchases under three or four dollars. It is an illegal violation of the merchant’s agreement with VISA. Most merchants apparently don’t read the agreement, since overcharging is so widespread, but it clearly requires them to “Always treat VISA transactions like any other transaction; that is, you may not charge any surcharge on a Visa transaction.” The agreement, available at http://usa.visa.com, declares that “imposing minimum or maximum purchase amounts is a violation” of the merchant agreement. Shogun imposes a transaction fee, which ends up costing the student body thousands of dollars over the course of a year. It would be a small matter for UCAB to notify VISA of this vendor’s non-compliance.

Some day, the administration will want to raise student fees again, to construct another building or refurbish existing ones. When that happens, students should think twice. Student-run oversight boards are only advisory. Fees do not disappear overnight.