Bush Fund Issue Involves Power StruggleLet me tell you something about the Bush Fund. I know a little bit about it because I was Undergraduate Association president 18 years ago (1975-76), and UA vice president and a Finboard member during the year before that. My view is admittedly biased, but it does have perspective.
The Bush fund, to my knowledge, has always been a discretionary fund used by the UAP. Some have donated it back to the Institute; some have folded it into the budget, I lived off it when I was UAP because being UAP totally eliminated any time I would have for a student job.
I don't remember ever hearing about it until after I was elected. I was close to the previous three UAP's so I believe that they purposely did not mention it to me. I purposely did not mention it to the succeeding candidates during my term. I think we avoided quite a few money-seekers that way. Too bad that's over now.
The Bush fund has allowed UAP's to make contributions over the years (either with the money or with their time) that they otherwise would not have been able to make. It was chartered specifically for the UAP, meaning it is not administered by Finboard (at least not when I was UAP) and is not subject to re-allocation by the UA.
I don't think this is about the Bush fund, really. It sounds to me like this kind of controversy would have happened even if there were no Bush fund. During the years that I was involved in the UA, we sometimes had similar conflicts about power and communication. By the end of the year we barely learned the Big Lesson: that the time passes quickly and you can spend you energy either positioning among your peers or making a worthwhile contribution. You really don't have time to do both.
Lee Allen G