It’s winter term again, and for many student programs, it is time to appear before the ASUO Programs Finance Committee to plead their cases for higher budgets.
The PFC hears from more than 100 University departments, contracted services and student programs and decides how much to increase (or decrease) each group’s budget for the following school year.
As of the writing of this editorial, the PFC has met two times. Two of the members, having only been appointed at the end of fall term, had never met the PFC Chairman until Monday night. So far, the group seems a bit unsure – during the first meeting, few members asked any questions or spoke during the discussion time allotted to each budget – and rather inexperienced. During both meetings, members had to be reminded of procedures such as how to make motions. We sincerely hope the members will catch on quickly and learn the ropes.
The PFC is in charge of a rather large budget – $11 million in incidental fees – and it would be daunting for anyone to take on that responsibility. But for those who choose to apply for membership, the ability to quickly learn the procedures and carefully scrutinize each budget is imperative.
This year’s PFC is in a better position than last year’s. They have a 5.5 percent target growth to work with, which should mean that student programs receive enough money to continue to provide services to students and will hopefully make up for last year’s dismally low 2.5 percent benchmark. Tight constraints led last year’s committee to waste a great deal of time debating over tiny dollar amounts.
However, the ability to be slightly more flexible with the budget does not mean the PFC should just throw money around. The group needs to find a happy medium between debating for an hour over a $20 increase and not asking any questions at all. While none of the allocations thus far have been unreasonable, the lack of discussion on Monday night made us nervous.
The Emerald, for example, has a contract that provides only for a subscription fee that makes the papers available free of cost to the University community. Historically, our budget hearings have been contentious and we have faced scrutiny from the PFC members. This year, during our hearing at the body’s first meeting, only one member asked a question. While we received the recommended amount and are not complaining, the members of the editorial board who have attended previous years’ hearings thought it strange that not even our budget raised questions.
The second meeting was far better, indicating the first night may have just been a fluke. Members asked many more questions and while Chairman Jacob Brennan repeatedly apologized for running behind schedule, it should be said that a PFC that runs behind due to careful examination of each budget is more beneficial to students than one that puts the evening’s schedule first and distributes money indiscriminately. Just because they can spend more money this year does not mean they should go overboard.
It is very early in the process to criticize the PFC, and any worries so far will probably be corrected as the members get their bearings – with four meetings per week, they should catch on quickly – but we sincerely hope this group will find a way to give programs the money they need to function while making sure not to spend any more than necessary.