The Student Senate decided against voting on packages for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in over-realized incidental fee money Wednesday night, opting to wait until all the senators could review the proposals, despite having more than five weeks to do so.
When discussion of the over-realized packages, which comprise several different proposals for spending the money, began, senators could not agree on whether they were allowed to make changes to the packages during the meeting, and several expressed reservations with the contents of the packages.
Although Senate Bill 23, passed earlier in the year, outlined the procedure for deciding on how to spend the money, senators disagreed on interpretations of the bill and whether it would even be valid if they did not make a decision that night.
“This bill has ruined my life,” Appropriations Committee Chairman Jacob Daniels joked at the end of the meeting.
Early in the school year, the Senate created an appropriations committee and charged it with deciding on how to spend the money, which came from student fee money left over when enrollment was higher than projected. This fund has been growing for several years.
The committee accepted proposals from the campus community beginning winter term and has met every Sunday since then. It narrowed more than 70 original proposals down to 35 that were sponsored by members of the committee. Committee members then ranked their favorite proposals and two packages were put together, each containing capital projects (such as construction on campus buildings) and proposals from student programs.
Although there is close to $800,000 in the fund (the number changes each term because of changes in enrollment), the packages are both worth less than $700,000 because the appropriations committee wanted to leave a “buffer” in the fund. One of the two is worth $657,695 and the other is for $646,589.
Although several Senators expressed concerns that some of the proposals in the packages were not an appropriate use of over-realized funds, others said they should accept that some things aren’t popular but should be considered anyway.
“Oatmeal isn’t popular but it’s still good for you,” Sen. Micah Kosasasaid.
Daniels suggested either voting the packages down or passing them in their entirety. He said the people who wrote the proposals were not there to defend them if the packages were shuffled around, and that it would be unfair to make changes without that representation.
Some senators, including Daniels, suggested that there is no reason to rush such an important decision and said they would pass the responsibility to the incoming Senate if necessary.
Others decried that suggestion and said it is this Senate’s responsibility to make a decision.
“We can get this done before the next Senate,” Sen. Jacqueline Justice said. “(If we don’t) we’d just be another Senate that hasn’t accomplished anything.”
Sen. Nate Gulley echoed that sentiment, saying there won’t be a “golden solution” to the problem by the next meeting and that this Senate needs to make a decision.
“We’re going to have to make that call,” he said.
In the end, the Senate decided to review the proposals and voice their concerns by next Sunday’s appropriations committee meeting, and they will decide from there whether to vote on the packages.
Contact the campus and federal politics reporter at [email protected]