Efforts by the Programs Finance Committee members to start a dialogue and a possible vote on revising the stipend model – the model by which program directors and student government officials are compensated monetarily – were curtailed when more than 40 students crowded into the PFC meeting Thursday to object to proposed changes.
Having already finished with roughly two-thirds of budget review processes, the PFC has been working to revise the model for awarding stipend positions to programs. While PFC members say the current model was built on arbitrary guidelines and is in dire need of revision, many student programs view the effort to revise the model as another push to cut their budgets.
Among other changes, the proposed revision would reduce director and program coordinator stipend positions by $25 per month. In addition, the revision would raise the minimum programming budget required for a program to be eligible for a stipend position from $1,000 to at least $3,000, which could eliminate the stipend positions for approximately seven programs.
PFC members argue that under current rules, many poorly managed groups were still eligible for a stipend position, despite having been penalized by the PFC members for improper use of funds or a lack of independent fundraising. Members have noticed problems with the current stipend model since their first meetings, said PFC member Matt Rose. “You have a $1,000 in programming and you’re getting $1,500 more in funding for stipends – that’s the problem.” As students vented their frustrations at the meeting, the discussion moved from being focused on stipend revision to becoming a broader forum on the consistent budget cuts in programs and other problems with the PFC process.
The students attended the meeting largely because of an e-mail from PFC Chairman Oscar Guerra, which brusquely outlined the reduction the proposed changes would have on stipend positions.
“I feel, as a PFC member and Chair of PFC, it is my duty to communicate with my constituents and inform you about the detrimental consequences PFC’s decision can bring upon programs,” the e-mail said.
The e-mail encouraged staff and students from various campus programs to attend the meeting. Nonetheless, PFC members looked surprised when a mass of students crowded shoulder to shoulder in the small EMU Board Room.
At the beginning of the meeting there was some confusion among PFC members whether the stipend model would actually come to vote that evening. Guerra pointed out that the PFC agreed at its Tuesday meeting to vote on the model; however, PFC members Matt Rose and Chii-San SunOwen argued that they only agreed to discuss it.
This resulted in Rose making a motion to have Guerra step down temporarily as chairman for the rest of the meeting.
“I feel that you, Oscar, won’t be an impartial chair based on the actions leading up to this meeting,” said Rose after making the motion, which was approved by the other members.
Instead, PFC Vice-Chair Micah Kosasa led the meeting, which moved from a discussion on the stipend revisions to becoming a broad discussion of problems with the budgetary process.
Several attendees said they were frustrated by the budget reductions caused by the PFC budget goal of an overall 2.5 percent increase and also because the PFC budget review process was difficult for outsiders to understand.
“I want to echo the sentiment of transparency within Senate and PFC,” said family and human services major Kari Herinckx. “A lot of us within the unions aren’t familiar with the process and find it intimidating to come on these circumstances and to seek out more information.”
Many students also criticized the PFC for trying to rush through the stipend model revisions, which they suggested was intended to avoid student oversight.
ASUO Controller Carie Henderson disagreed.
“Being a part of the ASUO for five years now, I am excited to see a PFC and a Senate who are willing to sit down and make a change that’s not just some fix of the moment,” she said.
Noting that any changes to the stipend model needed further input from the student programs, Rose made a motion to table the revisions indefinitely, effectively ending any chance of passing a revision that evening. The motion was approved unanimously.
“Reform is going to happen because there’s a lot of flaws in the PFC process,” said Rose. “But this is not the night when that would happen.”
Guerra said he would schedule a forum to discuss the stipend model with student groups. He said he would announce the time and place in an e-mail sometime this week.
The tense discussions boiled over when talks of scheduling another meeting frustrated ethnic studies major Ty Schwoeffermann, who burst out, “This is the fucking forum! Have this discussion right now, man!”
He was promptly asked to leave.
Without motioning for an official vote, Rose assured those in attendance that if any stipend model changes are made, they will not take effect until academic year 2008-09.
“But we did not make that binding,” Kosasa quickly added.