Last week, members of the Student Senate met with the University administration and proposed sweeping changes to the structure of the ASUO and the committees that allocate student incidental fees.
Sen. Athan Papailiou and ASUO President Emily McLain presented a proposal that would move funding of contracted services and departments out of the hands of the Programs Finance Committee.
Such changes are long overdue, and Papailiou and McLain are hardly the first members of the ASUO to say so. The idea has been floating around for years and was the topic of much discussion and debate during last year’s budget process.
As the PFC prepares for its budget season (the Senate will vote on a budget “benchmark” next week), the discussion of budget reform is more important than ever.
Each year, the Student Senate sets a benchmark for the PFC to aim for when allocating the following year’s budget. When the benchmark is low – last year, it was set at 2.5 percent – it is difficult, if not impossible, to stick to. Contracted services such as the Lane Transit District and departments such as the Student Recreation Center eat up such a large portion of the budget that student groups wind up suffering.
During last year’s budget process, big departments such as the rec center needed large budget increases just to continue to operate. Considerations such as legally mandated wage increases, equipment reserves and the cost of the state motor pool made it virtually impossible for those budgets to increase by only 2.5 percent. Because student groups do not have the same legal considerations, their budgets are unfortunately more flexible and they were given less money to make room for larger increases elsewhere.
The PFC came in at a total increase of just 2.77 percent, but that was only because the administration agreed to absorb over $100,000 of the funding of the Career Center at the last minute.
In the end, so much money went to departments (a 3.06 percent increase) and contracted services (a 6.09 percent increase) that in order for the PFC to come in remotely close to the benchmark, student groups took the hit.
Only 58 of the 108 programs overseen by the PFC received budget increases and the overall budget for student groups increased by a measly 0.24 percent. Considering that the budget comes entirely from student fees, it only seems reasonable that student groups should expect to receive a bigger piece of the pie.
A budget process that makes it so difficult for student groups to receive the funding they need is unfair to the groups, the students they serve and the PFC members who have to stick to a benchmark that is nearly impossible to meet.
We are all in favor of keeping budget increases low – none of us want to pay more in incidental fees than we have to – but the current system is in dire need of repair. Separating the big contract and department budgets from student groups would allow for separate benchmarks that keep the increases low while taking into account the very different needs of student groups.