Sitting through Wednesday’s Student Senate meeting was like watching an episode of “The Twilight Zone.”
The discussion of the benchmark for the Programs Finance Committee budget increase was expected to last for hours and be highly contentious.
It wasn’t. In fact, the entire meeting lasted just three hours.
Anyone who witnessed last year’s benchmark hearing – or any meeting of last year’s Senate, for that matter – would have found themselves a little confused by the efficiency displayed at Wednesday’s meeting.
Senators were respectful of one another and kept their comments germane to the discussion. They asked (mostly) thoughtful, competent questions and passed the 5.5 percent benchmark after only about an hour of discussion. It was somewhat remarkable, and the senators should be commended for their professionalism.
Unfortunately, as smoothly as the meeting went, it is difficult to say whether the 5.5 percent benchmark that was passed is a good or a bad thing.
The PFC came into the meeting requesting only a 4.8 percent increase, which committee members said was necessary to maintain the current service levels of student programs, departments and contracts. The committee’s presentation was geared toward a 4.8 percent increase, and it was fairly clear that at least that much was needed.
After some Senators said they were uncomfortable with the very small amount of the increase available for student programs – just $20,00 for more than 100 programs – a vote on a possible 6.5 percent benchmark proposed by Sen. Diego Hernandez failed. The mark that eventually passed seemed to be a compromise.
It is true that $20,000 is a minuscule amount for program increases. A problem we have pointed out in the past is that when departments and contracted services compete with student groups for money in the PFC process, student groups lose out. Last year’s benchmark of just 2.5 percent proved that.
As some senators pointed out, a system that creates a tiny benchmark one year and a large one the next (while the benchmark was 2.5 percent last year, it was 6.9 percent the previous year) is detrimental to groups who have no way of knowing which year will be the one they receive huge budget cuts and which will be the one in which they can get increases. The constant up and down of budgets makes it difficult to predict spending and sustain a certain level of service or plan programming.
While there is no data on what a 5.5 percent benchmark would do it would certainly seem to allow for more growth of student programs, which is good. Students do not want to pay more for incidental fees – as one student present said, “I’m not an ATM” – but if the budget must increase, student programs should be given increases that allow them to sustain their services and increase membership.
The system itself needs repair. Suggestions such as finding a way to use surplus funds to slow the growth of the fee or moving departments and contracts out of the PFC process have been floating around for years and should be considered. But for now, the benchmark needed to be at least as high as the proposed amount. Time will tell if 5.5 percent growth was necessary (it is entirely possible the PFC budget will come in below the benchmark in the end).