Student government leaders presented a sweeping budget reform proposal to University administration Monday night that would change the structure of how the ASUO allocates money and alter the Clark Document for the first time in 12 years.
ASUO President Emily McLain and Student Senate President Athan Papailiou presented the proposal at an annual meeting with University administration mandated by the Clark Document, which gives the ASUO the power to allocate student fees.
The proposed new structure would alter the committees that allocate student incidental fees. It would leave the Programs Finance Committee in charge of student groups and the EMU Board of Directors, which is responsible for the EMU budget, intact. However, the Athletic Department Finance Committee would become the Athletics and Contracted Services Finance Committee. This committee would negotiate contracts, such as the one with Lane Transit District. A Department Finance Committee would also be added to allocate to departments such as the Student Recreation Center.
The plan would take a year to enact. Two senate seats would have to be added, raising the total number of senators to 20. A finance senator would be added, while an extra academic senator would likely come from splitting the representative of the education and journalism schools into separate seats.
The Senate will have to pass a resolution in support of the plan, the ASUO Constitution and Clark Document will have to be amended, and a special election will need to be held in January. If all goes as planned, a new Clark Document would be signed in October 2008.
McLain and Papailiou worked together on the plan. They said it was the result of compromise and was necessary for students to retain control of student money.
At last week’s Senate meeting, both leaders were alarmed by a message from the University’s general counsel that raised the possibility of University President Dave Frohnmayer authorizing all surplus requests granted by the Senate. That message came as a result of concern about money given to a contracted service to purchase a new van.
McLain and Papailiou wrote a stern response stressing the need for students to remain in control of the allocation of student money. Having the president sign off on surplus spending would have been “a larger and more significant change than the administration was anticipating,” McLain said.
“We have a budget system that if it doesn’t get fixed, we’re at a risk of losing that control,” she said. Still, as of now, all talk of Frohnmayer authorizing spending has been halted, she said.
Papailiou said the timing is right to make the changes. Turnover in student government and politicking required during election season left the plan postponed last year, he said. McLain agreed that now is the time to work on such wide-ranging structural changes before another transition of leaders occurs.
“The compromise came from actually being able to share opinions in a not so politically charged environment,” she said.
The change that required the most compromise was the addition of new senators. According to Papailiou, some ideas had the Senate growing to 26 or 28 members.
“I don’t think we can fit in any more chairs,” he said, joking about the already cramped EMU Board Room where Senate meetings are now held.
Along with the timing being right, McLain and Papailiou argued that the plan comes with several other benefits. The interactions programs, departments and contracted services have with the finance committee would improve if the committee had more members, the leaders said.
Also, more time could be given to review and meet with departments and contracted services, which are allocated hundreds of thousands of dollars, but get a single meeting to make a case for their budgets.
After the presentation, Frohnmayer seemed to endorse the plan. He said the presentation was “lucid” and presented strong arguments for why a change was needed. It was “very well thought through,” he said.
Senate Ombudsman Patrick Boye said the most important thing to come from the presentation was “to realize that the Senate and Exec can work together to create positive change.”
[email protected]