Money-strapped students are familiar with the fine art of asking other people for cash, but student groups and programs that request funding from the ASUO Programs Finance Committee face a much more difficult process.
This year PFC distributed nearly $5 million in student incidental fees to more than 100 programs affiliated with the University. Each group must still attend the mandatory Programs Council Meeting today at 4 p.m. in the EMU Ben Linder Room, however, to receive information that will affect all student fee-funded programs in 2003-04.
Representatives of various student groups said the current PFC is a cut above last year’s committee, but some student groups still encountered difficulties with the fee allocation process this year.
Last year’s PFC had to conduct a series of recalls because of an accounting error of more than $500,000, and the committee was a campus favorite. Complaints about last year’s committee included everything from personal bias among PFC members, to a lack of communication between the committee and student groups, to PFC tags not meeting with programs to help them prepare their budget requests.
“There was a lot of frustration last year with the way programs were treated,” said Jackie Ray, the presenter of last year’s Panhellenic Council and Interfraternity Council’s budget. “I felt a personal bias in my hearing in regards to the greek community.”
PFC Chairwoman Kate Shull said this year’s committee members were well aware of the problems student groups voiced at the Programs Council Meeting last year, and made serious efforts to be more professional and helpful to student groups. Shull said the committee tried to present a friendlier demeanor this year because PFC had been perceived as uncaring and rude in the past. She added the committee improved communication with student groups by making sure PFC tags met with program leaders prior to their budget hearings and explained how the student fee allocation process worked.
However, the PFC did not alter its bylaws to address the complaints student groups had last year. Shull said committee members simply tried to change the way PFC interacted with fee-funded programs.
John Branam, co-director of the Black Law Student Association, said committee members were much better this year at communicating with his group about the concerns PFC had with BLSA’s budget request. He added that this made the process run smoother, and helped his group be better prepared for its hearing.
Ray said she also felt PFC maintained closer contact with student groups this year, adding that tags were used more efficiently and she met multiple times with her tag to go over her group’s budget request.
Still, many people feel PFC must continue to work on a number of problems to make the budget process fair. Ray said she felt the biggest problem this year was that student groups did not understand the reasoning behind the ASUO Executive Recommendations.
“I still don’t feel that a lot of programs understand the budget process,” Ray said.
Jeff Johnson, co-director of the Pacific Wine Law Society, said his group experienced some frustrations with the fee allocation process. Johnson said the group’s tag made the effort to meet with Pacific Wine Law Society leaders and answer the questions they had about the budget process, but he said the tag gave them inaccurate information about what the group was allowed to purchase with its fee allocation. He added there could be a problem with PFC members not knowing their own rules, and the budget process could be improved by making sure tags are better acquainted with the rules.