In the process of allocating funds during Tuesday night’s meeting, the EMU Board of Directors Budget Committee deadlocked once again over the topic of student jobs.
The committee was scheduled to decide on three budgets during the meeting — the Craft Center, EMU Facilities and EMU Administration — but it tabled the administration’s budget because the fate of four student positions and $2,000 in advertising money led to clashing fiscal philosophies and personal conflict-of-interest disputes.
EMU board member Windy Borman suggested that the board require the administration office to restrict employment to students with work study, which would save $3,375 per work study position in 2003-04. In the past, students with work study have been hired but if they lose their work study status during the year, the office retains them. Borman’s proposal required that next year, student employees who lose their work study would be let go. She argued the administration office’s ability to keep students who have lost their work study is a luxury other EMU services, such as the Cultural Forum, don’t have.
The proposal ruffled quite a few feathers, and the committee debated whether such a move was appropriate. EMU board member Christa Shively said the plan was flawed because if the idea was put into action, the committee would need to mandate that every other EMU service do the same to be fiscally responsible. EMU Board Finance Senator Brenda Tincher concurred with Shively and said Borman’s suggestion was a hasty solution. However, Tincher brought Borman’s outside loyalties into the budget discussions, echoing previous meetings this month when committee members publicly questioned each other’s actions.
“I really feel that Windy’s personal allegiance to the Cultural Forum is getting in the way of the big picture of the EMU’s health as a whole . . . it’s not a personal thing. I just feel like the big picture should be looked at more,” Tincher said.
Several members objected to Tincher voicing this criticism during a public meeting, and defended Borman. They stated that every board member has ties to other programs and Borman did an admirable job of keeping her loyalty to the Cultural Forum separate from her board responsibilities.
Committee members also debated whether to cut $2,000 from the administration budget’s global advertising budget. Shively said an employee in the administration office told her the money wasn’t being used effectively and could be put to better use elsewhere. However, other board members objected to cutting budgets based on a secondary source and wanted to maintain funding at $904,308. They argued the Budget Committee should research the issue and could go back and cut the money at Friday’s meeting if necessary.
However, the discussion led to conflicting ideas of the committee’s role in examining budgets. One member said instead of nit-picking at bits and pieces in line items, such as the $2,000 in advertising, the committee should focus on making a sweeping cut and then let the various program budget managers sort out how best to rearrange finances. Shively objected to this philosophy and advocated cutting the $2,000 immediately instead of waiting until Friday. She argued it is the committee’s job to examine each budget, line by line, to ensure every dollar is used to maximum efficiency.
The committee could not come to a consensus on whether to cut the $2,000, and voted to table the administration’s budget for Friday.
The other two budget hearings proceeded with less contention. The Craft Center received a budget of $360,976 and EMU Facilities received $1,185,056 for 2003-04.
Contact the senior news reporter at [email protected].