In late February, the Programs Finance Committee held a forum about reforming the student program stipend model. The forum was held in response to growing concerns that the current stipend model is flawed, allowing some student groups to increase their budgets two-fold in only one fiscal year.
But that forum would be the last time the ASUO would openly discuss stipend models; instead, they pushed the issue to the periphery because the many contentious factions within student government couldn’t bring themselves to discuss the issue openly or objectively.
Prior to the forum, the PFC had discussed stipend model reform at several meetings, and on Feb. 14 Oscar Guerra, chair of the PFC, sent out a mass e-mail outlining his views on the matter.
“I feel … it is my duty to communicate with my constituents and inform you about the detrimental consequences PFC’s decision can bring upon programs,” wrote Guerra. He also stated that the stipend model was anticipated to come to a vote after the budget hearings.
Of course, it never did.
At the Feb. 15 hearing, PFC members voted to have Guerra temporarily step down from his position – a result of his e-mail.
Interest at the eventual forum was muted, and the PFC has once again pushed stipend reform to the back burner.
For the uninitiated, stipends act as payments for the directors of student groups. A student group director, for example, receives $175 a month from the student fee. Under the current stipend model, any group with a budget of $1,000 or more is capable of receiving one stipend position from the PFC. For a student group with a budget of $1,000, this accounts for an additional $1,575 over the course of the school year – more than double the initial budget. Once a group starts receiving $6,000 or more, it is able to create a program coordinator position, which receives $125 per month, adding an extra $1,125 to the program.
Under the formerly proposed stipend model, coordinator stipends would have been cut by $25 per month and the minimum programming budget required to become eligible for a stipend position would have increased to $3,000. It was not a perfect model, but it was a good first step.
Student program directors are quick to claim that they need stipends, otherwise they will have a difficult time recruiting new members. This may be true, as stipends have become an institutionalized part of student programs. But this also neglects the fact that stipends account for a tremendous percentage of many budgets, and these groups often receive stipends without proving that they need them.
It makes no sense to reward a group that receives only $1,000 by more than doubling its budget with payments to a director. Students should want to volunteer for leadership positions and not seek financial remuneration. The incidental fee is already too high, meaning the PFC must take proactive measures to rectify this in the future. In doing so, they should accept feedback from as many students as possible, and thus make the process transparent.
Student leaders and program directors insist that stipends are not “salaries” but rather refunds to student group leaders for services rendered to their groups. But this is a hollow equivocation of the facts. Stipends are one of the leading reasons why the incidental fee continues to increase at the rate it is. Members of the ASUO insist that they want to be fiscally responsible; but, in order to do that, they need to make the tough decisions and reform the model in the future.
This will not happen if the ASUO continues to remain a fractious mess, more concerned with petty fighting, political showmanship and sidestepping accountability. If this behavior continues, then the process will never be reformed, and that is unfortunate. Guerra claims that this year’s PFC was new and needed time to learn the process, and that he and the rest of the PFC will urge next year’s PFC look at the stipend issue. However, every PFC is “new,” and no reforms will occur unless the student government believes it’s worth discussing. They need to stop passing the buck.