Editor’s note: This article has been corrected from its original published form. For more information, please read the correction at the end of the story.
On Monday night, the Programs Finance Committee hosted a forum to discuss the issue of possible reform to the model currently used to award pay to the directors and program coordinators of student programs and the student government.
But out of the hundreds affected, only a few students not connected to student government showed up.
PFC Chairman Oscar Guerra scheduled the forum after a more than 40 students came to a contentious Feb. 15 meeting to discuss the issue. The students came because Guerra sent out a letter saying the PFC would vote on the issue at that meeting.
During the Feb. 15 meeting, the PFC said they would schedule the discussion. On Feb. 21 and again on Monday, Guerra sent an e-mail to programs informing them of the time and place of the forum.
While several members of the Student Senate and the PFC came to Monday night’s forum, there was a definite lack of representation from programs.
Zach Basaraba, co-director of the Survival Center; Mai Vang, resources and office management assistant coordinator for the Multicultural Center; and Richard Pryor, director of the Nontraditional Student Union and three other students were the only representatives from student programs who are not also employed by the ASUO.
Josué Peña-Juárez, gender and sexual diversity advocate for the ASUO, and Mara Ventura, the new university affairs coordinator for the ASUO, were also present and spoke on the need to make the discussions on stipends and other budget issues more accessible and transparent for student programs.
Peña-Juárez asked how programs could participate in the process of discussing stipend reform. He said he often thinks that programs need more representation so someone can give them information about when they need to go to meetings and have conversations with the PFC.
Guerra said that all meetings are open to the public but agreed that PFC members should speak directly with program directors about issues that may affect them.
Most of the discussion was spent on reform of the budget allocation process in general.
In response to a question about how the incidental fee is allocated, PFC Vice Chairman Micah Kosasa said he bases his decision on the group’s past spending patterns and fundraising.
Pryor said this is a flawed system because program leadership changes every year, but groups are punished if their past leaders are irresponsible.
PFC member Anna Blomberg agreed that it is important for the PFC to provide a human element and not look solely at numbers. She said she felt frustrated this year with having to punish groups for poor leadership in the past.
Several of those present agreed that the PFC needs more transparency because students are unfamiliar with the process.
Peña-Juárez cautioned the PFC against using the word “we” in discussions of the budget process.
“I don’t feel like I’m part of that,” he said. “Pay attention to what students you’re claiming to represent. I feel like you should really put yourself accountable for that.”
PFC programs representative Wannita Nualngam said she thinks groups don’t always utilize the PFC members and resources. She said the groups she contacted never e-mailed her or came to her office hours. Ventura is equally as frustrated.
“I am a member of 4 or 5 student unions and attend weekly meetings and no one has ever come to those meetings,” Ventura said. “Why is it so difficult to find someone who can sit down and talk to me about it?”
PFC member Matt Rose suggested creating explanatory sessions on the PFC process and presenting them at the last three Programs Council meetings of each year and again at the first three, so that the program directors come into their jobs familiar with the process.
Contact the campus and federal politics reporter at [email protected]
CORRECTION:
Because of a copy editor’s error in Wednesday’s “Student groups don’t show for PFC forum”, the Emerald misstated the number of students who attended a forum discussion on stipends. More students attended the meeting than originally reported. Five students who were not members of the ASUO attended, along with several Senators and members of the ASUO Executive. The Emerald regrets the error.