The ASUO Senate went ahead and increased stipend amounts for most of its positions last Wednesday,@@a few? it seemed like much more to me, based on the news stories we ran. added “quite a”@@ primarily those of the Executive and associated staff. Although I understand the logic to these increases and do support them, I cannot accept these new reforms in good faith as they stand and neither should you.
It is imperative to acknowledge that these higher positions take a lot of time and effort to do properly, and those who are doing what they’ve been elected to do should be properly compensated. Yet let’s not confuse the motivation for students to seek these positions. Money, while important, shouldn’t be the primary factor for someone wanting to get involved with student groups or government.
But almost anyone who has had a job knows that some people show up ready and willing to work, some people just show up and others are too hungover to even do that.
In my correspondence with Sen. Lindy Mabuya,@@http://directory.uoregon.edu/telecom/directory.jsp?p=findpeople%2Ffind_results&m=student&d=person&b=name&s=Lindy+Mabuya@@ it became clear that these same issues are on the minds of at least some of the senators. She believes that members of the Executive board need to be held to the same standards that are applied to the president and vice president. She even goes on to say that “those that don’t work hard … make it seem as if the Executive team is a babble of positions to advocate for this and advocate for that, yet the community members represented by that advocate feel as if very little is being done.”
If this is the case, then all that this reform has done is allow the incompetent or unmotivated members of the board to piggyback on those who take pride in their work and accomplish objectives. Nobody enjoys working with lazy or unmotivated people, nor should they. Outside this little bubble of campus, in the “real world,” pay is usually based on performance and effort. As an individual who is essentially helping cut these people checks every quarter with the fees I pay, I shouldn’t have to stress the importance of how this reform fails to address the entire issue.
Mabuya proposes a simple solution: “individual stipend positions.”@@what does this mean?@@ Yet during Wednesday’s meeting, there was no mention of such a common-sense solution. Again, what I’ve heard from my real-world contacts is that although pay is usually based on position, employers tend to take into account past experience and demonstrable skills when doling out money.
It is mind-boggling, then, that such a simple solution hasn’t been implemented. Fortunately, these increases aren’t scheduled to take place until next year, giving everyone an opportunity to re-examine the stipend model once again.
The other big issue that clearly needs to be revised is the role of programs and how much they are receiving — or rather, the method in which they are receiving them.
The role of “program director” has been abolished, and now programs are dealt a lump sum. The working theory is that program members can then decide how to divide it up amongst themselves. On paper it actually sounds pretty good, right? But like many things in this world, what works on paper doesn’t always translate well into application.
As the recent financial crisis has shown us, you can never underestimate the greed of your fellow human beings — especially cash-strapped college students that sell back books for pennies on the dollar just to recoup some money (that is then usually spent on alcohol, but I digress).
Some sort of checks and balances need to be introduced to prevent this type of scenario from taking place. But aside from just having a method of recourse instituted, it must not be reactionary: It shouldn’t take an unscrupulous “director” to have grievances brought against him or her for any action to take place. Instead, head off this type of behavior before it starts.
This isn’t some doom-and-gloom scenario either; there are already stipends being doled out to people who don’t need it but still collect. Stipends are going up for all eligible programs, and those stipends are delivered wholesale to some people who have already demonstrated their capacity to claim what isn’t needed.
As indicated by my fellow editorial members last week, it’s clear that reforms needed to occur, and that ASUO was the appropriate route for initiating such reform. But they fall far from the mark in these initial reforms.@@live and learn — trial and error@@
Thankfully for both the ASUO and the student body, there is still plenty of school year left and maybe, just maybe, they’ll realize the obvious shortcomings of this current model.
Saldana: Stipend increases not all good
Daily Emerald
November 6, 2011
More to Discover