It is a post-Easter miracle. Today, the Student Senate Appropriations Committee will meet to discuss how to dispense approximately $800,000 in over-realized funds. There are two packages consisting of proposed improvements to programs or purchases for students.
Package one consists of electronic ticketing, Oregon Daily Emerald video equipment, a biodiesel initiative and biodiesel vans for the Campus Recycling, KWVA expansion, clubsports expansion, Oregon Marching Band drumline and an expanded multicultural wing for the EMU.
Package two consists of electronic ticketing for sports events, Oregon Daily Emerald video equipment, the biodiesel initiative and biodiesel vans, paying off the Recreation Center deficit, EMU equipment upgrade, paying for an issue of KD Magazine, lighted campus maps, improvements to the Duckpond Web site for alumni, the VITA program, electronic billboards, a philosophy seminar and upgrades to the McKenzie Lab.
Previously, there were 35 proposals, many of which were not worth anyone’s time. Student Senate did an admirable job of narrowing the proposals down and compiling them into two lists.
Neither package is bad, and the campus will be better off no matter what the senate chooses. Nevertheless, we feel there are more pros in package one than there are in package two.
The money must be used to fulfill long-term needs and not on programs or initiatives that might incur costs in the future, and package one does a better job of meeting student needs in the long run, a requirement for receiving surplus money. Package one includes the expansion of some much-needed student areas, such as KWVA and the Multicultural Center.
Given the stipulations, package two is deficient. Some of the proposals are interesting – including the campus map or the electronic billboards – but they are not as essential to the vast majority of students or to the future of the University as the proposals enumerated in package one. Package two also features a philosophy seminar. The seminar sounds interesting enough, but it doesn’t make sense to spend $20,000 on one speaker who will only reach the students who see the presentation. These proposals should fund projects that affect more than just a single event. Further, some of the proposals should be funded by the University itself, instead of with incidental fee money.
Surplus money cannot be redispersed to students or reinvested; thus, it must be spent on the betterment of the University in the long run. In the past, the incidental fee surplus was spent on the EMU amphitheater and the solar panels that adorn the roof of the EMU.
The $800,000 surplus is a godsend to programs that want to improve and upgrade but do not have any other avenue for financial support. By supporting these programs, we can ensure that the University remains viable to future students. The Student Senate has a difficult job ahead of it, choosing between the two packages, but it should make its decision wisely, as $800,000 does not come around every year.