Forty-four students discussed, debated and voted during a Wednesday meeting last January, deciding how much money to give 30 designated student organizations for the semester. The funds these students disbursed did not come from grants, fundraisers or even their own pockets. The money came from us, the more than 4,400 undergraduate students who attend ACU.
The Students’ Association Congress budget of $75,000 comes from a portion of the $70 student activity fee each student pays every semester. Traditionally, the students on Congress are responsible for choosing how to divvy up other students’ funds, although this year the student body voted for less than half of these “representatives.”
Even if all 44 Congress members gained their seats through the democratic process of election, such a small number cannot fully consider everyone’s interests as they pick and choose projects to fund for numerous student organizations. Some Congress members do try to fairly represent their constituents, but human bias, subjectivity, limited viewpoints and a lack of time hinder them.
For such reasons, SA Congress should not be the final say on our money; it should not decide how half our student activity fee is spent. We, the students, should make that decision. We, as the student body, have a firmer grasp on how we want our money used versus a small group that thinks it knows how we want our money used.
To fully understand how current Congress members handle such an immense responsibility as deciding the funds for 30-40 student groups each semester, consider the budget process. Congress members do not see the proposed budget until the designated Wednesday SA Congress meeting. Once the treasurer passes out several paper copies of the budget, members gather in groups to share and read the copies. They then have about 15-20 minutes to glance through the more than 40-page document. After their allotted time passes, members can make amendments to the budget or question the treasurer’s financial decisions.
In past years, the treasurer sometimes has made the proposed budget available to Congress members before the Wednesday meeting, but these occasions show most members do not take advantage of the extra time by fully analyzing the budget.
The treasurer could distribute the proposed budget during one meeting and Congress members could vote on the budget at the next, but student organizations already find it troublesome to wait for the budget’s approval almost two weeks after the semester begins. Adding another week would cause more hassle for the groups that immediately need the funds.
Although the Wednesday budget meeting can run for almost three hours, most of the time is spent in debating concerns for only a few student groups.
The allotted funds for the majority of student organizations are never changed, questioned or mentioned. A noticeable parallel exists between the groups that do receive vocal attention and the Congress members who are involved in these same groups. Essentially, the whole process shows almost absolute trust in the treasurer’s original decisions, unless members have a stake in certain organizations.
For example, no Congress member is in Mu Phi Epsilon, a group that received 12 percent of its requested funds, but a couple are in Student Training and Research, a group that received 100 percent of its requested funds.
The select students on SA Congress cannot satisfactorily disburse collected funds to student groups because they cannot fully know the value of each group, the reasoning behind each request and the will of the groups’ members. Unless each group talks with Congress members on a personal basis, members are not likely to fight for the needs of these groups, especially if they have no personal involvement. Instead, every student who pays the student activity fee should decide how to spend this money.
Finding how more than 4,000 people want to spend their money can be a daunting task, but it really is not a harebrained idea. One way to accomplish this is for students to fill out a survey at the beginning of each semester, listing groups they want their fees to financially help. Every student would have a voice in this decision. Student organizations with more members would receive more funds, reflecting the larger amount of student activity fees their members give. Every student would count as a percentage vote, so the funds from students who choose not to fill out the survey do not go to waste. Nonparticipating students are not considered in the overall percentage.
Although this survey method could hurt small or new organizations, an easy solution would fix this problem. SA Congress may not be the best body to divvy a large portion of the student budget, but its Appropriations Committee usually does a wonderful job in its role: allotting small funds to individuals or groups. This committee is a select group of Congress members who listen to funding appeals on a more personal basis. These members meet with the students requesting money and ask them questions about their requests. They fully understand the needs and reasons behind the requests before deciding how much, if any, money to give. What better group to be steward to a portion of the student funds? If such a group could meet with every student organization that asks for money from the budget, then a school-wide survey would not be needed. But such a move is unlikely because Congress members are students too and have busy class and work schedules. Instead, allow students to choose how to split the funds and give a small amount from the student activity fees to the Appropriations Committee, so new or small organizations that face financial difficulties can approach the committee for help.
Congress members, if you desire to truly represent the student body and not your own interests, you should practice frugality and initiative. Let students decide how to divvy up their portion of the student activity fees, leave the budget process to us, and instead, use your time to improve this campus for the students you represent.
