General Budget: Giving Money to the DUC
Every year, each student contributes 1% of tuition to a Student Activities Fee, in order to make a large collective pot of funding that spawns most of the programming on our campus. Next year, we will each contribute $378, generating an estimated total of $2,203,362.00. In the next few weeks, I will be working on a General Budget to propose exactly how that money is spent. On April 14 and 15, that budget will be approved by Treasury and Senate.
While there are various accounts that the money is allocated towards, such as Class Councils, School Councils, Student Group budgets, and Block Funding, one of the most flexible accounts is the Campus Contributions account. The Campus Contributions are general sums of money contributed to various departments or events on campus that Student Union believes adds essential value to our undergraduate experience. For example, last year, an $8,000 contribution was made to the Community Service Office to help fund Service First, and the various campus-wide blood drives.
One contribution that many students have questioned was the past year’s $90,000 allocation to the Danforth University Center (DUC). Previous Student Union executive officers agreed to a yearly contribution in order to assist with the building's operational costs. This contribution came with the understanding that Student Union would not be charged for the millions of dollars in furnishing of any student group space (SU Office, WUTV Studio, Recording Space, Print Media space, etc) Additionally, the contribution guarantees that Student Union recognized groups will not be charged for room rentals, and that a substantial amount of programming in the DUC will be geared towards undergraduate students.
Because this contribution has caused some debate—I want your input. All things considered, do you think we should continue to make a financial contribution to the Danforth University Center?
As I continue to work on the line items of the General Budget, I will keep you updated and continue to solicit feedback. Although for now I’ve only outlined campus contributions, feel free to contact me about any accounts, either by email (finance@su.wustl.edu), or by just posting a comment here. Your input is highly valued.
You can view a copy of last year's general budget by going to http://su.wustl.edu/finances
Be in touch soon,David
All material is copyright © 2010 Washington University in St. Louis unless otherwise noted. For additional information or to provide feedback, contact the webmaster.
Comments
I think a SU contribution to the DUC is important, but the VP of Finance needs to enter into negotiations with the University for the amount that we pay. In my opinion, Jill Carnaghi was a damn good real estate agent for the University last year and got the SU exec to complacently pay an arm and a leg for the facilities. David, as the main custodian of our student activities fee, you need to get the best possible deal for SU and all of its groups. 90k is far, far too much.
It seems to me that the administration cutting a deal with SU about DUC funding means the administration sees SU as a separate entity; another business with which they need to negotiate. This should not be the case. I do think that SU can (perhaps, even should) help pay for DUC upkeep, but if the administration decided to charge student groups for room rentals, student groups would simply not use the DUC. We had meetings before the DUC; there will be meetings if it ever becomes unavailable.
I agree with the commenter who said that the school will not let the DUC go unused. Having SU pay such an exhorbitant amount is not just in the interest of SU and students, but also in the best interest of the University. I vote that SU renegotiate the price--if the administration doesn't agree, then have them take out the furniture and either work on card tables or go back to the Women's Building. :)
I am of the opinion that we shouldn't fund the DUC. Having participated in a student group (WUGS) that rented out the fun room, we quickly realized that "reserving" the rooms had no actual meaning - the space was to be kept common, so we had no right to kick out anyone. In our meetings, we would commonly have CNN playing in the background - interruptions that we couldn't tolerate.
The reservation policy is what I believe makes the DUC a very weak choice for any student group. Perhaps there are other venues to pursue, but this is not one of them.
So the University builds a space for students to use, then charges students to use it? There are more places on campus than the University Center for students to meet. Obviously SU sees a problem with this situation, otherwise they wouldn't be asking for student input.
If the University needs me to underwrite the cost of their multimillion dollar building projects, then they should put a "New Building Fee" on my Fall 09 bill, because that is essentially what this is. They're trying to hide the cost of a building that's designed to attract students, more than for students.
I believe that it is extremely important for SU to continue funding part of the DUC's operating costs, especially since so many SU-recognized student groups can take advantage of the meeting rooms that comprise a large part of the building's second floor at no cost. If SU did not fund the part of the DUC's operating costs, I think that they would find some of the money they allocated to these student groups going directly to the DUC to pay for room upkeep, etc. The logical question that stems from the previous statement is: Why not just bypass that process altogether? As a representative of one of the many student groups that does technically have to pay a fee for use of a meeting room, I thank last year's SU execs for their thoughtful answer to that question.
I do, however, agree that $90,000 might be a steep cost (and would like to see some of that money actually go to student group funding, if possible). David, even if it is possible to negotiate a lower donation, I think it is important that the student body understand exactly what this $90,000 is funding. And since this new administration has been doing an outstanding job of making SU as transparent as possible thus far, I would assume that you are already planning on making this money's use as transparent as possible.
Post new comment