Student Union

This blog post is a response to the Student Life editorial published in the Wednesday, April 15, 2009 issue.

I am very happy that the Student Life editorial board wrote about the Student Union budget in the April 15th issue. While the editorial contribute to a necessary dialogue about the budget, its criticisms are based on infactual information.

First, the editorial suggests that since we are not buying the backpage from Student Life at a cost of over $22,000, we are taking away the ability of student groups to publicize their events. First, Student Union will support student group publicity in a number of ways next year including an all-school calendar, the Student Union website, flyers, and magic box screens around campus at no additional charge.

We have decided not to purchase the backpage of Student Life because it is a limited resource that few groups can effectively utilize. The editorial claims that Student Union prohibits student groups from “paying for advertising” but the truth is that we actually want to give student groups money to pursue their own creative publicity efforts as opposed to forcing them to rely on one medium For example, groups like Green Action have been funded for unique publicity items like the green gorilla in the past year.

Secondly, the editorial claims that, while there is a substantial increase in revenue, little, if any of it, actually goes to student groups. The increase in revenue is actually $63,367.50 as opposed to the “almost $75,000” that the editorial suggests. In addition to the $63k increase in revenue, we have decreased the budget for Student Union Operating costs by $27,451.83. Adding the increase in revenue to the money saved from Student Operating produces a total of $90,819.03 that is available to spread throughout the budget.

Nevertheless, the editorial suggests that we have not used the 90k to benefit student groups. Specifically, it claims that our budget will make student groups “jump through hoops to present even the most basic programming” by giving more money to the appeals process than to student groups up front and that “the amount allocated to [category student groups] is slightly less than last year.” This argument is flawed for two reasons; the first being that it is simply not true. The amount of money that has been allocated directly to category student groups, money which they do not have to appeal for, has actually increased by $29,983.08. And this increase does take the “recategorization of most executive committees as Category I groups” into account.

Secondly, the above argument is flawed because it does not count the Social Programming Board groups Team 31, Campus Programming Council and Gargoyle Committee as student groups. This is an important point because the editorial suggests that our budget “represents a significant problem at a University already criticized for its lack of cohesiveness and tradition” because it does not allow student group programming to “thrive”. The Social Programming Board groups are largely responsible for the spirit and tradition that the editorial references through programs like WILD and Happy Hour. But, the editorial fails to mention the fact that our budget increases the allocation to these social programming groups by $59,590.60. Additionally, school councils and class councils are responsible for much of the spirit and tradition on campus through events like Bahaus, Vertigo, Sunday on the Swamp and Art Prom. But, again, the editorial fails to mention that we have given these groups an increase in funding as well.

On the whole, even though the increase in revenue was only $63,367.50 we have given student groups a total increase of $115,213.43 in upfront money. Given the fact that we have used that additional revenue, in conjunction with money saved by reducing the cost of Student Union operating by $27k and other parts of the budget by 15k, it seems clear that we value empowering student groups with money to put on great programs with as few bureaucratic barriers as possible