Should We Support the U.C. Referendum?

No matter how you twist it, there is no denying the fact that the referendum regarding the Undergraduate Council budget will affect the ability of both the Student Affairs and the Campus Life committees of the council to do their jobs of serving students. The proposed referendum will yield the following break down of the council budget (which is composed of each student's $20 student activities termbill fee, usually around $120,000).

At least 65 percent ($78,000) will go to the grants process; five percent ($6,000) will be guaranteed to House Committees without question of their use of said funds; the first-year caucus will receive about 1.5 percent ($1800--four times as much as each house); and about eight percent ($9,600) will go to operations (phone bills, copying costs, etc.). This will leave no more than 22 percent ($26,400) of the entire budget to the committee fund.

The committee fund supports allocations for campus-uniting events and student services which have recently included the First-year Formal, Springfest, Harvard-Yale weekend festivities, the Gala Ball, the skate night, the Levenson teaching awards, Thanksgiving and holiday shuttle buses to the airport and anonymous HIV testing. It is the fund from which both the Campus Life Committee and Student Affairs Committee draw funding for projects. The budget for these projects has been very tight and the committees are struggling to cut costs wherever possible. To limit the budget even further is to do a disservice to the campus and to limit the ways in which the council can affect student lives on campus.

Due to a balanced budget requirement in the council constitution, once an allocation is made, the money allocated is considered spent until the actual receipts from the event are collected. After Harvard-Yale festivities and a recent allocation for the First-Year formal, the committee fund presently holds about $14,000 with which the council can plan the rest of the year (until receipts from the First-Year Formal are collected in early March.) This means that representatives' attempts to serve their constituents and plan events such as Sophomore or Junior class semi-formals, December holiday shuttle buses, a comedy concert/contest, a ski trip and Springfest (an outdoor festival with live music which demands months of budgetary preparations,) will be difficult to organize due to the already constrained budget.

The referendum, if passed, would force even more drastic limits on the committee fund than now exist. It would limit the ability of the council to plan a large spring time event, not to mention smaller events and services, before the First-Year formal revenues are collected. By restricting innovation in project ideas, the resolution would also restrict the effectiveness of council representatives to provide their constituents with the activities they desire.

This year's grants allocation of 63 percent is the largest in recent history. When the budget passed, after much debate, on the council floor one and a half months ago, council members opposed to the increased allocation were asked to look at this year as a trial period for throwing more money into the grants process. This trial period has just begun, why not give it a try and see how the recent increase affects student group funding? Why set a new minimum level for the grants process at an all-time high without testing the idea first? Why hastily commit future councils and student representatives that may have different priorities to a drastic measure and deny each new set of elected representatives the chance to debate the priorities of future councils and effectively serve their constituents' interests?

Recent alterations to the grants process uphold the oft-heard rumor that the council grants process is flawed. To pour more money now into a system that already has many problems is not the solution to a more solid, effective grants process that recognizes groups of all sizes and fiscal status. Each semester, money in the grants budget is left over, uncollected and even left unallocated. To take money out of a strapped campus service budget and pour it into a process that is not completely efficient is preventing students from benefiting fully from their student activities fee.

Student groups are an essential part of life on campus (the recent council budgets demonstrate a recognition of this). A vote against the referendum isn't a denial of this fact--it is, however, a recognition that stripping the committee fund is not the best way to raise money for student groups.

Students must understand the details of this complex issue before they decide where they feel their dollars will meet their needs. This referendum comes to the campus without significant council support for good reason. It is an issue that has been debated over e-mail and on the council floor for years, and should remain an important debate each year, with each new council and each new student body.

The council has the unique opportunity to make itself more cohesive. The grants process, though an incredibly important part of the function of the council, is not all the council can do to improve student life. I encourage all students to become more aware of the details of the referendum and to vote down a referendum that hastily ties the hands of student representatives.

Tally Zingher '99 is co-chair of the Campus Life Committee.