Dear Editor:

I would like to whole-heartedly agree with Sara Remedios’ column, “Why should SU fund Mr. Wash. U.?”

As a former Student Union (SU) Treasury member, I think it is lost on the general student body just how hard each SU executive and legislative member works to keep all student groups funded. Every policy in place has been decided by elected students, themselves participants in an overwhelming number of activities. I had to end my time with the SU Treasury not only because I was going abroad, but because meetings would extend from 9 p.m. on Tuesday usually into early Wednesday.

The students on Treasury are not only concerned for their CVs. I know many of them well. They genuinely want to make life at Wash. U. as good as it possibly can be. It is fortunate that more students are now interested in the budgeting process, but a shame that it has taken them this long.

I have a few suggestions that we can implement both now and for the future:

1. Include in Student Life a weekly account of what has been voted on in Treasury and Senate. This will give us a greater appreciation for what goes on in the hallowed halls of Student Union and might even provide encouragement for more students to run for open positions.

2. Demand of Student Union increased access to laws and policies now in place. Publish these policies. Let’s discuss the policies before they “harm” student groups, not after!

3. Finally, be willing to ask tough questions. Given the lack of competition for SU seats, you would think that people have always been content with the way SU is run, yet there are always complaints. It might not be impossible to find out what budgets will be cut ahead of time. These cuts don’t happen spontaneously. Student Life can’t be the only institution on campus interviewing candidates. Everyone must take part. These are your groups, this is your money, this is your University. Don’t complain when it’s too late.

-David A. Shapiro
Class of 2009

Budget cuts don’t occur in a vacuum

Dear Editor:

As this week has progressed, I’ve become increasingly concerned by some of the arguments and data presented in this paper regarding the funding of Executive Committees in the SU General Budget.

The frequently-cited statistic that the KWUR allocation has been reduced from $50,000 two years ago to approximately $20,000 this year neglects to mention that this year, KWUR only requested $35,000. SU executives cannot read minds, they cannot allocate more than was requested. Additionally, the graph printed along with the article “SU Treasury clashes late into the night” in Wednesday’s News section also neglects to report what percentage of the initial request was funded, a key parameter for interpreting trends.

Additionally, as a previous chair of the Budget Committee, it has been my experience that budgets are determined based on line-item requests; allocations are not value judgments, they simply reflect a summation of line items funded. Each line item is evaluated individually with respect to a group’s purpose, current SU funding policies and the values and goals of SU for the semester. A decrease in funding from the previous year does not reflect anyone liking that group less, only a change in either what was requested or what was deemed fundable.

-Jennifer Hadley
Class of 2008

Children were greeted by the team, who signed autographs, and entertained by the juggling club and J.J. Jumper, the NCAA mascot in the Athletic Complex.

The basketball team defeated Rochester, 54-53.