Student group budgets are currently created and proposed by SU’s Student Group Activities Committee (SGAC), which is a branch of SU Treasury. Treasury then votes on SGAC’s proposal. While SU’s restructuring plan will make some improvements to the budgeting process, it ultimately does little to address the concerns of student groups, who feel that SU allocates funds somewhat arbitrarily as a result of its inability to understand groups’ budgeting needs.

The restructuring plan has the potential to offer student groups a greater ability to communicate their needs to SU because they will be able to discuss equipment needs at one meeting and other needs at another. And the equipment committee certainly has the potential to more efficiently distribute equipment in order to save money that can then be used for other funding priorities. But these changes do little to address deeper legitimate concerns that many groups share about the budgeting process. Specifically, student groups feel that SU does not understand their needs and as a result does not give them the adequate funding they need. Ultimately, this leads to an inefficient and stressful budgeting process where groups feel the need to request as much money as they can possibly imagine spending so that after SU reduces their budget, they can fund the programs they consider important.

SU’s task of constructing and implementing a budgeting system that allocates money to more than 200 student groups, its own operating costs and programming events for the student body is admittedly difficult, but the newest solution will not change the havoc that occurs in the spring when SU sets groups’ budgets. Part of the problem is the student groups’ complete lack of power and influence on the process. We believe that with SU oversight, student group leaders should be working to propose the budget instead of delegating that responsibility to SGAC, a branch of Treasury. SU should create an independent council of interested student group treasurers or leaders who would be selected by the votes of student group members. This group should work together to propose a budget for all of the groups; the budget would be submitted to Treasury for approval or denial. Treasurers and student group leaders should continue to have the opportunity to sit on equipment and social programming boards. Elections should serve as an incentive for the members on this council to be fair.

When the idea was presented to SU’s Vice President of Administration Jeff Nelson, he expressed concern that a board of student group leaders would be self-interested, working to reduce other groups’ budgets in order to increase their own. But if last year’s budgeting meeting is any indication of how students might act, students seem more interested in a budget process that seems fair than in their own groups’ gain. At last year’s meeting, many student group representatives went out of their way to make arguments for increases in other groups’ budgets even though they were dissatisfied with their own. Additionally, it’s important to note that SU does have some self-interest in the budgeting process since it budgets for itself. It’s certainly possible that student group leaders would prove less able to create a satisfactory budget, in which case SU could offer more oversight or advice to the independent council, but with the current system not serving student group needs, SU needs to find a way to bring these groups’ voices into the process of budgeting.

Until a restructuring plan gives student groups more power and a voice within the process of budgeting, it will not be able to fix the deeper problems with the budgeting process on this campus, and will not satisfy the student groups who work within the budgeting system to receive funds. A more radical change is needed.