I want to be unhappy with these decisions. As a freshman, I was in the gym from 8 to 11 in the evenings, and during the day, I spent an hour in the cycle studio. Had the hour cutbacks and potential cardio charges been instituted a year ago, I would have been furious. My schedule at the time was such that going to the gym late at night maximized the amount of time I spent studying—which second semester was commonly a 16-hour affair—and had I been inclined to make the smart decision, I would have more or less cut the gym out of my life.

I was, however, an exceptional case. I cannot count the number of times 10:45 p.m. rolled around—9:45 on Fridays—and I would be the last one in the gym. It was highly anomalous for there to be more than five people at closing time, and the cycling studio was always deserted late at night with the exception of a forlorn-looking attendant.

I can understand the early closing of the AC––less so the potential charging for use of the cycle studio. The argument has been made that one can use the South 40 Fitness Center, which is equipped with weights and more cardio machines, but as bizarre a complaint as it seems, for many, this is too far a walk. The option of a free cardio facility, and one located near the Village, was always a good one to have, and while the cycle studio was empty at closing time, during the day, I frequently had to settle for a less-than-ideal machine.

Perhaps more irksome is the rationale for the defunding of the AC. One Student Union senator, who wished to remain anonymous, explained that the money was being diverted to class council budgets, the individual speakers fund and the salary of a new technology coordinator. When asked about the role of the technology coordinator, however, the senator responded, “I legit don’t know.”

Stop. An SU senator, someone charged with, among other things, overseeing the distribution of funds, has no idea where tens of thousands of dollars are going to go; money which could otherwise be used to say, make the cycling studio free and keep the AC open until 11:00 p.m. for the next year.

That is alarming. I can support closing the AC at an earlier time, and I can understand that some programs can be prioritized over a free cardio center. But for a Student Union senator to have no idea where money goes, money that has amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years—siphoned from the AC fund—is unacceptable. Student Union’s decision to limit the AC’s functionality may make sense, but if the alternative uses are either so trivial or so incomprehensible that senators don’t understand them, then the money would be better used for the Athletic Complex.

A similar situation is presented when President Obama calls on Americans to pay higher taxes to deal with the debt burden. By asking Americans to fork over more of their earnings to pay for past mistakes of both parties, the president is legitimizing the status quo. Americans will not receive better government, better leadership or more efficiency as a result; they will merely have less money to spend.

Just as students would flock away from a poorly performing school, some Americans and companies will leave the country, taking investment, capital and jobs with them. Other Americans will reduce their income, as the incentive to take risks in the economy is diminished. Most Americans will pay the increase, unable or unwilling to move. The tax increase might cause a slight rise in government revenue, but at the expense of money available in the private sector.

Tax rates have fluctuated throughout the past century, but tax revenue has remained constant at around 18 percent of GDP. Whether the government takes 75 percent or 25 percent of American’s earnings, it is to going to receive a constant percentage of revenue. While tax receipts remains relatively lower as a result of the economic downturn, there is little evidence that increasing taxes at this point will lead to higher revenue. It will cause a decrease in private capital, though, threatening to further delay a recovery.

The solution lies in fixing the government. A budget over $3 trillion is not only unsustainable, and it is unwanted. Americans don’t need a government that polices the world. Americans don’t want a government that gropes them at airports and listens to their phone calls. The notion that only the government can protect us from cradle to grave should be rejected; it removes responsibility from the individual and fosters a dependence on Washington. Despite taking in around $200 billion a month in revenue, our government has failed to properly manage its finances; a $1.5 trillion deficit isn’t even close!

Americans should not be asked to forfeit more of their earnings to a government that has failed in its duty. Instead, Americans should demand real change in Washington, beginning with a dismantling of the welfare-warfare state. To be sure, there are many government programs that provide some benefit to low-income and elderly Americans; the cuts need not begin there. Instead, the corporate welfare expenditures from agriculture to energy to military should be eliminated. Unnecessary entanglements abroad should be halted, as they are counterproductive to American security. The ability of a central bank to manipulate currency is dangerous when unchecked; more transparency should be required. The government’s intrusion into our bank accounts, businesses and health isn’t needed; sacrificing liberty for safety results in the loss of both.

Our federal government faces a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The underlying role of government in our lives should be questioned and changed. A poorly performing university would be forced to adapt or go out of business. We should force our government to change before our debt leads to bankruptcy.

Click on a segment of the 2011 to 2012 Student Union Budget to learn more about how the budget is allocated.

The proposed Student Union budget for 2011-2012 will be presented to Senate and Treasury on Wednesday for a vote. The joint SU session will be held in Simon Hall at 9 p.m. and will be open to all students.

The budget is taken from the Student Activity Fee, an undergraduate fee equal to 1 percent of tuition. The proposed budget amounts to $2,484,907, compared to $2,375,820 for 2010-2011. The change is due to the tuition increase announced earlier this year and assumes an undergraduate population of 6,050—which doesn’t include students who go abroad.

Junior Cody Katz, vice president of finance, compiled the budget after meeting with student group leaders and administrators to determine how to allocate funds.

While the new budget closely follows last year’s, there are a number of notable changes.

Potential elimination of Athletic Complex funding

The current proposed budget does not include funding for the Athletic Complex. Last year, SU paid $25,000 for students to use the AC for free. If SU does not pay for the AC next year, students will likely have to pay $45 to use the cardio room. The weight room and other facilities will still be available to students free of charge.

According to Katz, SU may choose to allocate money for the AC over the summer, using unused funds from last year. Katz will be working to gather student input before making this final decision.

Large Speaker Appeal Fund

To encourage SU Treasury to fund one major speaker for the coming year, Katz has allotted $115,000 in a separate, large speaker appeal account. While Katz envisions this funding as going toward one speaker, Treasury will be able to put this toward multiple speakers or return the money to the general appeals account if it wishes to spend the money otherwise.

This fund is intended to encourage Treasury representatives to fund one major speaker. Treasury denied a request of over $100,000 to finance a talk given by Bill Maher.

Class Councils

Katz’s version of the budget allocates $50,000 to the senior class council, up from $37,000 this year. Because the senior class council’s budget was cut down from $50,000 two years ago, every senior class council has appealed for executive funds to help pay for Senior Week and the Senior Class Trip. These events usually add up to about $50,000, and Katz hopes the extra funding will eliminate the additional appeals process.

The proposed budget would also cut $5,000 from the Joint Class Council Programming fund. Katz hopes this will encourage class councils to use the executive appeals account for class-specific programming and not just joint programming.

Social Programming Board: Co-programming

This new appeals account will provide $15,000 for student groups to work with other programming committees to plan new events and campus traditions without cutting into other limited social programming funds.

Operating Budget: Salaries

Under the proposed budget, the allocation for SU salaries will rise by $91,000, accounting for around 13 percent of the group’s overall budget. Much of this increase will go toward paying a newly hired technology coordinator, who will work on repairing and streamlining SU operations and other technology-related contributions.

Since the president released his budget proposal on Monday, Republicans in the House have been debating a proposal of their own to submit in response.

The administration’s budget for the 2012 fiscal year proposes $36.1 billion in Pell grant funding for approximately 9.6 million students but would include a provision preventing students from collecting more than one annual Pell grant. Currently, students may earn a second Pell grant for summer classes.

The maximum grant allocation of $5500 would not be decreased.

In contrast, the Republican plan would reduce the maximum Pell grant amount available for both the regular academic year and summer term.

The Republicans’ propose a reduction in the maximum grant amount possible for students from $5,500 to $4,700, a decrease of 14.5 percent.

According to Steven Smith, the Kate M. Gregg Distinguished Professor of Social Sciences at the Washington University, the Republican-proposed cut will be a blow to financial aid across the board.

“For students at a place like Wash. U., that’s a big chunk,” Smith said. “That’s a pretty big hit, and to have it all done in one year; that’s something to which a student has a hard time adjusting, because that means that whenever you get the Pell grant, whether it is for the regular academic year or the summer, there is just less money available for you.”

According to the Obama administration, the cuts suggested by the Republicans will save money with little effect on graduation rate.

Obama’s plan, Smith said, might be more generous to students than the Republican alternative.

But according to Smith, Obama’s plan would take a large toll on students receiving the maximum grant. It would also affect those students in the upper income range eligible for the grant, who will likely receive less federal aid, if any, under the new budget.

“They used to be able to get that maximum plus an additional amount for the summer; now that additional amount for the summer will disappear,” Smith said. “That will mean less money in the pockets of some students.”

In the past, Pell grants have been extended to students for summer terms so that they can graduate earlier. But after evaluating graduation rates, the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Education found that students who receive summer Pell grants typically do not graduate early.

This is because many of the students who have received summer Pell grants are also working part time, research conducted by the federal government found. Taking courses in the summer allows these students to take fewer courses and work more hours year-round.

“The bigger picture here is that funding for student aid is at risk when both Democrats and Republicans are looking for ways to trim budgets,” Smith said. “I think there’s little doubt that there is going to be somewhat of a hit on Pell Grants for the next fiscal year.”

The effects of the cuts will extend to both the private and public sectors of higher education.

“In the sector of public colleges and universities, we’re going to be seeing rising tuitions and fewer financial aid dollars available,” Smith said. “So, inevitably, there are going to be people who don’t go to college, or delay going to college, or go at a slower pace in order to make it affordable in the new situation. It’s inevitable that that affects working class students from working class families.”

The University will by no means be immune to the effects of the cuts.

“It will affect places like Wash. U. because students will shift from here to a less expensive school, unless the University is able to make it up,” Smith said. “Wash. U. and other schools like it have done pretty well. They’ve worked pretty hard to make it up with internal financial aid dollars. But this is going to be a big system-wide hit, and it will be increasingly difficult for colleges and universities to make it up.”

Student Financial Services at the University plans to compensate students for the cuts in Pell grants.

“If Pell grants for the academic year are reduced, the University will make up the difference according to a policy that has been in place for some time,” Bill Witbrodt, director of Student Financial Services, wrote in an e-mail to Student Life. “If a student’s family’s financial situation stays about the same, and cost (tuition, etc.) increases, then the student’s financial aid award should increase also.”

There are certain benefits embedded in Obama’s proposed budget, including a 13 percent increase in research funding to places like the National Science Foundation.

Obama’s budget would also allocate $8.5 billion in new loan volume to the Federal Perkins Loan Program each year, which reaches approximately three million students. To increase competition among colleges, the plan also proposes $175 million in competitive grants.

EST has traditionally received block funding from Student Union along with funding from Student Health Services (SHS). Because EST is allocated a specified amount of money for two years through block funding, the group cannot appeal to SU Treasury to replace the money.

Because of the cuts, EST is now reworking the reimbursement system it has set up for incoming EST members in order to account for its deficit.

Students training to become emergency medical technicians through the EST program will now be expected to pay the entire cost of training up front. They will be repaid a portion of that cost after completing a predetermined number of hours on call.

It costs approximately $1,000 dollars for each freshman to become a certified EMT, including the costs of tuition and textbooks for the EMT training course offered through Forest Park Community College. In the past, EST subsidized a majority of that cost.

Students outside of the EST program will not be as affected by these cuts.

“[The budget cut] won’t affect any operations of the team. It hasn’t yet, and it won’t,” said Kevin Stephenson, EST field director.

EST director Stephanie Higgins ensured that the services will still remain.

“There will be no perceptible difference [in the services offered]. We are still going to be highly trained; we are still going to respond to every call; we are still going to keep buying all the equipment we need,” said Higgins.

EST plans to ask for an increase in their block funding next voting period in order to continue operations as usual in future years.

The majority of EST’s current budget goes to certifying freshmen as state-licensed EMTs, repairs and maintenance of the EST truck, equipment purchases and a savings fund for a new EST truck.

“EST provides a great service to students. We provide 24/7 free emergency medical care,” Higgins said.

Stephenson therefore highlights the value of the EST program.

“When students are worried and not sure if they have to go to the hospital or not, instead of having to pay $500 dollars for an ambulance ride, they can call us,” Stephenson said.

SHS did not return several inquiries from Student Life over the past week.

A quick review of last year’s approved budget shows that the CS40 collected approximately $422,700 in income and incurred expenses totalling $421,440. That’s a lot of money, plain and simple. But where does it all go?

Consider Student Union, the governing body of the entire undergraduate community, with a budget of roughly $2.4 million. With this money, SU is expected to fund numerous activities and student groups. The largest campus activities, such as W.I.L.D., draw their funds directly from SU. In short, the student government has an enormous fiduciary responsibility to the campus community. We entrust them to manage such significant resources with the understanding that they provide detailed breakdowns of where the money goes.

This is not entirely the case with the Congress of the South 40. Like SU, CS40 represents a large contingent of students and manages a prodigious amount of money. However, CS40 has much less accountability, and at times, its spending seems to be superfluous beyond its mission. CS40’s mission statement asserts that it “…strive[s] to improve the lives of residents by providing a variety of ways for them to participate in their residential areas, play a leadership role on campus and get involved in the Wash. U. and St. Louis communities.” We are concerned that some of its expenses are excessive for the fulfillment of this worthy goal.

CS40’s budget for fiscal year 2010 includes significant perks for the five executive officers. Last year, each officer was paid a salary (as it’s called in the official budget) of $7,656.00—the yearly cost of a double room on the 40. These officers effectively get free housing or, should they wish to have a modern single room, significantly subsidized housing.

In addition, the budget contained $14,200.00 for a retreat, a worthwhile activity, but one that far exceeds the cost of a similar SU retreat, which is expected to cost $5,000 next year. There was also a “Business Manager” salary (for someone different from the group’s adviser) that cost another $22,836.00. The aforementioned totals $75,316. For a group led by five underclassmen and one adviser, spending 17.82 percent of the predominately student-funded budget on its leadership seems both excessive and out of line with its initial mission statement.

Other line items on the budget are simply too vague considering the sums of money being used on their behalf. For instance, a $14,000 lump sum for the “Finance Committee” seems excessive without a breakdown of where all of this money goes. To us, CS40’s budget seems opaque at best.

Perhaps most significantly, CS40’s allocated budget is determined not by its needs as a student group, but by the cost of housing. Rather than pay a flat fee every year, the amount students give to CS40 is calculated as a percentage of students’ room and board. We believe it may be time to reconsider this method. At the very least, CS40 must do a better job of justifying its continually-increasing revenue.

In its defense, the CS40 puts on a lot of good programming. WUStock and South 40 Week are great events. The Residential College Olympics attracts numerous Forty-dwellers to the swamp for merriment, food and friendly competition. Funding the various events of each residential college is essential to fostering close relationships amongst students in groups of dorms. Clearly, the problem is not that CS40 is doing a bad job with its programming.

The real issues that need to be considered are why CS40 has as much money as it does, why such a large portion seems to benefit only select members of the CS40 executive board, and why CS40’s financial reporting is not as detailed as that of other governing student bodies. For all of the money Wash. U. students have paid to the Congress of the South 40, its members owe it to the students to show that their funds are being used as well as they possibly can be used.

Class council allocations

One major change to the budget was the allocation of funds to class councils. Last year, each class council (excluding Senior Class Council) was given $5,000 to spend for the entire year. In interviews with current class council executives, the [open] slate found that most class councils had actually been allocated too much money to spend for the year.

“We were surprised to learn that they [class councils] all felt that they had been allocated too much and they didn’t know how to effectively spend it, and that the programming that they were doing was effective but they didn’t need all that much money,” said junior and Vice President of Finance Eliot Walker.
Instead of spending money on class programming, class council began to fund student groups who asked for money for programming.

“When you get a lump sum like $5,000 and it hasn’t been dictated to you and you haven’t dictated to yourself where this money is going, other student groups come to you as sort of an allocation board,” Student Union President and sophomore Morgan DeBaun said. “It limits their ability to program because throughout the year they think ‘Oh, I only have $5,000 to spend throughout the year,’ as opposed to thinking ‘What is going to unite my class?’”

DeBaun served as the president of the 2012 class council earlier this year.
To make sure that money is spent more efficiently, only $2,000 was allocated to each class council. SU also created a new Joint Class Council Programming appeals fund of $15,000. This money will be given to class councils collaborating with each other. The [open] administration hopes that this will enable classes to unite and plan more programs like Sunday on the Swamp, which is traditionally put on by the freshman and sophomore class councils. The executive appeals account also received $7,000 for class councils to appeal for additional programming money for their class only.

“I think that the appeals system is a good one in that we have ended our year with extra money and finding ourselves struggling to find ways to spend it,” said sophomore Michael Offerman, president of the 2012 class council. “I’m kind of concerned just because I think the class councils’ purpose is to program for an individual class, not the whole school, but I think the co-programming could be encouraged. I just don’t know if the money should be split up in that way.”

Individual appeals

Student Union recently passed a constitutional amendment allowing individuals to appeal to Treasury for funding. In the past, only Student Union-affiliated groups could appear for SU funds. With this new amendment, a new account has been set aside. Individual appeals are intended to offer passionate and involved students to put on programming for a one-time event or need. Though the procedures for appealing for these funds, and being held accountable, are not finalized, SU allocated $30,000 for individual appeals. The Vice President of Finance will be responsible for keeping track of the individuals and their appeals.

“I’m excited because we’ve had a lot of interest from students,” DeBaun said.

Social Programming Board

Another one of the major changes to this year’s budget was to completely withhold the funding for performers who had yet to be determined  from three groups—Team 31, Campus Programming Council and the Gargoyle —and move it under a new Social Programming Board (SPB) appeal board. Yearly expenses such as B&D security and food were funded in full for each of the three groups.

Under the previous system, funding for the three groups under SPB were granted yearly budgets with which to program. Each group could appeal to the Executive Council for more money.  But during the course of a year, an SPB group that would need additional money would have to appeal to Executive Council, where funds would be unavailable due to a first-come, first-serve policy.  Conversely, if a group was allocated too much money over the course of the year, that excess money was unable to be used for other programming.

The system under the new budget tries to solve many of these problems. SPB groups are now required to prioritize their events by a certain deadline, which the Executive Council will use to allocate funds from the SPB appeal fund as performers are confirmed. Funds are also now no longer locked into a specific group’s budget and are more fluid for the entire SPB to use. The new process also allows for increased student input since SPB groups need an endorsement for their events and no longer have funds immediately at their disposal to use as they choose.
SPB was given a total allocation of $459,039.56, with $250,689.56 allocated to the SPB appeal board for talent.

“I think it’s a step in the right direction,” Speaker of the Treasury and junior David Cohen said. “I think that there should be some degree of oversight with that money, especially since they’re some of the most well-attended events that people go to in any given year.”

DeBaun agreed that this process would lead to better programming.
“I think it will substantially increase the quality of our events,” she said.

With additional reporting by Kate Gaertner

The change is intended as  a step toward transparency in CS40. Having one open assembly for students to critique and make suggestions for the budget helps to promote awareness and the value of student input.

Freshman Joe Sutherland, the Speaker of CS40, is really looking to increase transparency and good will on campus.

“When people see the CS40 logo they [should] say, ‘Oh wow, this is a great organization,’” Sutherland said. “We’d love to see increased respect and recognition for CS40.”

This attitude is being applied to the budget process.

“[We want to be] making more transparency in the budget and allowing other members of CS40 to have a greater voice because it’s their money also,” freshman Alina Cohen, the new Director of Finance for CS40, said.

Members of CS40 will be voting on the amended budget the next week, instead of a few hours after changes are proposed.

“If someone wants to rally support for a certain change ,they’ll have more time to do so.” Cohen said. “I think this will facilitate discussion among CS40 members.”

The budget process for CS40 is not well known—no copies can be found online, and few people are aware of it. Still, the assembly will be open to the public and anyone is invited to watch the deliberations, appeals for funds and final vote to pass the budget.

Though few people know about CS40’s budget, a portion of it comes out of every resident of the South 40’s housing payments. Though the budget for the coming year is not finalized, CS40 provided Student Life with last year’s budget. This past academic year, each student paid $142 of his or her housing costs to the CS40 budget. Of that amount, each student got $28.40 back in such things as the water bottles at the beginning of the year.

Last year, the portion of CS40’s total budget that came from student contribution topped $80,000. This was divided among the many functions that CS40 serves.

As a programming board, CS40 allocates funds to programming on the 40. This includes the money given to college councils for residential college programming. Their programs are separate from the programs sponsored by RAs, and are allocated to each residential college based on population.  This past year $56,000 was divided among the college councils.

The money also goes to the different CS40 committees. These committees help to program the various events that occur on the 40, such as cultural events, the CS40 formal, ResCollege Olympics and any activities on the Swamp, including WUStock.

Student groups can appeal to CS40 for funds to put on events on the 40. In some cases, these groups go to CS40 for funding to supplement the money that SU has given them.

The executive staff of CS40 is rewarded for its efforts. The five executive members of CS40 are given a housing allowance equal to the cheapest double on the 40.

“We do require that they live on the 40; that’s part of the reason they get compensated for housing,” Rebecca Madson, the assistant director of residential life and CS40 advisor said. “Our view is they do a job similar to the RAs.”

Of the CS40 budget, $35,000 goes toward part of Madson’s salary, and $22,836.00 goes to a business manager.

CS40 also spent $14,200 on a retreat for the members to encourage leadership and bonding.

“It’s very important that the group of them all function very well,” Madson said. “Even though they each have their own jobs they also support each other a lot. Staff development, we feel, is very important to be able to do that.”

She emphasized that the main purpose of CS40 is to give back to the residents of the 40.

“We know we’re responsible to the 3,000 on the 40,” Madson said. “It’s their money. We try to give the majority of the money back to the students.” Madson noted that the Cardinals game that CS40 is sponsoring on Friday costs only $5 per student.

He Qi, the former Director of Finance who made this past year’s budget, sees it as a changing entity that is made to respond to student’s needs.

“I think that the CS40 budget is very flexible in many areas and the budget truly reflects the large amount of programming we do every single week,” Qi said. “I think CS40 needs to constantly remind ourselves that we should not take it for granted, and we are always looking for the most efficient way of spending money to meet the students’ ever-changing needs.”

As a part of a plan designed to reduce the Washington University maintenance and landscaping budget by at least 5 percent, the number of tulips on campus will be cut in half.

The new plan will also reduce the number of on-call maintenance employees around the Danforth Campus, thereby producing a delay in response time. In addition, the University will employ the minimal number of custodial employees needed to keep campus clean, and the cleaning of offices and cubicles will now occur bimonthly instead of weekly.

“The University requested administrative support departments to begin the planning for a series of budget reductions almost a year ago,” Bill Wiley, the director of maintenance operations, wrote in an e-mail to Student Life. “Like a number of other administrative support departments, we are starting elements of the plan immediately to maximize the savings potential.”

All public spaces will continue to receive daily cleaning and trash removal.

“We have had numerous meetings to discuss this maintenance challenge among ourselves and hope that we can increase our productivity to avoid noticeable maintenance problems,” Wiley added in the e-mail. “We do not intend to tolerate lower campus cleanliness standards, but it will again be a challenge. For instance, we are discussing whether we should move a cleaning worker on a temporary basis from the Athletic Complex to Olin Library during the busy study period just before finals.”

Despite a 10 percent rise in the endowment since July 1, 2009, the University will lose $10 million in spending power from the endowment this year, according to a letter that Chancellor Mark Wrighton wrote to the University community on Monday. The restructuring of maintenance operations is just one of many departments that have had to make spending cuts.

Wiley emphasized that at this phase of the restructuring process, it is unclear how many employees will lose jobs, if any. Through retirement, redistribution of previously contracted work to maintenance staff and restricting overtime, the University hopes to keep as many current workers employed as possible.

All residential areas of campus will remain unaffected by these changes, but new maintenance staff will not be hired as more buildings open. Instead, the responsibility of current workers will be increased to these new areas.

“I can state for now however, the housekeeping for the residential side of campus will not be affected at all with these cutbacks as well as cleaning schedules will not be reduced,” Curt Harres, housekeeping manager for the Office of Residential Life, wrote in an e-mail.

In order for this program to become a permanent success, students and faculty will also need to contribute. By throwing away all trash left on tables and in common areas, keeping doors closed to maintain building temperature, not damaging walls with improperly posted signs, and possibly bringing full trash cans to central collection areas, the Wash. U. community can help ensure that current cleanliness standards are maintained.

Even with the full support of the University community, Wiley said that the plan will experience some setbacks.

“Our Facilities group has benchmarked well in recent years when measured against our counterparts at peer institutions, but we will be tested, miscalculate and make mistakes at times as we work through the future with reduced resources, but not significantly reduced goals,” Wiley wrote. “We need helpful feedback, understanding, cooperation and perhaps patience from our fellow members of the campus community.”