Let me begin with a disclaimer: This is not a Bristol Palin column. This is a column about reforming Student Union Treasury. I did not write this because of any single Treasury decision. I wrote it because during four years of decisions, meetings and discussions, I have seen that Treasury is not always as representative or as effective as it should be.

Treasury exists to serve the interests of the student body and the needs of SU student groups. Unfortunately, its funding choices often fail to reflect student preferences. Events that are poorly attended, or even reviled, are funded too frequently; events that have a great deal of potential are sometimes choked off at inception. The budgeting and appeals processes invariably leave student group leaders frustrated and unsatisfied. In order to better fulfill Treasury’s twin responsibilities to the student body and student groups, I propose the following:

1) Require members to hold a leadership position in an SU student group either before or during their term in office—SU student groups live and die by the funding they receive from Treasury, but sometimes it seems Treasury members are ill-informed about the actual realities of student group operations. For instance, I have seen Treasury partially fund programs without determining whether the sponsoring group will be able to raise the remaining money. I have seen Treasury fully eliminate PR budgets that would have enabled groups to carry out the type of creative advertising necessary for a successful event. I have seen Treasury fund registration fees for students to attend relevant conferences but decline to fund the corresponding airfare. These selective funding decisions often seem arbitrary and impose frustrating, needless barriers on the creativity of student groups.

I strongly believe that students who plan programs or budgets for their own student groups have the clearest understanding of what all groups need. Too often, Treasury members join the body immediately after programs like SU’s leadership pre-orientation, and while these students can be great additions to SU, their lack of experience in the Washington University community is disadvantageous. While this requirement might present some conflicts of interest, treasury members could simply recuse themselves from any discussion about the student groups they lead.

2) Limit the time allotted for discussion of every appeal—Treasury currently has the constitutional ability to set time limits on its deliberations, but it rarely exercises that power. The result is that meetings run long into the night, which is a major barrier for students who contemplate running for a Treasury seat. Worse, the unlimited discussion does not penalize members who repeat points that have already been made. This alienates visitors and potential candidates alike. Because Treasury needs intimate knowledge of the Wash. U. community in order to be effective and genuinely representative, it benefits from having members who are heavily involved around campus. The more active students are in other leadership roles around campus, the more accurately they can predict what events will interest the student body. Yet while busy student leaders have so much to offer Treasury, the perceived burdensome time commitment often dissuades stellar students from running. While thorough consideration of appeals is important and Treasury does need members who take its responsibilities seriously, the inefficiency of the current meeting structure is a problem that needs to be remedied.

3) Reduce the number of seats—during nearly every election cycle, the number of seats up for election exceeds the number of candidates. The lack of competition means that students are unable to make true choices about who will represent them best. The new Treasury election schedule may help increase competition, but it remains unproven. Reducing the number of seats could also help reduce the length of meetings because fewer people would be participating in each discussion. This change could possibly put an unreasonable burden on Treasury members during budget season, when members meet with treasurers from each SU group, but a committee of additional students, chosen by appointment, could easily assist with this responsibility. As a corollary to this proposal, candidate statements should be more thorough and easily accessible in order to help students cast more informed votes.

These are not the only changes that could improve Treasury, nor are these proposals free from their own drawbacks and flaws. They are, however, an attempt to spark a conversation, one that is constructive, positive and specific, about how to make our collective visions for this campus into reality.