Wednesday, January 28, 1998
Poor publicity flaws allocation of funds
FUNDING Book-lending program, among others, truly deserves part
of last year’s unspent budget
It’s payday again in the halls of Kerckhoff, and nearly $59,000
is up for grabs to various student groups who demonstrate the need
for additional funding. The money has not yet been allocated, but
already the process has been hindered by a fundamental flaw: very
little publicity.
The Budget Review Committee (BRC), which will decide how to
distribute the money next week, should mend earlier funding errors
by providing funds to groups which received nothing in the
1997-1998 budget. With the remainder of the surplus, BRC should
invest some money in worthwhile programs such as the book-lending
program, and put a portion of the money into community service and
student-initiated programs.
Surplus funds – unspent money from the previous year –
constitute the available cash pot. According to Student Supports
Services Director Jerry Mann, the $59,000 was available to any
campus groups which needed to be funded. However, due to selective
publicity, many eligible organizations were not informed of the
funding opportunity and thus failed to make the application
deadline last Tuesday. In order to accommodate any groups which may
not have been notified of the available funds, BRC should extend
the deadline for another week and allow the organizations to submit
their applications.
Surplus money generally complements funds in the original
budget. The base budget for the Undergraduate Students Association
Council (USAC), which was finalized in October, totaled over
$128,000 and was used to fund the 11 USAC student government
offices as well as 13 student advocacy groups. However, three
groups – the Panhellenic Council, the Interfraternity Council and
the Rally Committee – were shut out of the budgeting process,
receiving none of the funding they requested.
The Finance Committee, which drafted the budget last quarter,
explained that the groups didn’t receive any money because they
have alternative sources of funding. This was just one of the flaws
in the budgeting process – the groups should not have been
penalized for the fact that they take initiative and acquire money
from other sources. Perhaps the USAC-dependent groups should seek
additional sources as well.
With the extra money USAC has in the bank, it’s time to fix the
budget inequities and provide money to the groups unfairly denied
last October.
Since money is currently available for improving student
programs, USAC should seize the opportunity to augment one of its
most worthwhile projects – the book-lending program – with part of
the remaining surplus funds. The service, which was conceived two
years ago, loans out textbooks to students who prove to have a
financial need. Students can apply to borrow textbooks for one
quarter. Due to scarce funds, the textbook supply is limited and
staffing is minimal. Additional funding should be directed toward
purchasing more books and expanding the program. It’s crucial that
USAC publicizes the program and opens it up to more potential
beneficiaries.
The remainder of the surplus funds should go toward helping
community service programs and more student-initiated projects.
Fifty-nine thousand dollars can go a long way toward improving
existing campus programs and helping organizations to continue
functioning. BRC has the money; they just need to allocate it in
the right places.