I have expressed dismay at the way the ASM Internal Budget has been handled since the time it was first debated in Student Council back in November. The current budget contains line items totaling approximately $1,118,205. This money is paid for by students and is extracted out of student segregated fees, which means every student should have a say in the way their money is being used. This is the reason why Student Council and Student Services Finance Committee have debated and should still be debating the budget.

Regardless of what Student Council does and should do for campus, I have often heard students who do not fully understand the organization express frustration with the process, and I can’t blame them. The nature of the current session does not always correlate with putting the general student population first.

The Internal Budget is a perfect example of this. The decision was made, per the ASM bylaws, to send the budget decisions to Conference Committee because the Student Council was unable to approve it. Conference Committee is made up of four members of Student Council and four members of SSFC. What is inherently flawed in this process is the selection of said members; the chairs of both committees are given free reign to determine who they see fit to mold the budget. I will yield that the chairs at least made some attempt to ensure a degree of balance on the committee, but ideologically, as well as demographically, the Conference Committee did not represent the general student body. A more proper solution would have been for Student Council to break with their bylaws (in this case a simple timeline) in order to fully debate the budget as an elected body, which would include a better representation of student interests. Student Council leadership ignored this solution.

I personally believe the actions of Conference Committee were inappropriate. Many issues were raised that were not addressed with even a word within Student Council and SSFC. Essentially, Conference Committee consisted of two chairs and six hand-picked members that were able to debate on their self-interest. I believe many decisions were made without enough reasoning and without the drive to acquire information in the capacity of Conference Committee.

Stipend increases for Student Council leadership are a clear example of obvious implications for students. With the creation of a Chief of Staff position, one that would be a personal assistant to the Chair and Vice-Chair to prioritize their duties, one would think their salaries would increase as well. This is part of a larger push to tie Student Council salaries to tuition at a time when many across the nation are facing pay cuts. Money was added to improve the ASM office in the amount of $1,000 for computer equipment. $8,000 was added to create four Shared Governance directors that would direct student oversight on university committees. This is arguably a good idea, but the work doesn’t necessarily need to be paid and should be debated on a larger level within ASM and the student body.

Kurt Gosselin, Secretary of Student Council and a member of Conference Committee asserted he would personally sign the impeachment forms of any Student Council member that didn’t approve the budget based on this issue because this is one of the explicitly ascribed functions of Student Council. I counter that it could be the best idea in the world, but the manner in which it was added was completely inappropriate and should be debated on a larger level, rather than an eight-person committee with complete control. $2,500 was also added for Student Council members to travel for lobbying and other general travel, yet without documentation on how the money should be designated.

The whole situation after Conference Committee becomes a problem because Student Council and SSFC only have the opportunity to approve the budget and no power to amend it. If Student Council decides not to approve the budget by March 3 (the date a meeting with the chancellor is scheduled to present the budgets), the original budget approved by Student Council back in November would be the one presented. I am advocating for students to decide for themselves whether the processes of Conference Committee are entirely appropriate when deciding a budget that has such a potential for impact. I would encourage every student to request the audio for the meeting and skim through it; I fear you will also be astounded by comments made by the members of Conference Committee and in turn, the people who call themselves your leaders. I feel this article needed to be written, but nothing can be done without a large-scale push from the student body for increased transparency and inclusion.

Maxwell John Love

ASM Student Council member, and member of Conference Committee

Freshman, [email protected]