[media-credit name=’BEN CLASSON/Herald photo’ align=’alignright’ width=’336′][/media-credit]After two weeks of deliberation, the Student Services Finance Committee shot down a proposal Thursday requiring student organizations to draft their budgets two years in advance.

SSFC members unanimously voted down the proposal after significant debate during the committee's bi-weekly meeting last night.

Currently, SSFC grants student organizations eligibility for student-segregated fees every two years. Organizations then present segregated-fee budget requests annually.

Every year, SSFC allocates about $3 million to various student organizations across campus. The funding comes from fees tacked onto University of Wisconsin students' tuition.

The intentions of the proposed bylaw change, according to SSFC Chair Zach Frey, were to decrease SSFC member's workloads, so they could focus their time on other budgetary decisions at hand.

Although Frey invested time in constructing the proposed bylaw, he made it clear to committee members that they should not consider that while voting.

Upon the proposed bylaws' defeat, Frey said that he was "fine" with the decision, but added, "There would have been a lot of positive effects."

SSFC Vice Chair Kellie Sanders said she interpreted the proposed bylaw as a way for SSFC members to cut down on the amount of time and work committee members do.

"I think that SSFC members should expect to put in this amount of work," Sanders said. "I don't think we should … look at how to decrease the workload, but we should look at how to spend our time more efficient[ly]."

Sanders added that the long-term effects of imposing this bylaw would impact UW students for many years to come.

"Leaving one group of 17 people to project for two years out for students that aren't yet on this campus, we're setting what their experience on this campus will be like without their voice of input," Sanders said.

Sanders added that forcing groups to project budgetary plans two years in advance does not allow student organizations the ability to alter their future plans.

"I felt that the proposal would be very detrimental to the organizations we fund," Sanders said. "It's too much of a process for them; it wouldn't give them enough flexibility to change from within year to year."

SSFC member David Lapidus said he was worried student organizations would challenge the proposed bylaw since it lacked their input.

"There will be no legitimacy at all. They could argue — and legitimately so — that it was done behind closed doors among a small group of people," Lapidus said. "That's just not how the system should work."

Lapidus added that there are problems with how the system is currently set up, but the "disadvantages outweighed the benefits" of the proposed change.

Sanders said she doesn't believe that the current budget proposal method is bad, but said it could be improved in some ways.

"I don't see the process as being that bad right now," Sanders said. "SSFC staff, advisors and leadership could work better with groups during the summer to make sure … they know their roles and the process."