Because of their central role in the segregated-fee distribution process, the Student Services Finance Committee is and will continue to be one of the most heavily criticized groups. While making decisions on how student money will be spent, the 17 students on the committee must sift through endless pages of budgets, sit through hours of long hearings each week and endure intense scrutiny and pressure from student organizations, the campus press and the student body.
This year is no different, and in the coming weeks the SSFC must make some tough decisions on several bloated budgets requested by student organizations.
The Multicultural Student Coalition and Asian Pacific American Council budgets are always the focus of intense seg-fee scrutiny, not just because both organizations have large, program heavy budgets with hundreds of thousands of dollars concentrated in student salaries, but because the organizations have clearly not demonstrated they have a real need for the money allocated to them by SSFC.
MCSC, for example, has requested a budget of $442,830, with $203,980 concentrated in staff salaries, even though it returned more than $91,000 in segregated fees to ASM in the 2004-05 budget year. Though the organization no doubt has varying explanations and excuses for why they cannot spend the excessive amounts of salary and program dollars allocated to them, the fact remains they have consistently shown their inability to spend the large amounts allocated to them.
Since the students that are overcharged each year in order to provide these organizations money they never use will most likely never have the opportunity to receive a refund of their fees, SSFC needs to be fiscally responsible and discontinue the practice of allocating excessive budgets to organizations that have clearly shown they cannot manage them.
However, it is unfair to just focus on MCSC and APAC, as it is clear both organizations have shown a concerted effort to gradually scale down their segregated fee requests. In fact, these budgets are not even close to being the most excessive and unreasonable budgets the SSFC must contend with this session. While many General Student Services Fund organizations have asked for reasonable increases in salaries to accommodate the growth of their organizations, the ridiculous increases requested by Collegians For a Constructive Tomorrow and University of Wisconsin Roman Catholic Foundation stand out as the newest seg-fee delinquents.
Though UWRCF's request of a more than 100 percent increase in what it currently receives from students is bad enough, CFACT's is worse; this year the organization has requested $385,921 — a whopping 205 percent increase from what it received this fiscal year. For an organization that has accomplished little, demonstrated little to no program growth and seemingly provides little service to the student body besides an ideological foil for WISPIRG, their excessive requests for segregated fees should be brought to the attention of the student body, who for too long have been content to heavily scrutinize and scapegoat multicultural student groups with large budgets.
From the perspective of a former member of SSFC, there is absolutely nothing that can explain or justify these ridiculous increases besides perhaps a desire to prove a point and make a mockery of the system.
Though most GSSF organizations are responsible and provide valuable services to the campus community, the seg-fee process has been abused by a few organizations that have learned how to play the game and intentionally try to manipulate the seg-fee process and committee members. Though in the past few years the SSFC has responded to these problems by implementing several policies and procedures to put a check on skyrocketing allocable seg-fee budgets and increase transparency and openness in the process, it is clear that this year's committee still faces an uphill battle for the remainder of the process.
SSFC has always received criticism from students, and though some of it is warranted many don't recognize the huge obstacles members face throughout the budget process. In the face of inflammatory rhetoric and accusations, threats of legal action and intense pressure from their peers, most SSFC members have tried their hardest to make sound fiscal decisions that both support the programming and initiatives of student organizations and keep the students' interests in mind.
Thus far, committee members have done a pretty good job of withstanding the extreme pressure they each face during the budget process and seem to be scrutinizing each and every budget and making fiscally responsible decisions. But by looking at the budgets they must consider in coming weeks, it seems the hardest part of their jobs has yet to come. As an advocate of both the SSFC process and fair and fiscally responsible seg-fee allocation, it is my hope that this year's committee is up to the task.
Janell Wise ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
