|
With all the campus construction projects being discussed, few have mentioned the area most in need of a drastic remodel.
The shortcomings of Oregon’s incidental fee system have come in the form of bad executive decision making, accounting errors and a Programs Finance Committee that doesn’t know the laws they are to enforce. In hindsight it is easy to see what went wrong and why it did so. It is now our responsibility to use that information to come up with some adjustments to make the system more effective in the future. In short, learn from our mistakes.
Things to change:
The Current system does not make records accessible to ordinary students. So where’s the accountability?
As the system works now, if a fee paying student wishes to know exactly how much and on what his/her money is being spent on, they have to go through a timely process. First, they need to know which group they have an inquiry about and than get a document number for a specific expenditure. Then, they must take that information up to EMU Accounting where they will finally be able to see a receipt or invoice. Although technically each student can find out what his or her money is spent on, there is too much bureaucratic red tape for the ordinary student to cut through and the process is a mystery to all but a few who won’t share this information. Most likely they guard this information because they don’t won’t the exec to fire them for revealing public record. If Joe Student could just walk into the ASUO office and find out that a given student group spent 20 bucks of his money on a package of three golf balls, it would provoke him to get involved. This pressure would encourage student groups to really examine each expenditure and ask themselves “if every student on this campus knew I was buying this with their money, would they be upset and cut my budget next year?” Frequently, this answer would be yes. On many occasions, the money is spent in accordance with the rules, but not in a way that would benefit the campus community. The only way to achieve accountability is through better information.
The ASUO needs to consider producing a booklet in the controller’s office of all non-fundraising account activity. This should merely be a list of what was bought and how much was paid for it. A photocopy would be made when a receipt is first taken to the controller’s office. These copies would be filed in a binder organized by group and left at the controller’s window. By doing this, we enable the common student to go to the controller’s office, and look at all the receipts and become informed about how the incidental fee is being spent, thus holding the ASUO groups accountable to the students.
The Programs Finance Committee (PFC) is making too many decisions based on personal bias and limited information. Whatever happened to objectivity?
Currently PFC has seven seats, with only four of them present at a hearing to fulfill quorum. Last year, the PFC allocated over two million dollars to student groups. That is a large sum for a group of four to seven people to be making decisions on. Attending these meetings, all you have to do is listen to the side conversations and you can hear PFC discussing what they are going to do with certain budgets before that group has even had a chance to present their reasoning. Some groups are getting cut merely because they can’t make a good argument, while others are being cut (or experiencing “reduced growth”) because the four PFC members evaluating their budget don’t really think they make a worthwhile contribution. The fee allocation process is supposed to be, under federal law, viewpoint neutral and free of any bias. I would argue that this is not possible with only seven students on the PFC, none of which are law students. The way to help prevent some of these biases is to have more people on the PFC and therefore more Representation.
There are examples that exist on this campus already that we can take and adapt into a workable format for the Programs Finance Committee. The Student Senate is one such example. Although some, including the Commentator, have doubts to the senate’s overall effectiveness, there is a suitable framework in place. There are designated seats for the different academic areas; Undeclared, AAA, A&L/Journalism, Social sciences, Business and Graduate/Law. This is a great system for better facilitating equal representation, something that the current PFC doesn’t seem designed to do. Another policy-making body from which to extract a good idea is the EMU Board. Like the senate, this group includes students, but the main difference is the addition of an administrator who holds a non-voting position that is used for consultation on matters in which the students don’t have the expertise to make a decision on their own. In this system, the students reserve the right to make decisions against the administrator’s advice.
I suggest using the positive pieces of both bodies to make a new PFC. Consider this; twelve members, six academic seats as listed above, two finance senator seats, two seats elected at-large by the student body and one seat appointed by the ASUO President and the remaining seat be non-voting and filled by an administrator.
The main problem with adding members to the Programs Finance Committee is of course, the budget. The stipend for these positions was budgeted for over $6,000 dollars for this year. Adding more seats would only increase that amount. However, with the desperate struggle for upper division credit, something could possibly worked out so that the PFC received four credits for their work during winter term. This would kill two birds with one stone. First of all, it will cushion the blow financially for the PFC and secondly, it will allow the members to take less classes winter term and therefore be able to devote more time and energy into their position.
When discussing the idea of adding more members, none of the people I talked to were apposed to the idea. PFC Chairwoman Mary Elizabeth Madden said she agreed that there needs to be more members. “When the PFC was created, there were only eighty groups. Now there are well over one hundred” said Madden. Madden also speculated that the reason a change hasn’t already been made is due to the lengthy process of changing the ASUO Constitution. “Now there are too many [groups] for seven members.”
Justin Sibley, a senior majoring in business, is the business manager
for
the Oregon Commentator
|