Budge!

Budget story!

Six of the campus recruitment and retention centers took sizeable cuts in funding after they received a total of $4,652.25 less than last year, prompting outcry from leaders who said the centers could not function without a certain level of funding.

"By cutting (our funding), you limit our friends, family, sisters, brothers (and) children from coming here," said CalSERVE party signatory Ashley Thomas. "The implications go farther than three in the morning. Think broader. Think bigger. Think how it affects other people."

Seeing as how Student Action is in charge, that broader, bigger, other-people-affecting thought may have taken place.

CalSERVE Senator Van Nguyen, who was elected president for next year according to preliminary results, proposed cutting the president's budget to $10,500. The presidential budget was set at $11,619 at Monday's finance committee meeting.

"I am not going to allow (and) I don't think senators should allow for huge executive offices to continue because they're wasteful and don’t allow money for student groups," he told the senate.

However, the cut was not passed by the senate, as many argued that the executive offices made good use of their funding.

"It's felt by many that the executive budget is not wasteful," said UNITE Greek Senator Donald Rizzo.

Not to nitpick, but if $11,619 is a "huge executive office," then I think $10,500 would be, too. I was hoping for one of those "take half my budget, please" lines.

Rizzo's argument is teh dumb, though. It's wasteful because that money could go to student groups to do things, not because the president's office does nothing. Also, remember what the president's office is actually supposed to do.

Van probably should've dug in, and insisted that, even if the cut isn't approved, he's not going to spend that money. That's especially true if the wording "I'm not going to allow" was correct. That way, there's no doubt that budgeting it to him is wasteful. And let's all remember this for next year: "Refusing to give money from an executive office to student groups at the executive's request: DONE!"

Is Student Action worried about making Van look good, or are they trying to keep power in the executives for when they come back to power next year? Speculate here!

Some senators also pointed to the annual ASUC Spring Formal dance as a potential place to cut funds and save money to give to other student groups.

SQUELCH! Senator David Wasserman proposed cutting the dance's entire budget, saying it was not the role of the ASUC to host the dance.

"I personally don't think the ASUC should be putting on Spring Formal and that we could better use that money," he told the senate.

Ultimately, only $15.40 was cut from the dance's preliminary allocation of $485, as some senators argued that the savings from cutting its entire budget would not be worth losing the dance.

Forehead slap! This isn't a question of whether the allocation is worth it, it's whether it's the role of the ASUC or student groups. If student groups wanted a Spring Formal, they could put it on themselves with that kind of money. That's what student groups are for.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 5/04/2007 10:01:00 AM #
Comments (6)

. . .

Comments:

I understand the concerns that students have about executive budgets. But if that is a concern, then take a look at the budgets that some of the larger groups have and compare. Executive budgets are a small portion of the asuc budget. I also know first hand that the money that is given is stretched as much as possible to run the office properly. Just ask any former chief of staff and they can support this point.

# posted by  Manuel Buenrostro : 5:24 PM, May 04, 2007

 

Did you follow that link for the list of presidential duties? Yes, I know that presidents like accomplishing much more because it looks good for them, but governments work by delegating specific tasks to specific people. Putting on programs is not delegated to the president. The fact that presidents always do stuff that isn't their job is part of the reason they complain about thin budgets.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 5:27 PM, May 04, 2007

 

Rizzo's argument is dumb, though.*
Keep the Google hits coming, baby.

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:38 PM, May 04, 2007

 

Most of the money spent last year was actually for running the office. Most of the big events ended up being put on without student fees.

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:55 PM, May 06, 2007

 

And what, exactly, are the expenses in "running the office" when the office essentially has no job?

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 8:36 PM, May 06, 2007

 

$10,500 was a compromise number. Both Van and Taylor were trying to cut their budgets and the ridiculous line items related to their offices, and they both implied that next year they plan to find ways to give the extra money back to student groups. They managed to cut their budgets down to $!2,000 each in FiComm.

Keep in mind that an exec's budget includes a $4000 stipend for the exec and usually a $1500 stipend for their chief of staff. Because of the by-laws, the amount of stipends (other than the 4000 exec stipend) cannot be greater than 15% of the budget. Therefore, if an exec's budget is below $10,000 the chief of staff's stipend will be accordingly lower.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:05 PM, May 08, 2007

 

Post a Comment