Student budget council’s ethics, decisions scrutinized

Thursday’s student activities budget forum revealed the concerns of co-curricular representatives and students alike.

A group of around 20 people, mostly student Finance Council representatives and attendees, met at noon in the Student Union. The origin of controversy was that a majority of the Finance Council was uneasy with the final vote a week earlier. Several Council members said they were uncomfortable making the final decision.

“At the end, we all felt it wasn’t right,” said one participant.

There was a consensus that the Forensics representative had generated a lot of the hostility, geared towards ASG (Associated Student Government) and SAB (Student Activities Board). This prompted the Council to reluctantly decide to make additional cuts: “It was like a gun to their head. It was them or no one,” someone else mentioned.

While agreeing to the varying levels of “transparency” regarding how groups negotiated their cuts, David Sussman – MHCC manager for the Student Union and specialized Student Support services – reminded everyone that the Council worked to balance the budget. In that regard, the budget process had turned out to be a success.

Sussman encouraged those at the forum to consider the “bigger picture.” He said that $1,700 (the amount in dispute), in respect to the $1 million of the whole fund, wasn’t worth hassling ASG to reject the approved budget and start all over again. If ASG did not ratify the budget, both the athletics and co-curricular representatives would have had to meet again to reform the budget.

One representative at the forum questioned if a “nuclear option” was available. (As in the U.S. Congress, a nuclear option would allow the supermajority of the representatives to force one group – specifically in this case, Forensics – to make additional cuts the group declined, by voting that they do so.)

Sussman noted that unlike some co-curricular groups, Forensics came into the process with a proposed budget that reflected a 4 percent cut.

It was argued that Forensics could have afforded a bigger cut. Another argument was that it was more ethical for Forensics to make additional cuts because according to council by-laws, the group could request more money from the student senate they needed it.

Other groups needing funds cannot go directly to Forensics to request it.

Another concern expressed at the close of the forum was that Athletics has not been advertising its events and is largely disjointed from campus life. It would be more worth the funding granted to Athletics if the group worked harder to promote its sporting image, it was said.

Sussman noted that community college students, especially those heavily involved in co-curricular and athletics, “don’t have the option to just hang out.” He said that MHCC is fortunate for the student fee autonomy system, which is more of a university model.

A big part of the student autonomy includes open budget hearings much like Thursday’s – with concerns raised and opinions aired – and one set for Monday, from noon to 1 p.m. in the Student Union.