Toward the end of the Student Government Association meeting Wednesday evening, representatives gathered to discuss a spot funding request from KSLU, Saint Louis University’s student-run radio station. KSLU requested $9,499.16 in spot funds. It received just $2,117.83 from the SGA Finance Committee.
The drastic difference between requested and received spot funding comes as no surprise. The Finance Committee regularly reduces requests to necessity, stripping proposals of frills and arguing expenditure to the last ballpoint pen-it’s their job. What is surprising, however, is the questionable behavior of SGA senators as they determined the fiscal future of KSLU.
This Wednesday’s debate was a complicated one. KSLU wanted, in large part, money for purchases they had already made while improving broken equipment. However, spot funding is meant to cover events unanticipated in original budget funds before they happen and not, as in the case of $6,000 of KSLU’s requested spot funds, afterward.
It has never been SGA’s policy to reimburse Chartered Student Organizations in the form of spot funding. KSLU should have known this. SGA senators should have known it. The SGA Executive Board should have known. But did they? No. In another classic “miscommunication,” nobody could agree on the policy for reimbursing CSOs.
Despite the miscommunication-and maybe because of it-neither KSLU nor the SGA Finance Committee is completely at fault. It was the responsibility of the KSLU general manager to ask for funding before making repairs, instead of making them and begging for money later, even if the Finance Committee couldn’t remember previous years’ policies. Furthermore, each CSO should have a treasurer, somebody who knows just how much money is available to a group and how that money is spent, as SGA President Evan Krauss suggested. KSLU is no exception.
Likewise, the Finance Committee has a tough job. They must evenly and fairly distribute the funds entrusted to the Student Government and, by proxy, to student organizations. Spot funding is an even trickier issue; it’s an estimated “just-in-case” fund that all CSOs share.However, the Finance Committee’s job is not to whittle down each funding request to the most Spartan basics, parching well-meaning student organizations of funding with severe cutbacks. Instead, it should strike a balance between what’s best for the organization and how much money should be saved for other CSOs.
The SGA Finance Committee is one of the most powerful organizations on campus. They have the authority to recommend how much money a CSO gets and how it can be spent. There must be a check that balances such a force. That check is supposed to be the collective body of SGA senators. But judging by the way senators were acting Wednesday evening, all SLU students have cause to worry about future funding distribution.
The new trend senators engage in when they approve of another senator’s comment-snapping their fingers like wired coffeehouse beatniks-can be excused. After all, it doesn’t really disrupt parliamentary procedure. Even the chatting, giggling and distracted staring can be overlooked. Senators get tired when they discuss vital, complicated funding issues, just like the rest of us. Who wouldn’t?
What is inexcusable is the way they ended their debate. In deciding how much money to give KSLU, senators proposed potential sums in the form of amendments. As the night drew on and they grew tired, each amendment was systematically rejected. Grumbling rose to a new height when Senator Jared Walsh offered a final proposal for proper KSLU funding and five to 10 other senators turned around in their seats, loudly calling, “End it! End it!,” intimidating Walsh into silence. After all that, senators accepted the Finance Committee’s original proposal.
Was the decision based on reason or convenience? Will KSLU be adversely affected? We’ll find out in coming weeks.
Spot funding debates should not end with cries of “End it!” as if they were games of Mortal Kombat. Yes, the debate was complicated, but senators are elected to represent us in complicated matters of policy. In cases like this, they must either carry debate to a logical consensus or, if that is impossible, table it. They cannot continue to mask immature senate chamber behavior with a fa?ade of professionalism as they did Wednesday, or in November’s Equestrian Club debacle, or in any number of similar decisions.
SLU students, keep this incident in mind as you vote for next year’s SGA in February. Demand that your representatives take their jobs seriously and think their decisions through to a logical conclusion.
