The referendum on an amendment that would allow the Undergraduate Council of Students to determine its own funding without the approval from the Undergraduate Finance Board failed to receive the two-thirds majority it required to pass, according to a statement sent to The Herald by UCS Communications Chair Sam Gilman '15.
"The wording of the constitutional change was clearly ambiguous and led to significant confusion about potential oversight of UCS," Gilman wrote. But he added that the proposal facilitated discussion and "pushed the UCS and UFB to the bargaining table." As a result, UCS and UFB will form a commission to reassess the current funding process and will include representatives from both bodies and the student community.
Students had until 11:59 p.m. last night to vote on the referendum. UCS did not provide The Herald the vote tally before press time.
Early last evening, members of the Undergraduate Finance Board and the Undergraduate Council of Students hosted a community forum to discuss the proposed UCS constitutional amendment and answer students' questions about the issue. Around 30 students attended the event, half of whom were affiliated with UCS or UFB.
At the beginning of the forum, UFB Chair Jason Lee '12 expressed his dissatisfaction with the means by which the council chose to address its funding issues and its relationship with UFB.
"If it does pass, I think it is the end of the conversation instead of the beginning," he said, reiterating UFB's argument that the proposed amendment will only worsen relations between the two bodies.
The amendment could give the council an "undesignated amount of funding" in the future, Lee said. "The way (the amendment) is worded is a slippery slope."
UCS President Ralanda Nelson '12 encouraged students to provide input about the referendum. "All student activities give to this campus, and they all deserve and have a place here," she said.
During the forum, many students expressed concern about the lack of time between the amendment's introduction and the voting process.
Sam Davidoff-Gore '15 compared the constitutional change's sudden appearance to the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. He argued that her injury led to a dramatic increase in the amount of discussion surrounding political rhetoric but that ultimately the conversation fizzled and did not lead to any changes. The sudden introduction of this amendment led to more discussion about the roles of UFB and the council, he said, but he added that he did not think this conversation would produce substantial changes.
Many students initially voted without knowing all arguments for and against the referendum, said Remy Fernandez-O'Brien '12, who wrote a Feb. 15 guest column in The Herald proposing a compromise between the two groups. He said the council should allow a re-vote since more information about the proposed constitutional change is now available.
Nelson said the proposed amendment was an "on the ground, learning ‘oops.'" But she said the main purpose of introducing the constitutional change was to foster more discussion about the issue of funding, rather than to pass an agenda.
"I would be surprised if (the amendment) passed," Nelson said.
Other students asked what the council would do with additional funding. Nelson said UCS might buy buttons for Brown Employee Appreciation and Recognition Day because UFB does not fund free giveaways. UCS Vice President David Rattner '13 also said the council needed more funding for its Ivy Council Conference. This year, the University's Ivy Council only received $1,500 compared to Dartmouth's $10,000, he said.
But Lee said the council returned 50 percent of the funds allocated to it. Nelson noted that UFB "operates in the green," meaning many student groups return money given to them by UFB.
"I think it's a misnomer to say that they are so constrained that (the amendment) would negatively affect all students on campus," Nelson said.
While she said there would not be a limit to the amount of funding the Council could allocate to itself, Nelson said she does not think "taking all that money would ever fly." More specific details about how the proposed amendment would be implemented would come through a code change, Rattner said.
Students also asked how the amendment would improve transparency in the budget process and how it would improve the relationship between the council and UFB. Some criticized the lack of unbiased information available about the amendment.
Sarah Evelyn '12 told The Herald she found the forum helpful, though it did not change her opinion on the amendment.
"I thought it was really great that people got to voice their opinions about the referendum," she said. "I wish it had happened earlier in the voting process."
Davidoff-Gore said the animosity between the council and UFB detracted from the quality of the discussion. "There's obviously tension between the two, and that needs to be resolved before there can be anything that goes forward," he told The Herald.
He voted against the amendment and has not spoken with anyone outside of UCS who supported it, he said.
"It seemed like they were trying to pull the wool over our eyes," he said. "Both need to tone down their ego, and they need to think about what's best for the students."
Director of the Stephen Robert '62 Campus Center and Student Activities Kisa Takesue '88, Vice President of Campus Life and Student Services Margaret Klawunn pan> and Senior Director for Student Engagement Ricky Gresh also attended the forum.
