Last Thursday, the Undergraduate Council of Students announced that it would hold a campus-wide referendum to "clarify" the relationship between itself and the Undergraduate Finance Board. If approved by a two-thirds majority of undergraduates on a poll on MyCourses that closes on Wednesday, UCS will no longer need UFB approval for its funding requests and will instead be able to appropriate itself money directly from the Student Activities Fund. We urge students to vote against UCS' proposed referendum.
In dueling opinions columns published last week in The Herald, UCS first argued that this change is necessary for it to adequately fund initiatives it believes will have positive, campus-wide effects. UFB responded that the change would lessen the available money for other already underfunded student organizations.
As a student governance body, UCS has an understandably broader mandate than other interest-specific student groups. Its mission, which includes "represent(ing) students and the interests of students in all matters of university life" and "addressing each aspect of University operations which affects students," is uniquely expansive and publicly oriented. It would be a dereliction of duty for them not to dream big and aim for broad-scale, meaningful projects that affect all undergraduate students. Such projects, understandably, cost money, and there is perhaps a legitimate argument to be made that printing clusters on Pembroke ought not to compete for funding with pizza at a recruitment meeting.
But UCS is not arguing merely to increase its baseline funding or to separate a "student government fee" out of the student activities fee — both ideas would merit serious consideration, especially if UCS were to ensure that the increased funds would be well spent. Instead, the proposed referendum constitutionally restructures the relationship between UCS and every other student group in a way that would essentially grant UCS unlimited funding. On the short end of the stick would be other student groups — many of them seeking funds for lectures, socials or projects with equally valuable impacts on student life — who would receive no such special treatment and would be competing over an even smaller amount of money.
UCS President Ralanda Nelson '12 claimed in an article in last Friday's Herald that UFB's reduced oversight over UCS's funding was of no concern, since — in the article's words — "students opposed to the council's decisions may join (UCS) and vote against the measures." But students should not have to be members of UCS to ensure oversight over UCS' use of their money. Indeed, we already have a dedicated organization ensuring that student activities funding is well spent — the UFB.
Perhaps equally concerning has been UCS' attempt to pass this referendum without serious opportunity for discussion. Initially, students were given just four days to vote on the amendment, but after the backlash, UCS scheduled a campus forum for this Wednesday, extending the deadline only to that same evening. A proposal such as this deserves a more tempered examination, and perhaps with more time a more equitable way of increasing UCS' funds could be found. As it stands, this proposal would give UCS a blank check we are not convinced it deserves.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
