Funding board causing competition for funds
Power to the people is one of the core ideals in any democratic system, from the national government to the University of Colorado Student Union. But in the case of funding for student groups, it’s now out of the student body’s hands.
Two years ago, UCSU created the Student Group Funding Board to manage and oversee the distribution of funds for student groups. While the SGFB ensures accountability for where the money for groups is going, some groups believe that the board is failing in its purpose.
“It’s supposed to be more democratic, but now the students don’t have any say,” said Chad Scott, a senior environmental studies major and research and development director for CU Biodiesel. “Under the old system, we asked the students for money and they said yes or no.”
Before the creation of the SGFB, student groups like CU Biodiesel would propose a referendum to the students asking them for an increase in student fees in order to generate funds. According to Scott, typically groups asked for increases of a dollar per student or less. With the SGFB now in place, groups must submit a budget and then compete with each other for a portion of the money that the SGFB controls.
“It used to be that student groups would help each other out,” Scott said. “Now we’re all in competition for the same pile of money.”
Dan Omasta, chairman of the CU Chapter of the Colorado Public Interest Research Group, more commonly known as CoPIRG, shares Scott’s complaints about the SGFB but thinks that most of the issues with the system can be worked out.
“The Student Group Funding Board is a really, really good possibility for efficiency, the overall idea is good,” Omasta said. “I think because it’s so new, they’re having problems deciding who’s going to get what. It’s definitely a process.”
Ashley Nakagawa, a senior architecture major and head of the SGFB, thinks that it’s a definite improvement over the old system.
“I understand that this process is a big change for some groups, but UCSU proper has set up this system with student (interests) in mind,” Nakagawa said. “I know that binding referenda was an accurate way to judge the student opinion, there were flaws with that system. The SGFB’s goal is to fund groups fairly.”
Complicating the issue is the 1999 Supreme Court case, Board of Regent of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth et al. The case centered on several students at the University of Wisconsin who sued the university regarding the use of their mandatory activity fees. The students felt that their First Amendment rights were being violated because the fees they paid were going to support groups that they did not agree with. The Court ruled in 2000 that the fees were not unconstitutional as long as funds were allocated on a politically neutral basis.
The referenda system used by CU was not directly affected by the ruling, but UCSU felt that an overhaul was needed in order to minimize potential liability issues.
“While binding referenda was not ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, UCSU, at the time of the turnover, felt that it was necessary to eliminate any liability similar to the Southworth case,” Nakagawa said.
Scott counters that when the idea for SGFB was being drawn up, there wasn’t enough input from students and student groups.
“We didn’t get our say in what happened,” Scott said.
Contact Campus Press Staff Writer Rob Ryan at rryan@thecampuspress.com.
