Congress’ good compromise
Student Congress made wise decision in divvying up funds for Students for a Democratic Society
November 12, 2009
Students for a Democratic Society deserves to have the financial means to host speakers on campus.
But that does not mean it is free to waste student money by making unreasonable funding requests.
And Congress, recognizing this, did the right thing by cutting the requested appropriation to a more reasonable amount.
This allows SDS to have a voice on campus but prevents the wasteful spending of student fees.
SDS had originally asked Congress for $6,095to bring three speakers to campus.
All three speakers are current or former members of the SDS chapter at UNC-Asheville.
Yet SDS deemed that each speaker deserved a $2,000 honorarium.
This request was unreasonably large. First, the speakers do not have the credentials to receive such a large payment for coming to speak.
Also, the honoraria are too high given the relatively low turnout the event is planned to draw. SDS estimated in its funding request that a mere 70 to 100students would attend.
Rather than grant an exorbitant request or deny funding altogether, Congress compromised by approving a reduced appropriation of $2,095.
It is all too easy to want to deny the most radical groups on campus a voice. But if Congress has the money, then there is no reason for any group to not have an opportunity for funding .
But appropriations should be a reasonable use of the fees that all students pay.
Congress has recently had issues granting the right amount of funding. In October, it squandered $9,675in an appropriation to Carolina Students for Life to fund an abortion debate that drew 138people.
That event raised questions about the efforts student organizations are undertaking to minimize costs, especially for speakers. It also raised questions about the efforts of Congress, as an agent of the students, to responsibly appropriate money.
This time, Congress has struck a better compromise. Given who the speakers are and the size of the expected audience, $2,095 is nothing to protest about.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Breaking News
Be the first to know when breaking news occurs.
The Daily Tar Heel newsletter
Subscribe to our daily newsletter that includes the top stories of the day.
Responsibly dispensing
Responsibly dispensing student funds means doing that which will best serve the interests of all student groups. Paying the market price for a product or service allows for both securing that good and reduces the risk of overpaying. Are these speakers in that high of a demand?
An honorarium of $700 to recent graduates is excessive. Wikipedia defines an honorarium as follows: "includes the payment to a guest speaker at a conference to cover their travel, accommodation, or preparation time." Seeing as these speakers are coming from different locations, providing them the same amount contradicts this statement. Furthermore, reasonable accommodations and travel from Asheville is not $700. You could get a flight AND stay at the Carolina Inn for less than that (and that I consider excessive).
So, I question the statement,
"And Congress, recognizing this, did the right thing by cutting the requested appropriation to a more reasonable amount."
Where did the rationale for the $700 per speaker come from? The total oddly coincides with the amount requested for each individual speaker, and no other reason is apparent.
Furthermore, we are providing a taxable honorarium, indicating that this is not simply a reimbursement, as evidenced by http://www.fin.ucar.edu/guide/honor.html
which also states that a mandatory 30% must be withheld for taxes as stated in I.R.S. publication 515
An arbitrary $700 honorarium suggests that Student Congress is bringing more work upon itself with an unclear return on that investment.
Rewarding bloated funding requests with reduced, but still arbitrarily inflated budgets is not a responsible, nor sustainable action for any governing body.
If this is how student government funds are to be spent, the responsible thing to do would be to reduce student fees instead of improperly allocating these excessive funds to the most absurd requests.
dear dth, you are wrong, once
dear dth,
you are wrong, once again.
sincerely,
-the guy you misquote all the time.
The October appropriation to
The October appropriation to the abortion debate was $1,325, not $9,675. You are off by $8,350.
The $8,350 was indeed appropriated, but during February, by the last session of Student Congress. The current Student Congress has no control over what last year's Student Congress did in the Annual Budget process.
Zach Dexter
Finance Chair, Student Congress