As The Stanford Daily Editorial Board wrote on Wednesday, the ASSU Funding System is broken, and our proposed reform is a good solution for fixing it. This quarter has seen the lowest level of funding of any quarter in the ASSU’s history. In order to prevent this from becoming the worst year for student events on campus, we must approve reform this quarter. Waiting until winter, as the Board suggests, would force us to continue under the current system through both this academic year and the next, preventing us from implementing a new system that responsibly and sustainably addresses the unique needs of all student groups until the 2016-17 school year.
The issue we face is one of sourcing and allocation, with a growing number of student groups and limited resources with which to fund them. We currently have only $350,000 per year to allocate to over 600 General Fees groups, while Special Fees groups are expected to submit a budget each February accounting for all of their expenses in the next academic year. General Fees groups have requested nearly $450,000 through just nine weeks, and had less than 20 percent of that funding approved. In order to sufficiently fund the hundreds of cultural, pre-professional, performance, publication, advocacy, religious, art, Greek and athletic groups that need money, action on funding reform must be taken now.
We cannot simply charge students more money in order to solve this problem; we need to fix a flawed and inefficient system. Our current system mandates that the Special Fees groups whose budgets the voters approve each spring submit those budgets in February. We then forbid these groups from receiving money at any other point during the year unless they have reserves, but they can only create reserves by over budgeting in one academic year and getting that money back. This has created more than $1.4 million in unspent student money sitting in just a handful of groups’ reserve accounts. That is four times the amount of money the other 600 student groups have access to every year.
We want to be clear: Special Fees groups have done nothing wrong. In fact, they have budgeted sensibly given the constraints of the current system. But the fact remains that unless the system is changed now, a few dozen Special Fees groups will receive $2.4 million this year while hundreds of General Fees groups will receive just $350,000.
The reason we are having the election now is so that we can implement a new funding system by spring quarter. This new system would allow all groups to access money throughout the course of the year without needing their own reserves. It also increases the amount of money available to current General Fees groups from $350,000 to over $1,000,000. But this system can only go into effect this academic year if we have the election now.
Waiting until winter quarter would force the implementation of a new system to be delayed until 2016. If we put Special Fees on the ballot this spring, we have to allow them to exist as they currently do for another year. We are trying to make funding easier for student groups, not harder, and a winter quarter election severely restricts each group’s ability to budget in time for a spring election.
The Daily editorialized that we have not had enough time for debate and discussion about this issue. We disagree with this claim. Like the Editorial Board said, this has been debated for several years, including a massive debate on campus last spring. We have spent this quarter partnering with student groups to create this reform proposal, particularly those that opposed SAFE Reform last spring. We have contacted every student group president and financial officer on campus, held several town hall meetings and communicated with the student body through all campus emails, receiving constructive feedback every step of the way. We have never seen the student body so actively engaged and knowledgeable about the funding issues at hand.
Feedback from students prompted us to deviate significantly from SAFE Reform in this proposal. No unelected people will have a vote on funding decisions at any level, the student fee will not be capped so that groups can continue to grow and groups that already have reserves can keep them if they want to use them. This is not our bill. This is Stanford’s bill. One created for students, by students, with input and feedback from students. By delaying the election, not only would lose valuable time in which we can actually implement the new reform, we risk losing the energy and momentum of this unprecedented movement. Waiting through winter break would stifle discussion, not encourage it.
This reform was created through years of discussion and now is the time to act. On Dec. 4 and 5 each undergraduate has the opportunity to increase the flexibility and the amount of funding for his or her student groups. For years, students have complained that the ASSU does nothing, but now we are being asked to slow down. This is a sign of substantial progress and we are excited for the opportunity to create a funding system that finally gives all student groups access to the resources they need. Now is the time to get this done.
Ben Holston and John-Lancaster Finley, Chair and Parliamentarian, ASSU Undergraduate Senate
Elizabeth Woodson and Logan Richard, ASSU Executives
Frederik Groce, ASSU Financial Manager
Contact Ben Holston and John-Lancaster Finley at holston1 ‘at’ stanford.edu and jfinley5 ‘at’ stanford.edu.