Let's Wait on Term Bill

Budget increase for Undergraduate Council must come after reforms

On Sunday night the Undergraduate Council voted down a recommendation by its president Noah Z. Seton '00 to ask the Dean of the College and the Faculty for an increase in the term bill fee from $20 to $50. Last March, we encouraged students to support the council's referendum on the issue and agree to the term bill increase, conditional on the council's cutting its size. Eight months later, after poor turnout for the referendum and no sign that the council will be thinning its ranks, we cannot support Seton's recommendation. The council was right not to pass a hike without consulting students, but several changes need to be made before the increase should be passed.

There is no doubt that student groups need more money. Both the proliferation of groups and the energetic work of groups new and old to maintain and enrich their programs requires increased funding, and the council is currently the best source for that money. However, the council and money are two subjects which have mixed in unfortunate and unreliable ways, and we should not turn over more money to the current council.

Because so few students voted in the last elections, the current council does not accurately represent the student body: Students do not vote for representatives, they do not turn out for referenda on issues like fee increases and they have no faith in the council to run events itself and manage its accounts. The $40,000 in council money that "reappeared" after being lost in a web of poor accounting and the endless discussions of SpringFest bands only indicate the council's inability to manage its own discretionary funds effectively.

Student group funding should be just the sort of universally important issue around which the council can galvanize student support, so it is particularly unfortunate that there was such low turnout in last spring's referendum. The council was correct to hold off discussion of the term bill hike until a better, more publicized referendum of the students is executed--if students two years ago could get riled up over grapes, money out of their own pockets should be more than enough to motivate folks to vote. Only once the majority of students are shown to approve of the fee increase should the council feel licensed to move forward with the recommendation.

Student approval is vital, but it is not the only concern. The council budget committee should draft a resolution that will raise the percentage of council funds that are earmarked for student groups. The current 60 percent is a good start, and the actual allocation of 67.5 percent this year is encouraging, but if the council is best understood as a clearinghouse for student-group funds that currently runs some mediocre campus-wide events, 80 percent of the fees should go to student groups. Twenty percent of the proposed new fee would give the council a reasonable increase over their current discretionary budget and a chance to impress in their ability to host events. If the discretionary funds of the council grow out of proportion to student-group funds, however, this will prove the worst nightmare of an ineffective and unrepresentative council legislating more money toward their own, oft-misguided efforts. Students and student groups, not council discretionary funds, should be the beneficiaries of any increase.

Additionally, the council would go a long way towards increasing its legitimacy if it decreased its size once and for all. Uncontested elections diminish the council members' need to be responsive to their constituents. Reducing the number of seats and making elections more competitive would force candidates to actively seek out and respond to the concerns of students.

Seton's proposal to increase student group funding has merit. We are glad that the council is seeking student opinion, but we simply need guarantees that the money will go to student groups and that the council itself will be reformed before we can support the proposal.