No evidence? No accountability

No+evidence%3F+No+accountability

Victoria Kelly

During the yearly budgeting process, clubs must submit documentation to student government members to support their monetary requests.

Every club except for one, that is.

An amendment in the student government constitution states that Programming Board must receive at least 25 percent of the total money to be allocated.

Programming Board members do not have to submit documentation to justify that amount of money.

This year, they were given more than $99,000.

We question this special treatment.

Student government members conduct a budgeting process that scrutinizes other clubs’ requests.

Yet, they put this all aside for Programming Board members.

While it is true that Programming Board serves the whole campus, there needs to be some documentation on how many students take advantage of planned events throughout the year, and how much those events cost if the student senators are to meet an obligation to allocate funds wisely.

Is the number of students attending those events significant enough to explain an automatic allocation of a quarter of the total budget?

We do not see why Programming Board members cannot follow the normal budgeting procedure, and must, instead, rely on a constitutional amendment guaranteeing funds.

This amendment provides a blind allocation of money and no upfront accountability.

It would better serve students if all clubs, especially those given large sums of money, provided documentation and general objectives for needed funds.