EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
(541) 346-3712
BUSINESS OFFICE:
(541) 346-5512
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
(541)346-4343
RFC spending patterns stir controversy, dissent
■ OUR OPINION:
The committee’s
lack of forecasting
created a budget
season that has
looked more like a
comedy of errors
■ ANOTHER
VIEW: The
finance board’s
actions are the
product of a pro
student mentality
The ASUO Programs Finance Commit
tee has a tough job. Its seven members
are responsible for close to $2 million
in student incidental fees, and must
endure more than 3 months of budget hear
ings for almost 100 student programs.
Even after its initial job is over, the board’s
final budget is subject to intense scrutiny.
After the ASUO Student Senate analyzes
and approves the final amount and line items,
the budget is sent before the ASUO President
and Vice President, then to President Frohnmay- i
er, the state chancellor and finally to the Oregon \
State Board of Higher Education for final ap
proval.
If the PFC makes a mistake in its allocations, it
will no doubt find out about it. And almost two
months away from submitting its final budget, this
year’s PFC has already made its share of mistakes.
After a initial error in preparation and research
before the budget season began, the PFC has been
unable to adapt to its own incompetence. Now, it i
is essentially trapped in mediocrity and any effort
to escape will only make the situation worse.
The nightmare began in November when the
PFC submitted its benchmark request to the senate.
It was here that the committee was supposed to
forecast programs’ needs for the coming year and
submit a total amount for allocation. In all fairness,
circumstances didn’t make it easy for the board.
With the minimum-wage increase and a required
ten percent raise in printing costs, all program bud
gets were expected to jump considerably.
Unfortunately for the committee, it didn’t bother
to find out exactly how much the wage increase
and other mandated increases would affect the
programs whose budgets it was in charge of. The
PFC knew its benchmark would need to be raised
by a fair amount, but had no exact numbers to jus
tify doing so. Not surprisingly, the senate gave the
PFC a three percent benchmark, significantly less
than the five percent the committee requested.
Armed with a benchmark it did not want, the
PFC began budget hearings in January and seemed
to ignore the standard the senate had given it. Fif
teen of the first 25 groups who came before the
board received increases above and beyond the
seemingly forgotten three percent mark. The PFC
seemed more
focused on its goals of standardizing group
stipends and allocating more money to smaller
programs than keeping costs down.
Soon enough, the mandated increases the com
mittee was so worried about just months before
came back to haunt the board. The wage increase,
printing costs and other required raises were calcu
lated as a 2.7 percent increase alone, without any
program growth and definitely no standardized
stipends.
Despite this new revelation, the PFC continued
to follow its own ambitions. Nothing changed until
the over-giving finally reached its climax a few
weeks ago. The PFC’s giving averaged out to a 7.5
percent increase, a gargantuan sum in light of the
three percent benchmark. To put the amount in
perspective, any total allocation over seven per
cent must be voted on by the students on the
spring ballot.
In response to criticism and perhaps the realiza
tion of just how far it had strayed, the PFC does
seem to be wising up. Its giving is currently at a six
percent increase and is projected to be at five per
cent by the end of the budget season.
Despite its change in heart, the PFC’s conduct
this year cannot be ignored. The board likes to
\ cite its original request for a five percent bench
y mark as justification for overspending. While this
5 request was probably accurate, it was really just
'H'.v a guess. The PFC had no clear idea of how
'' \ much the mandated increases would affect
\ \ its benchmark.
' I | And even if the board did know, the senate
' f | gave them a three percent benchmark that the
.<$ f committee was obligated to follow. PFC mem
bers like to describe the benchmark as a
“guideline,” but it’s really more than that. It’s a
The PFC’s goals of stipend standardization
and giving money to smaller groups are indeed
gallant, but glaringly impractical — especially
with such stringent budget requirements.
The PFC also likes to claim that it never gives
out less money to groups at the end of the budget
process. In some years, this may true. This season,
however, it seems almost impossible. With a cur
rent six percent increase, and pressure from sena
tors to lower that as much as possible, giving less
money seems almost inevitable.
A overall decrease in PFC allocation will no
doubt come from small requests by the ASUO Ex
ecutive and ASUO Child Care in coming weeks,
but the pressure for more cuts is still high. Unless
the PFC wants to be tom apart when its budget
goes before the senate on April 15, some changes
will have to be made — and some programs could
suffer.
Even if some measures are taken to lower the al
location amount, the PFC will have a hard time be
fore the senate. Already, many senators have ex
pressed concerns over the board’s spending
patterns. And after the senate, going before ASUO
President Matthew Scotten and Vice President
Glen Banfield may not be pretty either.
PFC Vice Chairwoman Michelle Johnston said
the committee will probably hold a meeting to
highlight potential changes Scotten and Banfield
could make in the PFC budget, since the senate is
unlikely to make specific modifications. Expect
that meeting to be a long one. The PFC has plenty
of work to do.
requirement.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board.
PROGRAMS FINANCE COMMITTEE FUNDING TRENDS
■330-3/ ouagei season
Money requested:
Money allocated:
SOURCE: ASUO Executive
numDers, as or i-eo. 2b.
$1,455,875
$1,411,514
+9.4% change from last year
+6.08%
ASUO Recommendation:
Benchmark:
$1,402,652
$1,370,499
+5.4 %
+3.0 %
The ASUO Programs Finance Committee,
nearing the end of its budget season, is
confronted with some opposition to cur
rent spending levels. Although, when
looking from the outside, the spending seems
excessive, what follows is a justification of our
spending.
Every fall, the ASUO Student Senate sets <f
what is called a benchmark, or a potential t,
spending proposal for next year. The PFC went \
to the senate to ask for a five percent increase.
This would have allowed for stipend stabiliza
tion, greater funding for smaller groups and
enough money to cover mandated increases.
What was passed in the senate was a three per
cent increase. The PFC has tried to do all it could
to stay within this benchmark. During the budget
process we realized that to stay within the bench
mark meant to only fund the mandated increases
and thus allow for zero percent program growth.
At the beginning of the process, this group de
cided unanimously that growth should not be
stunted because of mandated increases. The
benchmark is used by the PFC as a guideline for
further funding. It is only a guideline, however,
and thus it is the job of the student-elected PFC to
use discretion for proper allocation.
The PFC is in charge of allocating student inci
dental fees to 96 student groups. However, groups
can also take their budgets to the ballot, like OS
PIRG, KWVA and the Designated Driver Shuttle
did last year. For the 1996-1997 fiscal year, ASUO
CHRISHUTCHINSON/EmeraW
CU'
programs received a total allocation of $2,319,721
(a 1.8 percent decrease), which included funding
from ballot measures.
Currently, our spending level, which is for the
next fiscal year, is at a 6.02 percent increase. This
is counting three percent for mandated charges,
such as a ten percent increase in printing and du
plication and the state mandated increase in the
minimum wage.
By the end of the budget cycle, the PFC will
have allocated about a five percent increase or
what we first asked the Student Senate for.
\ However, the ASUO Executive and the Stu
j, dent Senate have the chance to veto this. If
jj jj this happens, the PFC will be forced to
;/ make cuts in the present budget recom
lW mendations to meet the Senate and ASUO
criteria.
We are representatives of the students, and
we realize that our decisions directly impact
your, and our, student fees. Groups such as
1 Saferide, the Women’s Center, Designated Dri
ver Shuttle and the Oregon Daily Emerald, just
to name a few, not only contribute to student
leadership, involvement and programming, but
also add to the college experience as a whole.
We conduct budget hearings every Monday
from 7-10 p.m. and every Tuesday from 5:30-10
p.m. Furthermore, the PFC holds hearings every
other Saturday from 10 a.m.-8 p.m.
® These hearings are open to the public, so
please feel free to come and give us your input.
We can also be reached at pfc@gladstone.uore
gon.edu, called at (541) 346-0623 or visited in our
office in Room 28 of the EMU.
Michelle Johnston is the vice chairwoman of the
ASUO Programs Finance Committee, and Bill
Miner is a PFC Senator. Their views do not
necessarily represent those of the newspaper.