To the Editor:

Amidst all of the complaining about the budget process this year, few people have offered suggestions on how to reform it. We have come up with a few suggestions that would clear up the controversies surrounding the process.

To avoid any conflicts of interest, all officers of clubs should be banned from the budget committee and the appeals committee. It is just impossible to expect a person to be free of bias if they are an officer of a club. This rule currently applies only to treasurers of clubs. I have heard the argument that nobody else wants to spend the long hours involved in being on the committee. This can be eliminated if the members were offered some compensation. Pay them for their time and more people will apply for the job. No money? We’re sure each club would pitch in $50 from their budget if it meant a fair budget process.

Next, we would put a cap on how much a club can receive to $10,000. Exempt from this would be the WRBC, the Chase Hall Committee, and the Ballroom Society. Every school needs a radio station and a club who sponsors student entertainment. If ballroom counts as PE credit, then it should be funded by the athletic department. Those clubs aside, $10,000 is more than enough to spend in one year. By eliminating monopolies in the budget, there would be more money to go around for all clubs.

Third, we would change the co-sponsorship process in determining budgets. As it stands, a club cannot ask for funds to co-sponsor an event. However, a club must account for other clubs co-sponsoring them in their budgets. This is a double standard that causes two things. First, it causes clubs who work together to lose funds. Second, it discourages clubs from working together. Clubs should never be dissuaded from networking together to bring speakers who speak to a widespread audience.

Fourth, instead of focusing on plans for next year’s budget so heavily, also take into account the previous year’s spending. If a club receives a certain budget one year, and spends wisely, that club should not be punished the next year, even if the budget is poorly written. This is a liberal arts school. There is no accounting major at Bates. Not every club is going to have a future Wall Street banker on its staff. The process should be less about paperwork and more about people.

Fifth, the budget committee should be responsible for publicly explaining the allocations of each club’s budget before the budget is voted on by the BCSG. It seems that the budget automatically passes through the BCSG without any accountability taken on by the budget committee. There needs to be explanations as to why some clubs receive nearly $20,500 while others receive $0.00.

Let’s face it folks. When the combined budgets of New World Coalition, Friends of Fair Labor, People Eating Plants, Women’s Resource Center, Women of Color, SEED, Environmental Coalition, and Students Against Sexual Assault is $16,706.35, and the College Republicans alone received $17,489.02, there is a problem. I am not saying that the Republicans did not deserve this amount of money; I am saying that no club deserves this amount of money, when so many other clubs receive so little.

- Mark Tobey ‘05 and Ari Rosenberg ‘06

Respond to this article