By Staff

Like any representative government, the Student Government Association is supposed to be a vehicle to promote student interests and. therefore, must be held accountable for its actions. However, how can students, who in this case are the constituents in this microcosm of government affairs, judge their leaders if vital information is withheld from them.

While the federal government has been known to conduct certain operations in secrecy and classify information as confidential, every year the annual budget is made public – now it can even be accessed via the Internet. While students do not necessarily pay taxes to the University, each year thousands of tuition dollars are collected from each student and used to fund many of the on-campus services, from electric bills to employee salaries. While the University’s administration is responsible for deciding how this enormous sum is allocated, and students have little knowledge or say in the matter, there is one small portion – exactly $65 from each student, each semester – that even President Stuart Rabinowitz cannot touch. This is student money, placed in the hands of a government that is comprised of students and elected by students with the purpose of serving students. However, in the past only the roughly 50 undergraduates who serve on SGA’s Senate have any idea how this money is distributed.

This week, The Chronicle decided to publish a breakdown of the SGA budget for the 2006-07 school year after it was leaked by an anonymous source. The numbers are real, and provide insight into how student money is spent. It is appalling that this information had not been shared in the past and there seems to be little justification why the budget process has been conducted behind closed doors.

Students have every right to know how their money is being spent, and should be able to approach SGA if they disagree with how the system is being run. Clubs also could benefit from being more involved and informed of the budget process. A club’s budget dictates how that group will function, what limits are placed on them financially and how they should plan within their means. There is just too much at stake for clubs not to be more involved. However, as the process works now, clubs submit a proposal but are then restricted from attending SGA meetings where their proposal will be presented and debated. Clubs should have the opportunity to present their budgets before the Senate or at least be present at meetings, if for no other reason than to gain insight into the process which could help them when drafting next year’s proposals. This would also allow club members to clear any confusion or questions that may arise in Senate regarding a club’s proposal, which could have drastic effects on their ability to function properly for the upcoming year.

Another problem with conducting the budget process through closed meetings is that many members on Senate are also members of clubs, some even sitting on executive boards. This is not surprising, since those students who gravitate to student government tend to be joiners, they have a desire to be involved in many areas of campus life and are passionate about what interests them. However, while it has been said that the practice of members of Senate using their position to promote the needs of their club on the Senate floor is looked down upon, clubs who do have members within SGA have some of an edge over those who are left completely on the outside of the budget process. Also, there are clubs who may not have members on Senate, but who may be friends with many SGA Senators. It is only human nature that these SGA officials will fight more aggressively for money for clubs that they have ties to, whether directly or through friends. Opening up the process would allow all clubs to have a voice in the budget debate and to ensure that their case receives adequate time on the Senate floor.

There is one foreseeable problem with making the complete SGA budget public to students, which obviously The Chronicle considered before deciding to print this information. There is the possibility that this knowledge could lead to resentment toward clubs who received large sums of money and fighting between clubs who felt they were shortchanged. However, it is the hope of this publication that all parties involved will approach this news in a mature and professional manner. Don’t read into these numbers too much, but if there is a figure that strikes you as odd or unfair, then question your leaders on their logic in coming to the decision. If you look at these numbers and feel that your club did not receive the amount that it needed or that you feel it deserves, put your emotions aside and handle it an intelligent way. (You will probably get much further than if you were to storm up to the SGA office and demand the situation be rectified. Instead, ask to meet with the appropriations board before it is time to submit proposals in the spring. Explain that you feel SGA has overlooked the club’s accomplishments and role on campus and that the money that you have been given is not sufficient. Perhaps, you can ask a member of the appropriations committee to suggest ways to improve your next year’s proposal, so that the club’s needs and purpose are reflected more accurately. Most importantly though, be realistic.)

Last year, all clubs combined requested more than $1 million, almost double of what SGA actually has to allocate. Stick with the bare necessities and then focus on maybe one or two changes or additions your club would make that would require a little extra money thrown your way.

As election rolls around each spring, almost every candidate touts how they will change SGA, they will make it more accountable to students. Well, here is the chance to put these promises to the test. This past election generated the largest student turnout in Hofstra history. Don’t let students think they went to the ballots for nothing. Make them feel their government is honest and accountable to them, and SGA will gain more respect and legitimacy among the student body.