Students question SFC rules

Student groups at Portland State may be forced to drastically change the way they operate their budgets, depending on a ruling from the Judicial Board regarding the interpretation of Student Fee Committee (SFC) guidelines this Thursday.

At a meeting last Thursday, two Portland State students posed a question to the Judicial Board over whether student groups have flexibility when spending money out of their budgets.

The students, Jessie Anderson and Alex D’Aurora, contended that student groups are not spending their budgets within parameters approved by the SFC and Student Activities and Leadership Programs (SALP) advisors.

Anderson and D’Aurora said that student groups spend money how they see fit, citing that student group leaders frequently deviate from a budget’s prescribed line items.

Line items are specific sections of a budget that cover specific purchases.

The two students interpreted Article V, Section 10 and Article VI, Section 1.1 of the SFC guidelines as stating that student groups must follow budget line items and there is no flexibility in spending.

Each term, students attending PSU must pay student fees, including an incidental fee that pays for student groups. The SFC is in charge of allocating funds for over 200 student groups, including athletics and the Vanguard.

Anderson and D’Aurora said that student groups spending outside their budget’s line items was a misuse of student dollars.

“We’re trying to bring student fees to the public consciousness,” D’Aurora said. “If students knew what the money was being spent on, they would disagree.”

The students repeatedly asked the Judicial Board whether or not there is specific language in either the Associated Students of Portland State University (ASPSU) Constitution or SFC guidelines that grants discretion to student groups in spending matters.

“It’s a yes or no question,” D’Aurora said during the meeting. “If you can’t find it [in the language], then the answer is no.”

While the Judicial Board did not come to a decision at the Sept. 20 meeting, Student Body President Rudy Soto and SFC chair Amanda Newberg opposed Anderson and D’Aurora’s claim that student groups have no discretion when spending SFC allocated funds.

Soto said that the problem stems from a difference of opinion. Because goals and priorities are different between one administration and the next, Soto said it is difficult to strictly follow line items when a student leader inherits a budget drafted by his or her predecessor a year earlier.

“Basically, they’re saying student groups shouldn’t be able to buy posters instead of t-shirts,” Soto said. “Where, in companies or groups around America, does that happen?”

Soto questioned Anderson and D’Aurora’s accuracy.

“They are littering the campus with this. It’s a lie,” Soto said. “It’s pretty obvious here that student groups should have the ability to change their budgets.”

Newberg said it is her belief that the issue is better suited for the SFC to determine if student groups have discretion when spending funds. According to Newberg, checks already exist to ensure student groups are properly using SFC allocated money.

“If student groups did something with their funds without the consent of the SFC or following the SFC guidelines, SALP advisors would notify the committee and funds could be stopped. It’s set up so these problems will not happen,” Newberg said.

Newberg said she interprets the SFC guidelines as student groups having the ability to prioritize their goals. She also said a student group’s mission statement is also important in determining how funds are allocated and spent.

Newberg also said student groups have to explain their goals and present their mission statement, detailing how the group plans to serve students, when they present their budget. A SALP advisor will not sign a budget request without this information, she said.