The final say on student funds was not final

The student fee, which is assessed to all students every term based on enrollment, will increase this fall by as much as $18 for students enrolled in 12 or more credits. Student groups are also unable to find out how much money they are allocated for the coming school year, because the original numbers have changed and neither the Student Fee Committee nor the university administration have explained why.

Former SFC members stated that the fee increase above the $10 originally suggested by the SFC is partly the result of changes made to the budget by Portland State President Wim Wiewel during the budget approval process, which they claim was flawed.

University administration disagrees, however.

“The process is complex and there was hard work put in by everyone involved. Most importantly, the process is one that is open to the public and proper records can show anyone interested what took place,” said Domanic Thomas, interim director for Student Activities and Leadership Programs and adviser to the SFC.

Tanja Miljevic, former SFC vice chair, did not feel it was entirely transparent.

“It was very convoluted at the end, there was misadvising of deadlines and there was no chance for the [student] senate to respond to the changes,” Miljevic said.

Miljevic took over as SFC chair for a brief time during the budget approval process after elected SFC Chair Aimeera Flint stepped down.

According to Miljevic, some of the changes made to the final SFC budget at President Wiewel’s request are to cap the amount of money first-year student groups can receive, to restore funding to the athletics department for the coming year to the 2008–09 amount, and to decrease the amount of money drawn from SFC reserves from $1.7 million to about $1 million to be used for one-time equipment purchases, such as exercise equipment for the new recreation center.

University administrators were not available to confirm or deny the validity of the changes Miljevic reported.
“What we vote on at the end of the day isn’t the final decision. It’s so frustrating, we are just a recommending body to the president,” Miljevic said.

Flint said her committee had addressed the issues that the university administration eventually revised.

The process of obtaining the president’s approval of the SFC proposed budget at the end of every spring term is laid out in the SFC’s guidelines. After the SFC formulates the budget, it is presented to the student senate for approval. The SFC then presents the budget to the university president.

Any changes proposed by the president are supposed to be communicated in writing, and the SFC has the opportunity to respond to those suggestions, also in writing, either by accepting or rejecting the proposed changes.

There are several opportunities for both sides to volley and if the process reaches a stalemate, a university committee steps in to work through the process of reaching a final budget with both sides involved.

“Wiewel said he didn’t want to take it to that level and that he wanted to figure it out between us and him,” Miljevic said.

“The most frustrating thing is that we found out that at some point we were misinformed about how much money we had. In dealing with $12 million you would think people would be more involved,” Miljevic said.

The effect on student groups

Miljevic insists that within the final SFC budget no student group was cut funding below 2008–09 levels.

“Student groups didn’t get everything they asked for, but no group was allocated less than what they got this year,” she said.

Over $18 million was asked of the SFC by student groups, but at the time of the final SFC budget proposal only about $11.5 million had been collected in student fees.

However, the total budgets of many student groups are currently less than what was originally allocated for the coming school year. For instance, the budget of The Spectator is not only less than what was requested of the SFC but also less than what they thought they were finally allocated back in May.

“This caught us by surprise. I thought everything was settled and it’s not fair. What happened to process?” said Spectator Editor-in-Chief Joe Wirtheim, a senior majoring in communications.

Wirtheim’s budget was originally cut by 10 percent across the board—everything from phones to stipends were reduced in mid-May. As a cost-saving measure, almost all student groups originally received a budget cut from the SFC based on their revenue totals.

However, a little over a month later, Wirtheim received a new budget with all of the line items “zero funded,” meaning that the money allocated to things like postage, phones and printing was listed at zero. The money allotted to stipends was restored to what was given before the 10 percent cuts, but a lump sum of money labeled as “Final S&S Allocation” was listed at the bottom of the balance sheet without an explanation. The S&S amount for The Spectator was less than what was originally granted to the student publication throughout its line item expenses by about $2,200.

“We have applied for grants and haven’t heard anything yet. We are a conservative publication and can apply to conservative foundations but they are hurting right now,” he said. “At this rate we will barely be able to pay for paper and ink for nine issues.”

The Spectator has five paid positions including Wirtheim’s and three unpaid positions. He was considering having to cut a position after the 10 percent cut. Now he may have to cut a position in order to pay for basic things like phone service and printing.

“We are barely going to make it through. We are looking at a year of many car washes and bake sales.”