It’s looking like this budget cycle will serve as the perfect opportunity for our elected student leaders to prove that they can put aside individual interests and create a plan that truly serves the entire UCSD community. And with tens of thousands of dollars in cuts to make, the final budget will make the priorities of the A.S. Council crystal clear.
At this moment, senators have two philosophies to choose from when determining what will go on the cutting block: They can act as direct representatives of the students or as their trustees, making potentially unpopular decisions that truly serve the long-term interests of the student body. This page, as in the past, endorses the latter vision.
In the current budget debate, meager funds have pitted funding for student organizations against support for the U.S. Student Association and its UC counterpart. Though it’s unfortunate that court-mandated policy changes have driven up USSA fees the same year that the council faces a deficit, senators must approve the membership dues proposed by A.S. President Christopher Sweeten.
With the Higher Education Act reauthorization on the congressional agenda this year, college students can ill afford to weaken their lobby; trying to save a few dollars today may mean financial aid disaster for the students currently attending high school.
To offset the dues, councilmembers must make the difficult choice and slightly pare support for student organizations and college councils. For senators, that may mean acting against the immediate wishes of their own constituency, but ensuring a fiscally stable budget must be a bigger priority than providing local pork.
With a plethora of attempted and many successful college-level initiatives, the college councils have proven themselves resilient in adjusting to A.S. cuts in recent years. In the face of cuts, they can likely do it again.
At the same time, the council must revisit the issue of funding for A.S. Safe Rides. It should be clear that the program has become far too expensive to afford under current activity fee levels, and it’s unfortunate that last year’s leaders lacked the political will to find a permanent solution for this festering problem. Like other areas, the Safe Rides budget must absorb its own share of reductions, which may mean longer wait times for students and a potential cap on the number of rides each student can receive.
Once again, though politically difficult, these choices will ensure that this program remains viable over the long term.
Perhaps the only truly worrisome features of Sweeten’s latest proposal are the cuts to the A.S. programming office. Though based on sound logic, these cuts must be coupled with across-the-board stipend reductions. Otherwise, it would be disingenuous for the council to preserve its own pay while cutting the area that truly embodies everything most students know about the role of their elected leaders, playing into the hands of the SunGod Party and other populist groups who will likely exploit the programming cuts in next year’s elections.
Overall, Sweeten’s budget offers a moderate compromise that attempts to spread the pain fairly. Without shielding pet projects and programs, his spending proposal offers a stable and fiscally responsible plan that should be adopted quickly, to avoid another 1 a.m. debacle like the one that occurred last year.
How senators vote on the budget will truly reflect whether they’re committed to the interests of students or the special niche groups that helped get them elected.
