Budgets make for boring news. Combined with the endless media coverage of the war, it has been easy to ignore recent stories outlining the state's continued failure to provide Penn State with the money it needs.
But with Undergraduate Student Government (USG) elections in full gear, I hoped that this issue would finally receive the attention it deserves. Instead, however, candidates have seemingly committed to pursuing the current USG administration's bungled approach to lobbying our elected officials. By doing so, the candidates guarantee that Penn State will continue to face funding setbacks.
Besides generating another apologetic sound bite about Penn State feeling the state's budget pain, university President Spanier's recently canceled appearance before lawmakers would probably not have changed the university's current funding predicament.
This is because both the university and USG's current lobbying efforts are mistakenly based on the assumption that a majority of our elected representatives truly care about what Penn State does for the commonwealth. In reality, these officials have more important projects to appropriate money toward; say, for instance, parking lots and lawn mowers.
Faced with the option of fighting for Penn State's annual state appropriation, Sen. Jake Corman, R-Bellefonte, chose instead to secure $15,000 to pay for the cost of repaving a parking lot at a Juniata County park visited daily by roughly 100 people.
In contrast, the Penn State system offers more than 80,000 students educational services on a daily basis. Corman's priorities also include: $185,000 for an all-weather track in a local school district, $15,000 to purchase and install 26 "vintage-style street lights" and "tree planting" in a nearby town, and $4,320 to renovate the roof of a country fair exhibit building.
Indeed, even as he tells the university that the state cannot afford to give it more money because of the slow economy and cost of homeland security improvements, since January of this year, Corman has found over a quarter million dollars to fund other projects.
Similarly, Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Bellefonte, has acquired $15,000 of state money to purchase lawn mowing equipment for a cemetery in Bellefonte, $132,000 to promote tourism in State College and Centre County (because football games don't draw enough people), and $28,000 to assist in expanding the Mifflin County airport, no doubt a future major entry point for the swarm of tourists on their way.
And let's not forget former Gov. Mark Schweiker who, before leaving office, gave away $4.5 million in state money for a parking garage and $1 million to renovate the stadium where his high school alma mater plays football.
As this and other numbers show, there is not a lack of state money for Penn State, but rather a lack of interest from government officials in spending that money on Penn State.
Our legislators' indifference is furthered by the fact that students tend not to vote. As a result, officials have no problem voting for budgets that produce increasingly higher tuition and they have no problem with ignoring our interests in general.
For years, USG has attempted to change this by engaging in endless lobbying efforts and dispatching students to Harrisburg during budget season to meet with officials and express their concerns about tuition and funding.
While these meetings are beneficial, their impact is weakened by the fact that brief exchanges fail to build the long-term relationships between representatives and students that are necessary to ensure overall success.
The recent resignation, amidst admissions of deception, by the head of this USG lobbying effort further brings into question its effectiveness over the past year and leaves the leadership of the Commonwealth Campus Student Government with increased responsibilities. Given this situation, a new vision for lobbying is needed.
Rather than visiting Harrisburg once a year, USG should invite representatives to campus to experience great Penn State events, like the Interfraternity/Panhellenic Dance Marathon, and see the positive impact students have on the surrounding community.
Also, such visits would provide elected officials with the chance to interact with the students they have long ignored. Other aspects of a long-term USG lobbying plan should include regular updates and correspondence between student groups and representatives in Harrisburg.
Most importantly, a serious plan should include a massive student registration and get-out-the-vote effort at all Penn State campuses. Combined with university-sponsored attempts to create a grassroots coalition of alumni who speak out on Penn State issues, these efforts by USG would help build an electoral coalition which Harrisburg could no longer ignore.
Past USG candidates have often argued that nothing can be done about the tuition and budget issues facing Penn State. But the reality is that something must be done, for as is obvious, the current approach to lobbying is ineffective. By taking a risk and outlining a new plan for addressing tuition, USG candidates can show that, unlike our state officials, they are committed to making progress on this issue.
More importantly, though, the USG tickets that take on this challenge will send a message to voters that they are committed to providing the strong, effective leadership on major student issues that has been seemingly lacking from previous USG administrations.
