UPAC's mission is to "enhance the out of class experience" for Penn State students. We meet this goal by allocating funds to student club travel, programming events, and a number of "big budget" allocations.
The proposed reorganization of the activity fee, which is to take place next year, will lump ultimate budgetary authority under the recently proposed Fee Activity Board (FAB). To our understanding, FAB will consist of only seven students (plus one non-voting student chair) and three faculty members who will be charged with the responsibility of allocating the entire discretionary portion of the activity fee to three main areas. First, as a lump sum to UPAC, which will continue to exist, but at a significantly reduced capacity with regard to budgetary authority, second, at FAB's own discretion to the several aforementioned "big budgets," which total to an amount in excess of $1.2 million.
These budgets include funding for the Distinguished Speaker Series, the Bryce Jordan Center subsidy, the student child care subsidies, Late Night Penn State, the fitness pass membership subsidies and intramural sports.
Currently, these budgets are considered in large committee hearings by all UPAC members who determine the appropriate amount of money that should be allocated to those who request it. Third, FAB is proposed to allocate a yet to be determined amount of money to another newly proposed organization, the Student Programming Association (SPA). SPA's proposed purpose will be to coordinate, and at times to even independently augment, events, speakers, and general activities that are brought to campus by student groups. SPA is proposed to consist of a larger group of students.
As members of UPAC, we have several concerns with these proposals.
First and foremost among these concerns is the fact that the new proposal will place all ultimate budgetary authority of the $1.8 million in the hands of seven students and three faculty members. The concentration of allocation authority that would result from such a proposal is too extreme. Within the group of 30 students that currently make allocation decisions, there is room for a variety of viewpoints, a diverse set of student backgrounds and colorful discussion.
We are also uncomfortable with the idea of having administrative staff members vote on the committee. While there is no doubt that staff members play an important role in assisting students in the allocation of activity fee money, they should not dilute student input by assuming voting roles on the proposed fee board. As members of UPAC, we have prided ourselves with allocating the activity fee for students and by students. To stray from this precedent of total student allocation invites disharmonies between students and the administration.
The proposal to appoint the seven students on FAB further increases administrative discretion over the student activity fee. The appointment of so few students by a "selected" group of individuals only heightens our initial concerns with the small size of the proposed FAB. If the seven students on FAB are appointed, the group responsible for making the selection would be empowered with the ability to shape the style of all fee board allocations for the subsequent year.
Frankly, the proposed structure of FAB is so extremely centralized that any assurances we receive from proponents of FAB that the appointing committee and the 10 board members will accurately and sufficiently represent all University Park students are entirely unsatisfactory. Student participation in the allocation of the student activity fee should be more involved than mere receipt of a promise that FAB is working in our best interest.
And lastly, we have concerns with the idea of allocating activity fee money to the proposed SPA for its own discretionary usage.
While SPA seems to be oriented toward the admirable goal of coordinating programming on campus, we are unsure about whether there exists a need for a group like SPA to independently program on its own.
Furthermore, it is ambiguous to us how this nascent association will decide how much money to allocate and to whom. If SPA were to be established, it would best serve students by providing organization and coordination to the many programming student groups, who may very well increase participation and learning from a program by coordinating with other, similar groups. Endowing SPA with authority to program on its own, however, encourages it to step outside the bounds of its ideal function.
In conclusion, it seems that the FAB and SPA proposals are rushing students headlong into a major undertaking which has not been justified and the results of which are unknown. Any problems that are perceived to exist with the way UPAC allocates funding should be addressed first within UPAC. Stripping the 30 elected and appointed students on UPAC of most of their budgetary authority, and giving it instead to 10 selected individuals, should only be undertaken as a last option, and only then if UPAC has proven to be totally incompetent and ineffective, which it has not.
Unfortunately, this worst-case scenario has been pursued by some students and administrators as the first and only option available to them. In the meantime, members of UPAC remain in the dark as to why our allocations, especially with regard to big budgets, have been considered inept. Furthermore, it is not even clear that FAB has been structured to address whatever shortcomings UPAC has been perceived to have experienced.
It is our sincere hope that Vicky Triponey, vice president of student affairs, and all other administrators and students involved in the formation and implementation of FAB and SPA will halt their continued pursuit of these organizations until a more thorough and clear investigation of current problems with allocation methods and potential solutions has been completed.
