When the Student Activity Fee (SAF) was raised to $100 a year, a promise was made that the students would be able to have the programming and concerts they always wanted. The problem is, when the Student Government Association (SGA), in conjunction with a 15 percent approval from the student body, passed this measure, they might not have taken into account who was controlling how that money was spent.

Almost $500,000 was left over in the Program Request Fund last year, more than half of the total fund. This amount makes it clear to all that the Budget Review Committee (BRC) undershot its operating budgets. What better way to rectify this gross oversight than granting student groups more money for this upcoming year?

The Council for University Programs (CUP) — the main planning group in charge of Springfest — used 98 percent of its operating budget last year. Considering they had managed their budget so well, former CUP President Tom Kneafsey thought a considerable increase was something they deserved.

So why has CUP, the group who arguably puts on the most popular student events, only been granted a 10 percent budget increase?

The supposed “rationale” behind this idea was a cap of 10 percent would set a logical pattern for the future, so dramatic budget increases wouldn’t become expected. If you continue this thinking, more and more of the students’ SAF money will roll over every year — something that is unacceptable.

So what happened?

BRC and the Student Activities Board (SAB) are in charge of granting budget money to student groups. When CUP first approached BRC in the budget process they asked for $228,000, a $73,000 increase over its budget from the previous year. The two groups battled, and the number settled on was $205,000. From there, this amount had to be approved by SAB. Sounds easy enough, right?

There was one little issue though — after Kneafsey left the room, BRC decided the four major groups, or “boxed groups,” (CUP, afterHOURS, SGA and the Student Activities Office) would be capped at 10 percent budget increases, and SAB approved it. Which, as one can imagine, brings about a logical question — what was the purpose of CUP’s original meeting with BRC?

There is a clear lack of communication between the student groups and the SAB/BRC duo. The increase in the SAF imposed on the students should have been burning a hole in SAB’s pocket. Instead, unless student groups are more fairly allocated money, more and more of it will roll over, and, per usual, the students will suffer. With a system of checks and balances in place, it might have been useful for the BRC to check before they balanced.

The student body willingly gave up their money under just one pretense — that it wouldn’t go to waste. Too bad CUP won’t be allowed to hold up their end of the bargain.