There has recently been a lot of attention brought to the Budget Review Committee (BRC) and the decisions made by BRC during Summer II. More specifically, there has been attention brought to the programs funded and the amount of money given to those programs when compared to decisions made later in the year. During this time, I have found one fact left out of discussion: There were mistakes made by the BRC. I am writing this letter to clarify and bring the mistakes and lessons learned to light.
Just like any other governing body, the BRC is not perfect. When facing new challenges, predicting all possible outcomes is difficult if not impossible. There was no corruption as has been insinuated; just a lack of understanding about what the year was going to bring.
BRC realized there had to be a change in operation this year, but with no previous experiences to draw from, it was hard to know what changes had to be made. In the Student Activity Fee’s (SAF) 25 year history, this is the first year where we are experiencing a budget crunch. With growing awareness of the ability to request funding, and a dwindling reserve, BRC is facing the first year where programs have to be cut because of a lack of funds available.
Last year BRC only cut or denied funding for a program if it directly conflicted with the SAF manual. Examples are fundraising events and events where the cost per student is excessive. However, with limited funds available, BRC had to start cutting programs because there is simply not enough money. Unfortunately, how much had to be cut wasn’t realized until a pivotal budget request.
The request I am talking about is PIKEtoberfest. I have nothing against the PIKEtoberfest event. I thought it was an engaging, well attended and successful event. However, for it to be almost fully funded by BRC was a mistake that BRC has since learned from.
At the time that PIKEtoberfest was funded, BRC rarely, in 23 years of operation, cut a program for reasons outside of a direct conflict with the SAF manual. After funding PIKEtoberfest, BRC received more requests for the month of October than predicted; a month where about one-third of the budget had been taken up by one event. The BRC soon ran out of funds for the month of October and realized there was a problem: a large and excessive event was approved and many smaller efficient events had to be denied funding.
The BRC realized that events of excess cost had to be cut so that a greater amount and variety of events could be funded. Should another PIKEtoberfest come through BRC, the outcome would not be the same. I predict the budget would be cut by almost 40 to 50 percent because of lessons learned.
The BRC is not perfect. However, the members are intelligent and capable of learning from past decisions. In a perfect world they would love to see every program funded. I am confident that if all parties involved work together, we can come to a solution to the problems faced.
As a final note, I implore every group to use the BRC members. All their contact information can be found on the Student Government Association website and each of them, from my experience, is more than happy to answer questions.
– Michael Rockland is a junior finance major, Student Government Association senator and former member of the Budget Review Committee.
