As members of College Republicans and Students Fostering Conservative Thought (SFCT) hosted “Cut-The-Pork” Pig Roast Wednesday, many patrons did not realize that two clubs that emphasize being fiscally conservative just cut themselves the biggest pork in club funding.
Four of the 10 members of the Co-Funding Board (CFB) are members of College Republicans or SFCT, so it’s not surprising these clubs would together get more money than any other club.
Implementing a spring funding cycle gave us hope that this year would be the smoothest and fairest year of funding yet. Then we saw the funding breakdown and reality hit us in the face like a barbecue pork sandwich.
We were disappointed with the 10 percent flat cut leveled on the Record, as on all clubs, but what upset us more than our own funding woes was the colossal size of the combined budgets of College Republicans and SFCT.
Together these almost indistinguishable clubs pulled in 15 percent of all club funding — a whopping $32,000. Their initial requests were just shy of $60,000.
In comparison, College Democrats asked for $6,415 and received $4,267.
We value a conservative presence on campus, but do they really need that much money? Are the goals and values of SFCT and College Republicans sufficiently different to justify separate clubs and separate budgets? Are College Democrats better at controlling spending than the “fiscally conservative” club?
Cutting wasteful spending is a valiant cause, but the event raised two important questions that aren’t just partisan rhetoric.
First, in regards to event’s murky message, what are the items in the national government’s budget that are wasteful and unnecessary? Health care? Tax cuts for lower and middle class Americans? Is all spending wasteful when authorized by the opposing party?
Secondly, would the right-wing clubs turn the scalpel on themselves? Surely, the plump budgets of the twin clubs must contain some pork.
Are we to believe that every cent of their budgets is absolutely crucial to fulfilling their mission on campus? Would they live another day if they invited local instead of national speakers with a big price tag?
Originally each club asked for $20,000 respective yet-to-be announced speakers. The CFB cut them down to still porky $10,000 each.
Students may not know that student senates do not have absolute control of the activity fee funds at most colleges. Usually allocation boards are composed of senators and students with faculty and staff advising.
At our school, the CFB is composed only of senators, and although their meetings are technically open to public, they are not widely publicized. The result is the senates wield dictatorial control of funds.
Rather than forgive Studio One leadership for a few mistakes, the CFB placed the club on probation, figuring it was better to demonstrate their power than serve the students looking forward to next year’s publication.
The Record is a student-run publication, and we appreciate our independence from “the man.” But perhaps being one of the few institutions with allocation decisions left completely to the senates could be a hindrance rather than a help to inter-club and student body camaraderie.
At least it seems the CFB will hinder rather than help if it continues handing out pork, paradoxically, to the clubs that advocate cutting it.
“Our View” is prepared by the Editorial Board and should be considered the institutional voice of The Record.