UA approves funding for Class Boards

The newly-formed Class Boards now have some money to back their organizers' hopes of class unity and tradition. The Boards, which will be modeled after the Senior Class Board, received almost $13,000 Monday night during an Undergraduate Assembly budget meeting. UA members said the Class Boards will also receive matching funds from the University, which pushes the group's budget to over $25,000 -- the third largest of any student government organization. The UA had little trouble approving the Class Boards' budgets. But during the rest of its seven-hour meeting, members raised questions about the destination of some of the UA's $706,353 total budget. Members said they were wary of spending too much money on the "perks" which were included in submitted budgets. For example, College senior Jonathan Goldstein proposed the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education cut its outlays for brunch meetings, meetings with administration, alumni activities, and miscellaneous costs. "Our constituents could call us on the carpet for this," said Goldstein, a UA member. He suggested that members "become monks" since the money could be better spent for other groups in the Student Activities Council budget. But SCUE Chairperson Jonathan Pitt said the expenditures are justified. "We spend long hours working on projects," said Pitt, a College junior. "I don't think it's outrageous at all." And UA member Jeff Lowe said he agreed. "I'm entitled to a Coke, a slice of pizza or a hoagie," the College sophomore said. "We're spending a lot of time for the student body." The UA eventually voted to keep funds for everything except rosettes. But $100 was added to the budget under "miscellaneous office expenses," bringing the total budget to $4,900. UA Secretary Leonard Cooperman said he thinks the budget process is constructive. "I think the tightening of UA allocations has been closely inspected this year due to the prior phone problems," College sophomore Cooperman said. "This causes the UA to be a better body." The Nominations and Elections Committee got $13,270, while the UA's operating budget totaled $10,487. The UA also voted to grant almost $160,000 to the Social Planning and Events Committee -- the body which plans much of the University's social programming. After a three-year trial period in which the University partly-subsidized SPEC, the group's funding now relies totally on the UA. And in a highly complicated process marked by seething debate and scores of questions about parliamentary procedure, SPEC finally emerged with its budget intact. UA members were asked to fund SPEC in an "all or none" capacity. This raised some questions among members. "I think the body of the UA made the best of a bad situation and that in the overall picture they looked out for the best interest of the students and the future of SPEC," Vice Chairperson Kirsten Bartok said. "However, in the future, I hope that the UA recognizes the elected responsibilities of its members, and their job to represent the interest of the students," the College junior said. The remaining money in the UA budget goes to SAC -- a figure which totalled about $500,000. In other business, the UA passed resolutions which encourage the establishment of science and language courses for students who have never been exposed to the material before. Also, members commented on the residential living plan proposed by Vice Provost Kim Morrisson last semester. UA member Seth Hamlin said the ideas are good, but that residences are not the best place to implement them. "The money might be better put to other solutions to the problem," Hamlin, a College sophomore, said.