Dividing up dollars

After a three-hour discussion Friday, the Student Fee Recommendation Committee (SFRC) was unable to reach a consensus on how to allocate the student fee budget surplus. As a result, SFRC members will have until Friday to reconsider each budget request before deliberations resume.
“There’s some people that need to do a little bit more research so they can make an informed decision,” said SFRC co-chair Tyler Lathem. “I hate just the idea of going forward when somebody may still have questions. I think we owe (it) to students that everybody (on the SFRC) make the absolute most informed argument and decision they can.”
During Friday’s meeting, the SFRC did agree on preliminary allocations for each of the 14 departments and organizations requesting an increase. The preliminary allocation figures exceed the available budget surplus of $85,344 by about $7,000.  
“It’s going to be real important next week that we try to look equitably and recognize that everybody has different priorities,” said Jan Winniford, SFRC co-chair and VP of Student Affairs. “We’ve got to be willing to come in and compromise and give because we do have to get that number down.”
SFRC still had $1,168 for one-time funding after making $6,832 in preliminary allocations to Performing Arts, Visual Arts and the TV station. SFRC also decided to make a preliminary base allocation to Performing Arts. Winniford encouraged committee members to reevaluate each request to see if there are any more programs that would be good candidates for one-time funding instead of base funding.
SFRC members were divided about how much money should be allocated to Athletics. Some were pushing to increase Athletics base by $34,000, while others preferred the lower figure of $20,000.
“I think all of these people made wonderful cases,” said SFRC faculty member Brad Carroll. “I didn’t see anybody here I didn’t want to fund fully if we had the money. But the Athletics will get their money from other places in the university.”
Athletics requested an increase primarily to fund a new softball team. Carroll argued that because of Title IX laws, the WSU administration is legally obligated to fund the softball team whether or not the SFRC provides the funds. While Carroll said Athletics would be funded regardless of the SFRC’s decision, he was less optimistic about other programs’ ability to receive increases to their budget from other sources. A few SFRC members said they felt the Carroll’s and others’ personal views should not be part of their considerations.
“I don’t think that’s the reason we should take some away from one and not from the other,” said SFRC member Ryan Davies. “Every one of these people that (presented) are going to make it happen.”
Davies and SFRC members Amanda Pace and Candace Mau vocally supported a higher figure for Athletics, while SFRC members Erika Daines, Elene Kvernadze, Justin Neville and Victoria Thompson supported a lower figure.
SFRC was also divided about how much of an increase the Women’s Center (WC) should receive. The WC requested an increase of $4,899 to expand work hours for a part-time counselor. A few committee members were unsure if the WC counselor provides different services than students could receive at the Counseling Center or other departments around campus designed to help students.
While there is some overlap, the WC counselor does differ from other physiological counseling services. The central focus of WC counseling is to help women connect with community, university and government resources in order to make higher education accessible.
As the first deliberation meeting concluded, Lathem told the committee that while divisions of opinion were helpful to the committee’s purpose, they should not allow tension to spill over to their social lives.
“Keep your business lives separate from your social lives,” Lathem said. “Make sure you have that clear, healthy definition.”