A contract with Student Engagement failed 17-5-5 during the last Student Government meeting of the semester on Wednesday.
Student Engagement, as the bill states, is an office within the Memorial Union that provides programs such as ClubFest, Alternate Breaks and Art Mart. Student Engagement has only gotten its funding through the annual allocation process, which includes compiling a budget, presenting it to the finance committee, accepting revisions and receiving the dollars at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Kevin Merrill, the assistant director for Student Organizations, Leadership and Service, spoke and took questions to the Senate during a debate that was extended twice, exceeding an hour in total.
“My ultimate goal is to use the funding that Student Government has given us in the past and merge it into a different version of that funding,” Merrill said. “So instead of annual allocations to put it into a contract so that we can provide the best quality programs, services and opportunities for students here.”
Merrill emphasized that the contract does not change the amount of money that Student Engagement receives, but rather changes the form it takes.
Within the annual allocations format, all line item transfers over $500 must be presented to the Senate, a process that can take upwards of three weeks to gain approval. Merrill said that it is not conducive to booking speakers or making changes while the Senate is not in session. The yearly process of allocations, Merrill said, also means planning projects that span multiple fiscal years is a challenge.
Many senators voiced their concerns over the vagueness of the contract, which splits up the annual $122,000 into four categories.
Sen. Brody Kuhse, a sophomore majoring in mechanical engineering, specifically raised alarm over the largest line item of $87,500, dedicated to “leadership and Student Organization Programs and Marketing.” He suggested breaking down the line items for more transparency.
“If we’re going to break it down to line items, let’s just do annual allocations,” Merrill said. “That way, we can talk about that. I don’t want to lock myself into four years of annual allocations.”
Sen. Quinn Margrett, a senior majoring in business economics, urged Senators to view the contract from student dollars.
“There are 31,105 students at this university, ignoring the way in which kind of graduate fees are a little bit different, all those students give us $80 a year, and it’s our responsibility to make sure we’re giving that money back to students in ways that benefit them in as many ways as possible,” Margrett said.
Margrett also agreed with Kuhse that the line items of the bill were not specific enough to guarantee that Student Engagement would continue with its annual list of events.
“There’s a little bit of description of what may be included in this funding, but if we’re voting yes on this contract and we’re passing it, we’re not getting a guarantee of ClubFest or of any of these other things that we talked about,” Margrett said. “We’re investing in the idea of Student Engagement and the likelihood that they continue to do these things.”
To alleviate this issue, Kuhse proposed an amendment, including in the bill that there must be a student advisory committee. He then amended the amendment to state that Student Engagement would gain student feedback instead, but ended up withdrawing his motion because more time needed to be put into the decision.
Other senators voiced their support for the bill due to its increase in stability and efficiency.
“[This contract] allows them stability and [the ability] to do the things that they would like to do, instead of cutting costs, because they won’t know what kind of money they’ll get next year,” Sen. Samantha Jones, a junior majoring in elementary education, said. “By switching to a contract, they’d be able to fully do all the programs to support the students and put figure programs here at a cheaper cost; they can plan ahead years at a time.”
Margrett noted during his speaking privileges that denying Student Engagement the contract does not deny them funding. They will continue their allocation process like most other student organizations.
Margrett finished by noting that this contract would allow for vague funding descriptions from Student Engagement and little say in how the money is spent, while student organizations are being heavily assessed for their budget lines and can be denied certain funding due to straying from Student Government’s priorities.
“This feels wrong to me that we would enter into something like this and have to look student groups in the eye and say we’re over specific, we want you to be responsible,” Margrett said. “But you look at these other non-student groups, we don’t have the same sort of expectations. It just seems like we’re setting, again, sort of a preferential treatment for a non-student group when our goal is getting money back in the hands of students as much as possible.”
Following the vote, Merrill left the lectern and room with nothing to say to the Senate.
The following external matters were passed:
- Funding $2,320 for Wildlife Society Student Conclave travel (27-0-0)
- Funding $2,000 for the Gamma Rho Lambda Pride Prom (27-0-0)
- Funding $3,000 to StratAA (27-0-0)
- Honoring President Wendy Wintersteen’s Service and Retirement (unanimously)
- Confirming the Fiscal Year 2027 Priorities and Criteria (27-0-0)
- Funding $2,970 for the Lunch and Learn series (27-0-0)
- Funding $1,325 for the Letters of Love Gala (24-3-0)
- Funding $3,293.67 for the Robot in 3 Days (28-0-1)
- Funding $900 for the Muslim Student Association banquet (29-0-0)
- Celebrating Amy Shaw’s Student Government Anniversary
The following internal matters were passed without dissent:
- Seating Alex Heilbuth, a junior majoring in kinesiology and health, as a health and human sciences senator
- Seating Saima Kabir, a graduate student in economics, as a UROC senator
Wednesday’s meeting was the last Senate meeting of the semester. The session will continue at the start of the spring semester in January.