Every so often, the issue of providing funding and resources to political and religious organizations with student activity fee money comes to the fore in campus debate, and this year it has risen again. In response to this discussion, student senators last week introduced a motion aimed at solving this problem, hopefully forever. The ideals of the motion are admirable, but we have serious concerns about the particulars.
Under current policy, there is no official definition of “political” and “religious;” the Executive Board has its own definitions that they use in budgeting, but there is no set policy. The writers of the motion try to correct this by offering official definitions of the two, and this goal is laudable. Having concrete definitions is certainly necessary in budgeting, but the text of the motion provides hazy definitions that should not be approved in haste. These definitions require serious discussion and consideration by people inside and out of the Senate, especially the members of the E-Board, who would be responsible for enforcing and following these definitions.
Beyond defining these terms, the motion goes further and states that the Union may fund certain religious or political events when they decide that an event would benefit the entire student body. Although the E-Board would be in charge of providing preliminary approval in such situations, under the new rules, the final say in funding such activities would be taken away from the E-Board and given to the Senate. In that it would be able to overturn decisions made by the E-Board. While the motion restricts this power to instances involving political and religious organizations, it has the potential to break down the checks-and-balances of power between the Senate, the E-Board and the Judicial Board—the body traditionally charged with hearing appeals—and set a dangerous precedent. Under the Union Constitution, budgeting power is reserved for the E-Board, and the Senate is involved in the process when it approves the activity fee recommendation, which sets income levels. If this motion passes, the decision of funding religious and political groups is left to only one branch of student government.
The Senate needs to seriously consider the motion at hand. Not only should they work with the E-Board to create more concrete definitions of religious and political in the context of organization and activity funding, but they also should rethink their decision to try to grant themselves the power to overturn decisions of other branches of student government.
