Special Session: Student Activities Increase Proposal

College Council Minutes 12/6/00

[introduction]

Todd Rogers (Co-President) welcomed council members to the special session on the Student Activities Tax proposal. He explained that, due to the nature of this meeting, no other items would be discussed other than the proposal. Ami Parekh (Co-President) added that council members should be deciding on issues they will work on over Winter Study, and threw out some examples: CC’s position as a representative body, better communication with groups on campus, CC’s funding policies, the drunk bus, library hours, and the funding of WSP 99 proposals. Ami added that she and Todd would be spending Winter Study doing a global review of student governance in all small colleges. Many other schools are also in the middle of similar restructuring efforts, and their input – as well as the input of Williams students – will be crucial in completing a good review.

[the proposal]

Ryan Mayhew (Treasurer) outlined the goals of the proposal: CC has faced a funding crunch this year for a number of reasons. While coming up with funding allocations for established groups on campus, FinCom (the Financial Committee, selected from self-nominations by the Appointments Committee to make recommendations about College Council funding) initially cut most of the budgets around 7-10%, based on prior funding and actual group need. However, CC’s budget was still too small to support even this reduced amount of funds. So FinCom had to recommend cutting all of the groups an additional 10% beyond expected need. This reduction caused many problems within treasurers’ meetings in the fall, and so CC sought (and received) a $29,000 one-time emergency cash infusion from Senior Staff. After the infusion, many groups whose funds had been cut past their expected need received additional funds, and Council has set up a Group Contingency Fund for groups that run out of funds in the Spring.

The proposal, written by Ryan, is meant to be consistent with the infusion we received this year. The Student Activities Tax is currently at $121 per semester; the proposal seeks to increase it to $138 for next year, then to $145, and then indexed to inflation (the CPI) for years after that. Ryan explained that the cash infusion won’t be here next year, and this proposal is meant to secure that CC is able to fund its groups.

The logic behind a two-year increase is to take matters in stride. If we find that funding demands go down, we need to make sure that the SAT is not increasing at too fast a rate. The proposal mandates that Council review the Tax at least every three years, starting next year. Ryan finished the outline by answering a question that had been raised in the Record’s editorial page – the other schools that are listed in the proposal (to compare their activities fees to ours) were chosen because those are the schools that Williams continually compares itself to, for grades, faculty workload, etc.

[opinions]

Mayo Shattuck (Class of 2003) read out the opinions that pertained to the proposal. Eight opinions were for the tax (plus another twelve that came in last week), and eleven were against the tax (plus four received last week). Several of the comments included a request for a student referendum on the issue, a belief that the one-time problem should only have a one-time increase, and a sentiment that College Council shouldn’t get any more money because it hadn’t been able to deliver on making a 24-hour library.

[discussion]

To begin the discussion, Todd asked for a straw poll, asking members of council who were sure of their position on the issue to vote. The result was (about) 20 to 3. He then asked those who felt strongly against the increase to voice their opinions first.

Caleb Fassett (Currier) explained that he wasn’t against the proposal in general, but he believes that the structure of Council doesn’t include any mechanism for evaluating group spending. Therefore, increasing the tax is like throwing money away. He added that one of his constituents was very opposed to the hike. Terri O’Brien (Gladden) agreed, saying that many of her constituents say that the money is going to come out of their pockets, but they’re not going to see any of the benefit.

Shenil Saya (Campus At-Large) has been talking to many students about the issue and his opinion has fluctuated. However, what really bothers him is that a lot of students on financial aid will be faced with a greater burden due to this increase. He himself thinks there needs to be some increase in the funding, but we need to look at what we spend. Perhaps groups should send semester reports of what they’ve done with their funding. And Shenil also believes that the college should fund some of the groups that CC ends up paying for, like many of the campus services.

Nishant Nayyar (Campus At-Large) sought to calm some of Shenil’s concerns about financial aid students by explaining that the system works by calculating how much students are able to pay, and then it comes through with the rest (“expected need”) with grants and loans. So a raise in the tax or in the tuition will not ultimately affect the financial burden on students receiving financial aid. Ryan responded to the shifting of College Council group funding to College departments (like, say, moving Peer Health to the Health Center) – the contribution of students will still be the same, because we still have to pay for the groups. It just means that CC wouldn’t get the money; instead, some administrative department would. So the shifting wouldn’t amount in a reduced tuition.

Ezra Goldschläger (Carter) asked that council not throw money at a broken system. FinCom allocations don’t work, and we shouldn’t commit more money to a process that doesn’t work. John Phillips (Prospect) added that funding student groups doesn’t necessarily lead to improved student life for all students, yet everyone pays an equal tax. He doesn’t deny that there may be some benefits to all students, but it’s unequal; many students on this campus may get $5 worth of value out of their $121, whereas another might receive $145 worth.

Ash Bradly (Dodd) replied that there may be no way to return an equal percentage of the benefit, and furthermore, no way to measure it. The ways in which an active and diverse student community benefits the campus are immeasurable. Tim Karpoff (Co-Op) agreed, and said that while there are things that are wrong with College Council funding, there haven’t been any items that CC has funded this semester that he has felt were a waste of money. Gus Howard (Dennett) asked that members keep the amount in perspective – it’s only $17 per person for a great benefit to the campus.

Most of Tracy Cheung’s (Pratt) constituents were for the idea, but they felt that there was no sense of where all the money goes. Joe Masters (Secretary) responded that all funding that CC has done is listed on the web site (http://wso.williams.edu/cc), including all of the group budgets allocated at the beginning of the year. Joe also pointed out that if we vote for the increase, we can also decide to not spend it all, but if we vote it down, and then decide that we actually need the money, we’re in trouble.

Laddie Peterson (Class of 2002), although for the increase, asked at what point Council decides it has enough money? Darah Schofield (Woodbridge/Bryant) doesn’t see how we could possibly ever have enough money as long as new groups are constantly being created.

Todd answered some of the concerns that CC funds everything that comes to it by explaining that all groups go to office hours with the all-campus reps on the Sunday night before their request goes before all of council. During this meeting, the campus reps suggest ways of trimming budgets, and explain the things that CC generally funds. Ryan added that several groups have decided not to ask council for funding after such discussions. There is a filtering process that takes place before groups show up to ask for funding.

Ari Kessler (Morgan/Lehman) raised Shenil’s suggestion again, asking if CC could ask groups to account for how they are spending their money. Ryan explained that this is already done in the spring, through self-audits to FinCom (to determine next year’s funding), but that we could have additional forms for groups to fill out that could be presented to CC. In addition, CC could also go back to funding twice a year.

Gideon Lee (MinCo), against the increase, asked those supporting it to give a persuasive reason why students who don’t benefit by the increase should be forced to pay for it. Darah replied that everyone benefits from an active student life on campus. Gus added, “Why do I have to pay the salary of a Chinese professor if I’m not going to take Chinese?” We come here not just for our own interests, but to be a part of a larger, vibrant community. If we only support those student groups that have universal appeal, our student life will crumble. Catherine Denver (Mills/Thompson) explained further: without supporting student groups in general, students will no longer want to come to Williams, and the community will wilt.

Gideon tried again, arguing that there are lots of marginalized students on campus who don’t take advantage of groups supported by College Council. He believes that if students actually knew that an additional $17 would be taken every semester from them to fund student groups of which they are not members, the majority of students would be against the increase.

Rob Sica (Campus At-Large) asked Council too look at all of the negativity pointed in its direction. He sees a greater dissent against CC now than perhaps there ever has been; students don’t feel that CC is representative, CC reps don’t feel that they represent their houses, and many students really don’t care about what happens in Council.

Ami understands that many students aren’t taking advantage of CC funding, but that money is available to every student on campus. We should support this increase now to take care that our current groups don’t fold due to lack of funding, and so that we can continue to fund worthy student initiatives. The proposal is not set in stone, and it’s not difficult to change.

Todd wrapped up the discussion, explaining that this is money to improve student life. And, addressing Sica’s point, pointed out that Record editorials from the 1970s onward express antipathy toward student government. There has always been dissent, and we need to learn from it, and feel comfortable with it.

College Council then voted to approve the proposal 26-6-0.

Joe Masters

CC Secretary

wso.williams.edu/cc