The arm of ASG some hope to change

Aneesa Arshad held one of the most – if not the most – powerful student positions on campus.

As the former Associated Student Government financial vice president, the SESP senior oversaw a board that doled out about $1.2 million to student groups last spring.

Last Wednesday, her reign came to an end.

“I’ve learned a lot,” she said to the Senate as the outgoing financial vice president. “It’s sad to go, but change is good.”

Yet questions loom as to what change will come in Arshad’s place.

The change starts with her successor, Weinberg junior Seva Rodnyansky who is making sure the Student Activities Finance Board will be ready for spring funding. 

Right now, Rodnyansky is working on transitioning to the position. Despite having been part of the board since Fall Quarter during his freshman year, he said “there’s always more to learn because it’s a constantly evolving process.”

And if ASG President Jon Webber has his way, the funding process could change more than anyone in SAFB would expect.

Weeks before B-status group funding took place Feb. 13, the Weinberg senior was already thinking of ways to change spring funding for A-status groups which in a time-honored tradition has kept tired senators and student group leaders in a cramped Norris room for many hours.

The board oversees funding for A-status groups, on-campus groups that are typically more established and require more funding. It prepares for the largest event of the year with a set of recommendations in a 60-hour auditing and interviewing process. During the process and throughout the year, the board follows a strict protocol of monthly audits, weekly petition and numerous applications. Some see this process as too rigid, but SAFB members say this is crucial for student group accountability. The board is responsible for the $44 student activities fee every student pays each quarter.

“At the end of the day, this is students’ money,” Arshad said. “And if there weren’t so many rules and procedures, I think people would feel nervous that every cent isn’t being held accountable.”

Webber has yet to announce the funding changes, pending further discussion with Rodnyansky, who has held the office of financial vice president for less than a week now. Webber has talked to over 20 A-status groups’ leaders and compiled pages upon pages of notes in a Word document. He said there are emerging themes from these complaints and suggestions that could potentially alter, or even encourage a major overhaul of, the process, the protocol and the institution. 

With an arm of ASG that is potentially more powerful than the body itself, compiled of six senators and six non-senators, there is a sense of division and friction. Members of the board go into Senate meetings, dressed like career-oriented men and women, occupying a corner of the room and focused on their laptops. But the greatest tension stems from who has the final say at the end of funding.

Senators, who act as a check to the board by debating the funding recommendations, have an amendment pool of about $20,000 during spring funding that they can allocate to the student groups. But most the time, senators pass almost all of the recommendations.

“This is one of the most important things that Senate does,” Arshad said. “And there’s a little bit of tension because (funding) is something that’s supposed to be  ultimately up to the senators, but because we put so much time and have so much knowledge (having audited these groups), we actually – I think a lot of people would agree – have more power in the process.”

Even within the board, with members who might be friends, debates are heated.

“At committee, we go at each other 10 times more than people go at each other in Senate,” Arshad said. “We tear each other apart.”

But there are no hard feelings – such debate is crucial to the board’s effectiveness, Arshad said.

“If we’re not debating, and we don’t really disagree, then we’re not doing our job,” she said.

This is all before they make their recommendations. These internal divisions don't make a difference when recommendations are finalized. When the board presents the funding recommendations, it presents them as one board.

Relations between the board and student groups most obviously become strained during the funding process because “there’s never enough money to go around,” Arshad said.

Unhappy groups can mobilize and bring a number of members to the Senate meeting to debate funding. While a group might try to get the largest slice from the senate’s discretionary pie, Arshad said outsiders’ presence sometimes signals student group disapproval of the board.

As the newest financial vice president, Rodnyansky is face of SAFB. Even though he has his own set of goals to bring in change, he, like Arshad did, will face difficulties – not from outsiders, but from the position itself. It’s a difficulty that Webber, in his quest to change the board, will have to deal with as well.

“Each financial vice president has goals … But it’s just so overwhelming the things you have to do day to day,” Arshad said. “There are things I wanted to do that I couldn’t.”

—ALICE TRUONG