Why B-Status funding was so painless this year

ANALYSIS

B-status funding flew by this year, with only one debate concerning Brown Sugar occurring throughout the entire process which lasted less than 30 minutes. Student group leaders for the most part sat in their chairs complacently, neither motioning for more money for their student groups nor disagreeing with the Executive Committee's funding recommendations for other groups.

"Funding went smoothly and I'd like to think that was Executive Committee's ability to meet with student groups and get their reasoning before the meeting," said ASG Speaker Jesse Garfinkel.

On the whole, Weinberg sophomore Garfinkel is probably right. But besides the conclusion that student groups were largely satisfied with the Executive Committee's funding recommendations and their reasoned collaboration with student groups staved off funding battles between student groups, the structure of B-status funding allows for this funding cycle, unlike A-status funding cycles in the Fall and Spring quarters, to be fairly painless for senators and group leaders (and Daily bloggers) to sit through.

Executive Committee must allocate every penny of their funding pool ($21,480.80 this year) in their recommendation. In contrast, the Student Activities Finance Board, which oversees A-status group funding, cannot recommend all of their funds because of a senate amendment pool which ASG senators can allocate at their own discretion. This extra money forces senators and student group leaders to debate over where this extra money should be allocated. This can get sticky.

In addition, there is more money at stake under A-status funding, with SAFB allocating nearly a million dollars to about 40 A-status groups . This increased funding pool coupled with fewer student groups to allocate this money to complicates the funding process. You can already see the questions forming in student group leaders' heads. Who's getting the most money? Why can't we as a student group siphon off some of their money for our cause? Enter debate here.

On the other hand, B-status student groups have only a quarter of the funds A-status groups have. This is primarily due to the lower operating cost of these B-status student groups. Performances need a couple thousand dollars to put on, as opposed to the A-status student groups which must spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring speakers and put on massive events. This makes it kind of pointless for small student groups to fight other small, cash-strapped student groups for more funding. It's just too mean to do otherwise.

Furthermore, some of the B-status student groups are new or still acclimating to ASG funding. Many newly recognized groups that have been bumped from T-status to B-status, and groups with only a few years of development under their belts do not feel like they have enough clout or the group membership to fight for more money.

Other B-status groups may be intimidated by the complexities surrounding the bureaucracy of ASG and their funding methods. The "newbie effect" affecting some student groups makes them complacent to Executive Committee's funding recommendations. And perhaps some groups are not fully aware of all of the ASG's funding guidelines either, as four student groups failed to meet funding guidelines this year and were docked because of it.

It's difficult to allocate funds to student groups. Funding guidelines were created to maintain fiscal responsibility to the students who pay for these student groups. In addition, ASG must broker compromises between student groups so that everyone gets a portion of the pie. This is all a complicated process, and the fact that there was only one dissension this year cannot be wholly attributed to the Executive Committee's prowess.

There are many factors at play here.

-Paul Takahashi, veteran ASG reporter