The UGBC office located in 21 Campanella Way

The Undergraduate Government of Boston College recently released a very basic form of its budget for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Although the budget allocates over a half million dollars, the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is comprised of only 17 rows and two columns. This is definitely a start in terms of transparency, especially since UGBC seems to have plans to update how much money has been spent and how much money remains throughout the year. The real problem with the budget, however, is that so much of it is already tied up in events and programming that happens year in and year out.

The Student Programs Office provides programming resources for student clubs like the College Republicans and the History Club. This allows groups of students with similar interests to pull University resources together to put on campus events to which all are invited. SPO has no procedure to help students who are not attached to a specific club or organization who want to do programming. Additionally, even if, for example, a student from the History Club wants to bring in a speaker, like say Curt Schillins, who has nothing to do with the History Club per se, that student has no resources to put together the event. Speakers are just one example. Students could be thinking about student activities and other events which are a little more participatory.

UGBC seems like the perfect place for students to go if they do not have the backing of an official group or organization for an event. Unfortunately, a large percentage of UGBC money is already tied up in the same places every year. Just under 67% of the budget is tied up in administrative expenses, communications, and yearly UGBC events such as university speakers and the fall and spring concerts. Another 20.6%, or $111,000, is given to ALC and GLC.

It is completely understandable that these two groups garner money from UGBC because they would not exist if they did not. Spending 20.6% of the budget on two groups that comprise vast minorities of the BC population (there are not readily available numbers for gay and lesbian students but only a shade over 28% of students are estimated to be ethnic minorities) seems to be a little extreme. This problem is compounded by the fact that ALC does not make enough of an effort to be revenue neutral. Several groups on campus are successfully revenue neutral, including The Heights and The Observer. Students should demand that ALC make similar efforts, especially since a former UGBC Vice-president admitted, “With just a little effort, ALC could undoubtedly break even on the year.”

Perhaps revenue neutral may not happen anytime soon, but should students at least ask for a token effort to be made? If ALC fundraised just 10% of its budget UGBC would save $8,000 each year, more than most clubs are given through SPO.

Adding to the problem is the propensity of the UGBC Senate to give to the same programs and events each year. Giving $500 of $1,000 to the Vagina Monologues, an event which is actually in the green each year, or to the same service trips, does not allow for enough creativity in the student body. Perhaps these are not examples of undergraduate government waste, but at the very least I would make the argument that some of this money could be better served when spread around to students looking to bring new events and ideas to campus. The UGBC should either set up an additional department dedicated to students looking to bring events to campus without the backing of a club or increase UGBC Senate funding with the stipulation that only a certain percentage of the funds can be allocated to the repeat recipients of UGBC funding. This would allow for greater creativity and self-initiative in the student body while using our money in the best way possible.