Each year, the handful of students on the Student Finance Committee allocate hundreds of thousands of dollars to student organizations. These allocations affect and limit what each organization can accomplish in a given fiscal year. SFC’s task is inherently difficult. Yet because SFC’s allocations are so significant to student organizations, SFC should make immediate efforts to augment its institutional accountability, transparency and practicality.

SFC’s job is to appropriately disperse the funds accumulated from the student activity fee to student organizations. With the exception of automatic allocations to Lorain County Transit, OPIRG and residence halls, SFC has exclusive authority to disperse funds from student activity fee, which is $210 per student this academic year.

One frequent criticism of SFC’s allocation policy is that automatic increases in the student activity fund are not reflected in budget allocations. This can be explained in part by the increase in the number of student organizations applying for funds; that number grew from 85 in 2005 to 106 this year.

Yet other criticisms of SFC are not so easy to dismiss. First, SFC often lacks the specialized knowledge necessary to make educated budgetary allocations. It is difficult to imagine that SFC members can have sufficient knowledge of every organization’s inner-workings and financial needs. An itemized budget cannot provide all that SFC would need to know when allocating funds to WOBC, for example, if they are not familiar with radio stations’ fiscal requirements already.

It would be impractical to ask members of SFC to familiarize themselves with the individual needs of 106 organizations. Were that possible, though, it would not be the only solution. Instead, SFC should increase its communication with student organizations so that SFC can understand which items are truly necessary for an organization’s operation. Furthermore, SFC should publish its decision-making process so that club treasurers understand what SFC will fund.

Moreover, SFC’s policy of basing each allocation on that of the previous year should also be reconsidered seriously. This policy, while perhaps efficient, means that one irresponsible or inaccurate budget allocation can become two, three and so on into the future. This leads to some organizations being consistently under- or over-funded without method for redress.

Finally, SFC should allow organizations to compensate for the scarcity of funds by adopting a policy that does not discourage outside fundraising. Currently, if any organization raises additional income, that sum will be factored into the budget and subtracted against the final allocation.

The time for SFC to rectify these problems is now, when the season for initial budgetary allocations and appeals is nearly over. SFC must work dilligently to ensure a consistent, fair process that is public and principled. Increasing its communication with student organizations, allowing outside fund-raising without penalty and publishing its decision-making process are steps that SFC must take immediately.