2008 Woodie Awards
VP for Resident Student Affairs
Blair Lampe
Issue date: 11/17/04 Section: Perspectives
- Page 1 of 3 next >
I'm writing in regards to a letter I recently received in my mailbox as a club leader, an article in the paper regarding my involvement with the upcoming "Laramie Project" production, an email sent to me as a member of the executive board of student government and yet another three articles concerning the "budget cuts" of which I was inherently involved as I am also a member of the Financial Committee. Still, among all of these, I'd like to think my most meaningful identity here is as a fellow concerned and involved student-something at least to which many can relate. I care about Manhattan College, and I know all involved with the paper do too.
Firstly, I would like to commend The Quad on its tireless efforts to engage students both in contributing to the much under appreciated art of journalism here at Manhattan College, and also to the subsequent campus improvement that we all seek to achieve by taking such measures. The Financial Committee of the Student Government is looking for progress as well. Admittedly, the system is not flawless, but no system is. Plus, this is money we're talking about; it's something of a hot-button topic.
What it comes down to is this: last semester, the Financial Committee was asked to accommodate $646,215.32 worth of budget requests with only $378,065 available. This being the case, it doesn't take a mathematician to understand such requests are impossible. Therefore, although it may have appeared to a few clubs as such, the Financial Committee did not spend six hours gathered around a table devising "budget cuts." More accurately, we were engaged in allocation.
Another critical fact of reality we were working with is that some programs, some clubs, perform better than others. The money we are expected to divide among active organizations on campus comes from the sum of each student's yearly $300 student activity fee. For this reason, we seek to give money to the programs that will reach the most students and affect them positively. We feel much better about giving that money to clubs who exhibit responsibility, follow-through, quality programming, and ethical behavior in their spending. Every semester, clubs are re-evaluated based on how they made use of their money (or their ingenuity in the lack thereof), among several other factors. I recognize that a group of 5-6 students couldn't hope to know all clubs and programs first hand, and I'll admit that personally, I was not in complete concurrence with the final numbers this year, but I've got my biases, too; I imagine if I'd gotten my way, there'd be quite a few more complaints.
Firstly, I would like to commend The Quad on its tireless efforts to engage students both in contributing to the much under appreciated art of journalism here at Manhattan College, and also to the subsequent campus improvement that we all seek to achieve by taking such measures. The Financial Committee of the Student Government is looking for progress as well. Admittedly, the system is not flawless, but no system is. Plus, this is money we're talking about; it's something of a hot-button topic.
What it comes down to is this: last semester, the Financial Committee was asked to accommodate $646,215.32 worth of budget requests with only $378,065 available. This being the case, it doesn't take a mathematician to understand such requests are impossible. Therefore, although it may have appeared to a few clubs as such, the Financial Committee did not spend six hours gathered around a table devising "budget cuts." More accurately, we were engaged in allocation.
Another critical fact of reality we were working with is that some programs, some clubs, perform better than others. The money we are expected to divide among active organizations on campus comes from the sum of each student's yearly $300 student activity fee. For this reason, we seek to give money to the programs that will reach the most students and affect them positively. We feel much better about giving that money to clubs who exhibit responsibility, follow-through, quality programming, and ethical behavior in their spending. Every semester, clubs are re-evaluated based on how they made use of their money (or their ingenuity in the lack thereof), among several other factors. I recognize that a group of 5-6 students couldn't hope to know all clubs and programs first hand, and I'll admit that personally, I was not in complete concurrence with the final numbers this year, but I've got my biases, too; I imagine if I'd gotten my way, there'd be quite a few more complaints.