GAB allocations controversial

by Sierra Jenkins

The General Allocations Board (GAB) has come under fire this semester for a number of funding decisions which have reflected debate over broader issues associated with the board. Three of GAB’s most debated decisions have been how to deal with Kyoto funds, whether to contribute funding to Ralph Nader’s appearance, and how much money to allocate to Black Student Union for Black History Month activities.

These decisions have called into question how GAB and other parts of ASLC should function. Should GAB be responsible for funding major speakers that come to campus? Who should receive GAB money? How transparent should GAB meetings be?

GAB is part of ASLC. Its purpose, according to its rules of procedure, is to allocate funds for events and activities over the year put on by both chartered and unchartered student groups. GAB is allocated money by CBC, the Charter and Budget Commission, and also receives all money remaining in student group accounts at the end of the year. The board is made up of up to twelve members, who are appointed by the Vice President of Budget & Finance. Trevor Looney holds that position this year. GAB reviews applications for funding on an ad hoc basis over the course of year and any money that they don’t distribute returns to the ASLC account.

Many of GAB’s initial difficulties this year stem from how funds were distributed by CBC last year.

"So many problems with GAB this year come from how CBC allocated funds last year. GAB is having to deal with the fall-out," said Vanessa Arriola, current GAB member.

BSU, Administrative Interference and Board Transparency Issues

When BSU put in their application for $10,000 to help bring prominent activist Kwasi Mfume to campus and to fund Black History Month, their application was tabled for two weeks due to inadequate time for debate and a lack of information. BSU provided additional information at the third meeting.

In between the second and third GAB meetings, BSU apporoached Shane Ostermeiyer as well as Jon Eldridge, and requested that they be allowed to stay for the entire meeting. In the past, GAB procedure has been that the applicants present to the board and then leave the room during discussion and voting. The minutes record debate during this time; only the names of who voted yea and nay are omitted and the minutes are posted the subsequent week for any student to see.

Ostermeiyer and Eldridge both expressed to Looney that they would like to see GAB become more transparent and that all parts of the meeting should be open. However, as an arm of student-run government, GAB does not have to respond to pressure from the administration, nor from the board’s advisor. Looney said that Ostermeiyer saw no problem with BSU remaining for the entire meeting.

In response, Looney sent GAB members an email prior to the next meeting, stating that there might be some changes in procedure.

About a dozen BSU members attended the Sept. 31 GAB meeting. At the start of the meeting, according to the minutes, Trevor Looney agreed to allow BSU to stay in the room during the discussion, although they would not be allowed to speak unless a question was posed to them. The board went into discussion on the new procedure. Two board members said they did not think it was a good idea.

It would "affect the decision and make it undemocratic," said another.

Another board member thought that it would be a good idea because groups who applied would better understand why or why not they were awarded funds. In response, a fourth member pointed out that the minutes are public record so anyone can follow the discussion and see the vote.

Looney said that he, too, felt uncomfortable, but was "basically against a brick wall and feel that the board should give it a shot. Letting people stay in the room may or may not continue. It is the board’s decision."

The board decided to discuss the issue later and began to discuss BSU’s application. Concerns were raised that it was a very large sum of money, that CBC gave BSU so little in the first place, and that it is hard to award money when the board doesn’t know how much other groups will give.

BSU president, Nicole Alexander, said that she saw the discussion getting "kind of tense" at this point.

GAB member Johanna Appel moved for an executive motion which requires that everyone leave the room except the board. It passed 7-3 with 1 abstaining. Executive motion is the board’s right, according to the rules of procedure. Many BSU members were angry that they were sent from the room.

BSU member Liz Posey said "If we hadn’t have been there to show our support, they probably wouldn’t have given us that money."

"There are lots of reasons that I went into an executive motion. It was a unique situation in which we had never had people in our meeting before during discussion. I think it’s hard for anyone when it’s a small school and you have to make the decision with the people standing right there while you’re discussing. Some of these people are in my classes or are friends of mine," Appel said.

"[Sending applicants form the room] was never a question. That’s why it was controversial for us. We were put into that situation. It wasn’t a GAB decision," she added.

"The problem for me is that [the procedural change] caught me off guard," said GAB member Kelley Swenson.

Looney said, "It wasn’t because it was BSU. We would have been uncomfortable if it was lacrosse or soccer club."

A number of GAB members, including Looney, said that only allowing the board to stay in the room for part of the debate and the voting had never been a problem in GAB history. GAB has since looked at its procedures. They have always sent applicants out of the room, operating under a sort of unspoken executive order. The board does not plan to make all proceedings open at this point.

"I don’t think it’s possible to make fair decisions when the people are right behind you, no matter who it is," said GAB member Kelley Swenson. "I think the decision should be presented as a board, not as an individual decision."

Looney pointed out that the minutes are posted, so if anyone questions the decision, they can look at the debate and approach GAB members later.

BSU members expressed irritation that Looney did not email them with the results of the debate that evening as he said he would. They had to approach him a few days later to even find out what they were awarded. They also said that the minutes weren’t posted quickly.

Groups can resubmit applications but they will be heard by the exact same people,

and a board member’s ethics can only be called into question by the vote of the board.

Ostermeiyer said that different schools have different policies regarding election or appointment of members and the openness of meetings. At the University of Nebraska, which is public, the university is considered part of the state so all of its proceedings are completely open. GAB functions more like a corporate board, which he says is not bad as long as people understand how it functions.

GAB’s minutes are currently more detailed than they are required to be by Robert’s Rules of Order, which don’t require that members’ names and statements on topics be recorded. However, because GAB votes by yeas and nays rather than by ballot, Robert’s Rules requires that each member’s name be recorded beside that person’s vote.

ASLC president, Ethan Chutkow, and VP of Budget and Finance, Trevor Looney, have been talking about having an open meeting to discuss GAB procedure which will hopefully take place this semester.

Michael Moore, Nader and Bringing Big Speakers

Another issue that GAB has had to deal with this year is whether they should be responsible for funding big speakers.

GAB has been where students have gone to get funds for major speakers becasue LC does not currently have an honorarium for this purpose, as many schools do. Students can’t ask for money from CBC because CBC only distributes to chartered groups.

Ostermeiyer said that an honorarium would function like an endowment and would fund two speakers a year. The money brought in from ticket sales would go back into the endowment so that eventually the fund would be self-sustaining. He noted that a lot more discussion needs to take place before this could happen.

Michael Moore’s engagement last year set a precedent for bringing a big speaker to campus each year. GAB voted unanimously to provide $10,000 for the engagement.

This fall, SOFA asked for $10,000 to help fund Nader, but GAB did not award the organization any money. SOFA did not come to them before deciding to fund the speaker, and the minutes of the meeting reflected that GAB felt that SOFA needed to work within its existing budget. It had committed itself to Nader, and needed to adjust its budget to accomodate this.

With an average budget of $50,000 or less, GAB can’t afford to shell out between 10 and 25,000 dollars to bring these speakers to campus each year, and many members of GAB don’t feel that this is the purpose of the board.

Liz Larter, who has been on GAB for three years, said that the money for an honorarium should come from CBC. She remembered that CBC attempted to establish a fund two years ago but people never tried to use it as it was not well-publicized.

Kyoto Protocol and CBC Funding

Last year was an unusual year in ASLC budget and finance. Julian Dautremont-Smith introduced an initiative to have LC buy off-sets worth $17,000 that would make it compliant with the Kyoto Protocol. LC would be the first college in the U.S. to do so. ASLC polled the student body as to whether they would support a $10 fee increase to make the school Kyoto-compliant. The measure passed, but the Board of Trustees would not pass the increase as student fees can’t be raised for a specific purpose.

By a strange twist, the required money came out of CBC’s budget last spring. CBC had a budget of $335,000 from which they allocated funds for ASLC, student media, chartered student groups, club sports and a number of annual events and symposia. Every group submitted a minimum and an optimal budget and CBC rewarded money based on the number of members, how active the club has been and how long it’s been around. After individually reviewing each group, the board sees if it has stayed within its budget and makes necessary cuts.

Usually the board far exceeds its budget in preliminary awards, but last year the board had nearly $20,000 left over. They looked at the student poll and chose to allocate $17,000 to the Kyoto Protocol group.

Looney, current VP of Budget and Finance who was also on CBC last year, said "[Our funding decision] wasn’t based on us wanting to fund Kyoto, but on our standard evaluation," said Looney, current VP of Budget and Finance and former member of CBC. "We thought, ‘Well, the students voted. They wanted this to happen.’"

Julian Dautremont-Smith, head of the group which pioneered the vote to implement the Kyoto Protocol, came under a lot of fire because students had voted to raise fees, not take the money out of the current budget. He said he had given the money to GAB in the understanding that he could come back and reapply for it this year.

The decision on Kyoto funds was put in GAB’s hands, and GAB questioned whether the money should go to Kyoto, because unlike other student organizations, the money would leave campus and not be used for events students can attend.

"I want that [money] to go to clubs I’m going to be able to be a part of," said GAB member, Vanessa Arriola.

Many student groups were under the impression that their budgets had been cut to fund Kyoto.

Director of Student Activities, Shane Ostermeiyer, said much of the confusion came from the wording of the letter that CBC sent out to student groups. The letter seemed to say that CBC gave as much money as they could to everyone although they did not give everyone their optimal budgets, and then they just happened to have all this money for Kyoto.

"In politics, perception is reality," said Ostermeiyer.

In fact, of the chartered student groups that received funding from CBC both last spring and the year before that, 10 groups had increased budgets, 9 had decreased budgets, and 4 had the same budget.

Recently, GAB decided that the Kyoto Protocol would need to repoll the current students to assess whether this newest version of the student body still supports the initiative. The vote is set for late November.