"How dare the [Tufts Community Union] TCU Senate spend $25,000 on a statue?"
This is a question that we're sure is on the mind of many Tufts students right about now. While we, as the authors of this op−ed, do not have the authority to formally explain why the Senate as an entity voted the way that it did to fund the statue, we think that this campus deserves to know a little bit more background information about this proposal.
On Sunday night, representatives from the Senate's Administration and Policy Committee — led by Senior Nathan Beaton — presented a surplus grant application seeking funds to build a statue of Charles Tufts. The sponsors of this request presented a series of arguments outlining a vision of how such a statue could benefit the Tufts campus. Some of the proposed benefits included: general campus beautification, an increase in school pride, paying homage to our progressive founder who sought to put "a light on this Hill," the potential to generate additional donations from alums and as a way to leave an everlasting mark on this campus.
There was not universal acknowledgement on the Senate that such benefits would actually come to fruition, and many members of the Senate — and many members from the public who also attended the meeting — presented their own list of grievances about the project; this list included grievances such as: the project's exorbitant price, its inability to promote school spirit, a bad use of the Student Activity Fee and the project's failure to take into account the demands of the larger undergraduate student population.
While we acknowledge that there are many passionate supporters on either side of the aisle on this particular issue — we, as the co−authors of this op−ed, actually did not vote together on this matter; Wyatt voted in favor of $25,000 for the statue, while Joe voted in favor of $0 for the statue in the initial vote — we are not writing this op−ed to rehash some sort of debate. Rather, we want to explain and identify the opportunity cost of this proposal.
As many of you may know, the TCU receives almost all of its money from the Student Activity Fee. This is money that is earmarked on your Tufts bill to be spent on undergraduate student activities — for example, Tufts Dance Collective dances, Spring Fling, club meetings and so forth. However, at the end of fiscal year 2011 (in the Spring of 2011, fiscal year '11) our treasury found out that there were dozens of student groups who failed to spend all the money previously allocated in their groups' fiscal−year budgets. In some cases, groups did not even spend 50 percent of the money allocated to them.
The ultimate consequence of the TCU coming in under budget in fiscal year 2011 was that the TCU had a significant surplus for fiscal year 2012. Over this past summer, our TCU Treasurer, sophomore Christie Maciejewski, developed a system that would allow student groups to have ample opportunity to access a roughly $450,000 surplus. This year, student groups have had the opportunity to apply for buffer funding, event grants and surplus grants. We have funded a variety of incredible campus programs and initiatives — for example, increasing the talent total for Spring Fling and buying a boxed van for JumboCast, and we look forward to seeing what student groups propose in the second semester.
However, at around 11 p.m. on Sunday night, when Senate first heard the statue request, there was still a significant amount of money available in the TCU surplus. The sponsors of the statue application had agreed to move their proposal to the end of the Senate's nightly agenda; and this was done so that the Senate could address the needs of all other student groups before making a decision regarding the statue.
Let us be as clear as we can: No student group was denied funding on the basis that money should instead be reserved for the statue.
Given the Senate's recent budgeting history, most senators in the room recognized that if the money were not going to be allocated to the statue, then said money would not be allocated for student activities at all in this current fiscal year. Furthermore, many senators speculated that this money would likely go unspent even next year or the year after that. Many senators, including the two of us co−authoring this op−ed, recognized that the opportunity cost of the statue was two to three years in the future.
There is money that is going to be left unspent at the end of this fiscal year, and in turn that unspent money will rollover into next year's surplus, and this money will remain unspent because the Senate will likely not hear enough student budget proposals that pass a very low standard of acceptability. Senate has no desire to create a year−to−year "slush fund" or deny worthy student groups money to program. However, without adequate demand from student groups, this money will likely remain unspent.
Make no mistake about it: The TCU is over−budgeted, and that is a serious problem. Thankfully, this year's TCU Treasury has already committed to addressing this issue and will be instituting a series of reforms during the fiscal−year−2012 budgeting process.
While students are certainly entitled to their opinions on this contentious issue, we hope that this can clarify some of the misperceptions floating around in our community. Instead of the debate being framed in the context of current activities versus statue; senators were instead asking questions such as: "should we be spending the Classes of 2011 and 2012's money after they graduate" and "should we be using the Student Activity Fee to fund something which is inherently not an activity."
We as Jumbos are all incredibly active and passionate students. We attend a university that leaves the allocating of the entire Student Activity Fee to students; we have a unique opportunity to think outside the box and see how far each dollar can go!
Does the thought of the TCU Senate doling out cash frighten you? Come to a meeting! Your voice will be heard. Disappointed you cannot participate in voting? Feel like your opinions are underrepresented? Run for Senate! The majority of Senate ran unopposed last year. In our eyes that is unacceptable. We are given incredible opportunities at this school and we have a responsibility to take full advantage. Become inspired, collaborate and let's help each other make our school the best it can be.
As always if you have questions or concerns about this issue or any other issue involving the TCU Senate, we encourage you to reach out to us personally or email tcusenate@tufts.edu. Thank you for your time and we wish you nothing but success entering the final stretch of the first semester.
--
Wyatt Cadley is a junior who is majoring in economics and political science, and he is the TCU vice president. Joseph Donenfeld is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major, and he is the TCU historian.
