<p>[The</a> 40% Plan | Bringing Duke Students more say in campus funding.](<a href=“http://40percentplan.com/]The”>http://40percentplan.com/)</p>
<p>Interesting petition going around campus allowing students to choose where 40% of their student fees go. Thoughts?</p>
<p>Stefani Jones, the president of DSG, wrote a response to this in the Chron today:
[Think</a> twice about 40 percent | The Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2014/01/21/think-twice-about-40-percent]Think”>http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2014/01/21/think-twice-about-40-percent)</p>
<p>I dislike the plan for a number of reasons. First, it would be a mess to implement logistically and technologically. Strunk, a senior, is proposing that DSG build this interface (which would also presumably require authentication). Reed College struggles with this process still ([Groups</a> Lose Votes in Funding Poll, Signators Likely at Fault - The Quest | The Free Press of Reed College](<a href=“http://www.reedquest.org/2012/09/groups-lose-votes-in-funding-poll-signators-likely-at-fault/]Groups”>http://www.reedquest.org/2012/09/groups-lose-votes-in-funding-poll-signators-likely-at-fault/)), and Strunk has no mechanism in place for how this would be built (or where money would come from to build and maintain this site).</p>
<p>I’m also not a fan of how there is no distinction between the Annual Budget and the Programming Fund, and how that will affect budgets. Right now, there are two types of student groups on campus-- chartered groups and recognized groups. A chartered group has access to the Annual Budget, which can be used for capital costs (conferences costs, materials necessary for the group, etc.). Both chartered and recognized groups can access the Programming Fund, which pays for events that are open to the Duke undergrad community (speakers, carnivals, the library party, etc.)</p>
<p>Recognized groups don’t have access to the annual budget because they are allowed to be selective in membership (like a capella groups, where you audition), and the idea is that money from the Student Activities Fee needs to benefit ALL students (like the events that are funded which are open to all undergrads).</p>
<p>Under this plan with any payment schedule, there would be no way to control or audit this. So an acappella group could ask all of their members to donate their portion to pay for a spring break trip, which defeats the purpose of the Student Activites Fee to benefit the entire Duke community (and other groups that serve larger audiences lose out on that money). Additionally, a philanthropic group could ask for money as donations to a non-profit; while a worthy idea, that doesn’t fit with the purpose of the Student Activities Fee that parents or financial aid pays-- that the student activities fee allows all students to actively partake in opportunites on campus.</p>
<p>I also forsee logistical and scheduling issues with how SOFC could allocate the remaining 60% (actually, 60%+, because unallocated money returns to SOFC). If money in the annual budget was allocated as it currently is, in the spring, and you simply fund people at 60% of previous levels, some smaller groups will suffer a reduction in oppotunity and ability, while some larger groups may receive both SOFC funding AND student funding. If money in the annual budget is not allocated until after SOFC sees student funding levels, groups who rely on the SOFC would not be able to do anything until a good three or four weeks into the semester (for the voting and then the presentation of the annual budget).</p>
<p>Overall, this is an idea that sounds great in a thirty-second elevator speech but would, in my opinion, dramatically undercut the diverse campus opportunities on Duke’s campus.</p>
<ol>
<li> purplecorn, although I greatly enjoy your posts and invariably appreciate their insight and depth, the foregoing outdoes even your usual, outstanding standard. Thank you. </li>
<li> When I read the Chronicle earlier today, I, too, felt considerable skepticism re the “40 Percent” proposal. While it obviously has considerable superficial appeal – why shouldn’t students have binding influence in this financial arena? – it has at least one additional substantial deficiency, beyond the several major failings delineated by purplecorn. Any enterprise – including student activities – requires reasonable financial continuity and predictability to be successful. Funding by whim and fashionability tends to undermine this important principle. Potentially, that might adversely impact any student activity, but I am especially concerned with Duke’s long-tenured ones (which have been important at Duke, some for generations). I certainly do not suggest that they are not subject to improvement, alteration or even termination; however, annually, to make them subject to major modification or even to possible cancellation is, in my opinion, an unwise risk. Everyone concerned with decision-making at Duke would be wise to understand that their choices not only determine the University’s near-term future, but that they also shape the foundation for several decades. Therefore, the long-standing and beneficial activity terminated next year might well reduce Dukies’ enjoyment and education twenty or thirty years hence.</li>
</ol>
<p>I would have; Duke has a far more students-centric approach and has had for several decades.</p>