I was astonished to learn from the Argus’ recent article (October 8th, “SBC Surplus Investigated”) that the SBC surplus last year was $68,155. While running the SBC last year, each week I would ask one member of the committee to record exactly how much money was requested and how much was allocated. At the end of each semester, I used these data to create a graph that tracked our allocation path throughout the semester relative to a budget line and to a line detailing funds requested. I published this information about the Fall ’09 semester and the Spring ’10 semester on the WSA website last year and one can still view it (http://wsa.wesleyan.edu/2009/12/some-end-of-the-semester-sbc-numbers/ and http://wsa.wesleyan.edu/2010/04/sbc-allocations-this-semester/).
If you do look at it, you will immediately notice that by the end of the academic year, the SBC had allocated almost its entire budget (the graphs themselves don’t display numbers for exact calculation, but if anyone actually cares, I can provide the Excel files I used to generate the graphs). It is well known that the SBC routinely runs at least a tiny surplus since the leftover funds in student groups’ SBC-funded SmartKeys are reassumed at the end of the fiscal year. But I find it totally unfathomable that reassumptions could total as much as $68,155. Absent an outlying event such as the cancellation of a massive concert that might bring back many thousands of dollars, even figures like $50,000, $40,000, or $30,000 seem completely impossible. It is my understanding that no such outlying event happened last year.
I would be very interested to hear more detail (perhaps in a second article) about the exact sources of the reported surplus. I’m somewhat embarrassed to admit that I probably paid closer attention to the SBC’s finances last year than any other student on campus, and it seems to me that the reported figure clashes squarely with the reality of how the SBC allocated the student activities budget. There are clearly conflicting facts that demand careful explanation and reconciliation.
I would also like to add, on a loosely related note, that I thought the Argus’ inclusion of an anonymous ad homonym attack on Chris Goy was in extremely poor taste. Of course, of course, the Argus can publish something like that, but there are obvious reasons why it should refrain from doing so. It is exceptionally easy to tell stories and make arguments in a civil manner. Maybe I’m too lame and too tame, but the subject of SBC surpluses just doesn’t seem dire enough to justify the use of such damaging and unprovoked rhetorical escalation.
Leave a Reply