Senate Continues to Struggle with Funding Concerns

With the release of Funding Circus results this week, as well as this semester’s Student Body Government wage updates, it is evident that Senate is grappling with financial concerns. As addressed in a statement at Senate Public on February 10, the recent wage review and updates conducted by Senate were “in violation of the bylaws in process and in implementation,” citing decreased enrollment and retention as posing a substantive challenge to Student Body Government financial resources. This is certainly accurate, as enrollment for the 2024-25 academic year was unexpectedly low compared to previous years. 

However, one senator, who wished to remain anonymous, also acknowledged that Senate was “not aware of the repercussions [of declining enrollment] on our budget until it was too late,” leaving Senate in a difficult position. Senate’s budget includes leftover funds in student body accounts, revenue from concessions, and interest from their endowment, as well as student body fees, as outlined in Article II, Section 2.1, Clause B of the Senate bylaws. The student body fee has also not increased in the past year, further decreasing the available Senate budget. Head Treasurer Maya Gutierrez ‘27 acknowledged that “we have been failing to account for decreases in enrollment for multiple semesters,” culminating in the current funding crisis.

There is no requirement in Senate’s bylaws to disclose their budget or spending to Reed’s student body, and they have opted not to do so voluntarily. One anonymous senator divulged that their secrecy feels “emblematic of Senate…not communicating transparently,” and that, as a result, they fail to “work in the best interests of the student body,” expressing hope for a change in the current system. Furthermore, the recent dilemma surrounding the wage review is indicative of issues within Senate – one anonymous Senator stated that they “voted on the wage review without seeing the full student body budget” and that “half the senators weren’t there” when the vote was conducted. 

Article II, Section 1, Clause E of Senate’s bylaws states that “an increase or decrease in pay must be passed by a majority vote of the full Senate…where all members are present.” In effect, the initial wage review vote was in violation of Senate’s bylaws, as acknowledged in the Treasury’s statement at Senate Public on Feb. 10. The figure provided to the wage reviewer in the fall semester was also misleading, adding about $20,000 to the current spending cap for student jobs, which was already between $90,000 and $100,000.  The wage reviewer mused that this spending cap “was clearly unsustainable and likely not accurate,” considering the decrease in budget this academic year. As a result, Senate was forced to hastily recalculate the stipends provided in the wage review. As one anonymous Senator put it, their peers displayed a “lax attitude towards the bylaws and people’s money and time.”

Even within Senate, some senators claim that the available budget is often not discussed or disclosed – one anonymous senator stated that they feel they are “voting on how much money to spend, but we don’t know how much we have to spend.” A number of senators further agreed that Senate and Treasury are working almost completely apart from one another. The same senator also asserted that their “impression of what happened… is that no one showed any of the senators the budget.” A former Senator, who wished to remain anonymous, additionally noted that during their tenure, there “seemed to be a lack of awareness of where Senate spending was at, and a confidence that it didn’t matter,” suggesting that the current attitude and conduct of Senate has been built up over years. They further elaborated that it “wasn’t clear who within Senate [was] keeping track of spending, if anyone was at all,” throughout their time in that position. 

Gutierrez shared to the Quest that the only conversations held between Treasury and Senate regarding the budget occurred verbally at the start of the Fall 2024 semester, and that the budget “isn’t necessarily secret information…but in the past few semesters, the information has been treated as confidential.” The funding provided to clubs in this semester’s Funding Circus may lead some students to question the financial state of Senate, who allocated just around 50% of the total sum of money requested by each club.

Senate’s commitment to not decreasing any student wages this semester may not be an entirely positive change. Earlier this semester,  a number of student body job appointments, namely those of the assistant Print Shoppe manager, assistant darkroom manager, and an additional Griffin editor, were promised by Senate and removed suddenly due to “unforeseen circumstances,” according to Taliah Churchill ‘25, who was only made aware of this change upon their own appointment as Griffin business manager. Senate has not issued any public statement on this matter despite some prior reporting, as seen in last week’s Senate Beat. One former senator stated that they “think it’s ridiculous” that Senate would choose to cut new jobs rather than alter existing wages.

Senate’s public response in the wake of the resignation and statement of former Senator Andrew Sakahara last semester has additionally drawn some internal scrutiny from a number of Senators. Senate confirmed to the Quest that their expenditure budget for this year was originally set at $5,000, but also established that Senate spent $7,500 – a figure already higher than their allotted budget – on private DEI training without any public communication and without a vote from the entire Senate over winter break. As a result, the executives – President, Vice President, Head Treasurer, and Assistant Treasurer – raised their budget to $10,000, which also required no vote or approval from the other Senators. One member of the executive confirmed that there was “no vote or approval from anyone except the execs” for either motion and expressed that they “thought it was a problem” that the opinion of Senate as a whole was not holistically represented in the decision. Senate has indicated no intention to publicize either the budget increase or the choice to spend money for their DEI training in the first place, though President Andee Gude ‘26 stated that Senate hasn’t ever “had plans to not be transparent about the fact that it happened.”

Although Reed’s student body has decreased in size due to declining enrollment and retention without any changes to the student body fee, Senate has continued to ramp up spending without meaningfully adjusting their conduct. Former Treasurer and wage reviewer Emma Benson ‘26 proposed that “Senate should lose their stipend first if budget cuts are due,” an opinion echoed by a number of current senators. One of those senators, who wished to remain anonymous, concurred that “the amount that gets spent on Senate… should be restricted given their current financial decisions.” In the wake of these incidents, it may be important to question whether Senate’s financial decisions are truly transparent or in the interests of Reed’s student body.