EDITORIAL: BLANKET TAX
A serious problem exists at Rice -- there is a severe paucity of funding for student organizations and the diverse projects that they undertake. From the Pride Rally to Habitat for Humanity's Spring Break trip to Honduras to the Lunar New Year celebration, funding is scarce. This is not to say that the administration is not trying hard to find ways to fund activities as Vice President for Student Affairs Zenaido Camacho stretches his budget to pay for various activities and President Malcolm Gillis devotes thousands of dollars to student organizations from his discretionary fund. Even with these generous actions, a problem still exists.
To solve this problem, some students have proposed a student activity blanket tax. In principle, this is an extremely good idea, but much work remains before the blanket tax can be realistically implemented. First, the proposal currently suggests a $10 a year tax. As we all learned during the debates over a simple economically-driven shuttle fee, $10 can be an extremely touchy subject for students. Besides, if student body reaction to such a proposal holds true, it will be resoundingly defeated. Students weren't even in support of a $1.50 raise in the KTRU blanket tax in 1994; a $10 new tax will receive an even chillier welcome.
Besides the actual dollar amount of the blanket tax, the other problems with the plan relate to its structure and inability to fulfill one of its goals. The structure of the tax and its implementation are pretty much up in the air. To go into the details would take too long and would not clarify anything, as the Student Association Senate learned when they budgeted five minutes for discussion and then spent over 20 minutes on the proposal.
Finally, one of the primary goals of the fund involves giving student organizations one place to go for appropriations. From all indications, the colleges are not willing to give up their appropriations. Also, if the SA Senate and the Rice Program Council were to lose their appropriations arms and then need an increase in any of their blanket taxes, they would have a much harder time doing so because they would have no real financial accountability to the student body -- a justification for appropriations in the first place.
Both organizations could use a helping hand in the appropriations arena though. The RPC has recently run into problems with appropriations where they literally didn't have any appropriations budget. To support events like the Pride Rally, they were forced to take money out of the Beer-Bike tax money to give to Pride. While this was a noble cause and gesture, that money was understood to be set aside for Beer-Bike with any leftover funds being applied to track improvements or other such Beer-Bike related expenses. This further proves that there is a severe lack of funding on this campus for student organizations.
Aside from this, the RPC has also created by-college appropriations funds for the future. This seems very contradictory to the philosophy of consolidating appropriations and suggests that not everyone is sold on the idea of appropriations coming from a single source.
While this fee is a very good idea, it is just that right now -- an idea. Students should seriously consider making this happen, but the tax should be a lot smaller and a lot better defined. All of the current appropriating bodies have to be on the same page for this to be effective, and they clearly are not. Alternatives really need to be explored in depth. It's an idea whose time has not come -- yet.
This item appeared in the Opinion section of the February 9, 1996 issue.
Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights
Reserved.
This document may be distributed
electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety
and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted
without the express written permission of:
The Rice
Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX, 77005, USA.
The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@rice.edu