Money creates equal footing

Today, students have the opportunity to decide fairly and finally whether the Student Congress speaker and speaker pro tempore should receive compensation for their service to the student body.

As far as the referendum to amend the Student Constitution, this one is simple and straightforward - at least it should be.

The speaker and speaker pro tem are elected from the 40-member Congress at the outset of each session.

During the course of a year, these two individuals are responsible for ensuring that Congress upholds the proud Carolina tradition of student self-governance.

Proud as the tradition might be, it does not function on its own.

At a minimum, I would estimate that the two speakers and speakers pro tem that I have observed since becoming a member of Congress have spent somewhere between 15 and 20 hours per week doing the work of the student body. It's a part-time job - hence, they should be compensated.

The issue on the ballot today is that simple and straightforward.

Some will say that I oversimplify the issue. Indeed, some will declare that, as elected servants to the student body, the leaders of Congress should be bound to a labor of love rather than compensated as employees.

It may even be argued that to use revenue generated from the Student Activity Fee to provide such compensation is a violation of the trust vested in student government by the student body.

And while it is a noble premise that the service of student leaders should be defined by altruism and not burdened with compensation, it is simply an impractical and inequitable notion.

If we as a student body expect 15 to 20 hours of service per week from our student leaders - which we do - then there is no reason to think they are not entitled to just compensation.

The purpose of compensation should be viewed as twofold. First, it ensures that everyone who desires to can participate. It's no secret that many students must take on a part-time job to defray the cost of college.

If we ask for a time commitment that is the equivalent of a part-time job and provide no compensation, we have effectively reserved positions of student leadership only for those students affluent enough to serve free of charge.

Second, it functions as an accountability mechanism. The old adage, "You get what you pay for," holds true more often than not.

In sum, while it is again noble to assume that a student's love for the institution alone will always ensure maximum performance, it is also hopelessly optimistic. In reality, it is human nature for us to invest ourselves in a system that has invested in us.

So does this entitle student leaders to live privileged lives at the expense of their fellow students? Of course not.

In fact, if student leaders are compensated exorbitantly with revenue generated from the Student Activity Fee, then the trust of the student body has indeed been breached.

This is clearly not the case in today's referendum. The dollar amount in question is $2,400 for the speaker and $1,500 for the speaker pro tempore. That grand total of $3,900 represents 1.3 percent of the 2004-2005 budget of the Student Congress.

From a fiscal standpoint it's a wise investment in a wonderful system of student self-governance - it helps ensure that leadership is open to everyone and that it works for all of us.

Support the proposed change to the Constitution. This one is a no-brainer.

Contact Parker Wiseman,

chairman of the Ethics

Committee of Student Congress,

at pwiseman@email.unc.edu.