Candidates debate state of stipends

Stipends for student officials and stable funding for student government have been sources of contention among leaders this year, and the debate will continue during this year’s student election.

A referendum to compensate the speaker and speaker pro tempore of Student Congress was defeated in October, bringing the issue to the forefront of the election this year.

The Student Code stipulates that seven student leaders from the executive and judicial branches be allotted monthly stipends ranging from $125 to $300.

Student Body President candidate Tom Jensen said the issue of stipends is one of his platform’s top priorities. He has proposed to cut $60,000 from student government spending, including all stipend money. He said the money would be put back into the Student Activities budget.

“It is outrageous to ask 27,000 students to pay for the stipends of seven people,” Jensen said. “Student government needs to act within their means.”

Congress Speaker Charlie Anderson, who supported the referendum to allow stipends for top leaders of Congress, said students who know how much work student government entails can appreciate the need for stipends.

“Stipends make offices accessible to the larger part of the student body,” Anderson said. “It is a minor offset to the costs that you’re giving up.” He added that the actual stipend works out to be “hardly minimum wage.”

Both Anderson and candidate Leigha Blackwell downplayed the actual amount that stipends tax individual students. Blackwell said each student pays a little more than $2.00 to support stipends.

Other candidates said they think stipends for leaders are necessary to ensure that students from varying socio-economic backgrounds are not excluded from participating in student government.

“A Carolina Covenant student would not be able to quit their job and do this job if it were not for stipends,” said candidate Seke Ballard.

Seth Dearmin, who also is running for student body president, said that although stipends are valuable for leveling the playing field among candidates for high-ranking offices, students who do not need the stipend money should have the opportunity to decline compensation.

Last spring, a referendum that called for a percentage of student fees to be allocated to the executive and judicial branches of student government to promote a more stable source of funding was defeated by 164 votes.

The current system requires that each branch of student government present a budget to Congress, creating varying funds from administration to administration.

Last year’s push for permanent funding, which was spearheaded by former Student Body President Matt Tepper and former Student Attorney General Jonathan Slain, slid out of discussions when Matt Calabria stepped into his term as student body president.

While Calabria did acknowledge the benefits of a guaranteed source of funding — stability, easier planning — he said changing the system would prove risky.

“(Permanent funding) is based on an assumption that every administration will do things the same way,” Calabria said.

Tepper promoted a switch to stable funding, which would enable an office to retain guaranteed baseline funding. The problem with presenting a budget to Congress each year, he said, is that one administration dictates the amount of money the others receive.

“Stable funding is so that one administration would not handicap the next,” Tepper said.

Slain also supported permanent funding and said it is imperative for the judicial branch.

“Any funding that goes to the honor system should be discretionary because the University could not function without it,” Slain said.

Dearmin, who served as an executive assistant to Tepper, said he would take another look at permanent funding. Dearmin said consistent funding would “save a lot of headache.”

Jensen, whose campaign slogan is “More for your Money,” said he is opposed to a fixed source of funding because he thinks the student body should have the ability to decide if the money is necessary.

“Student government is not doing enough to get more money,” Jensen said.

Ballard said he favors the current system, which he thinks promotes accountability and a system of checks and balances.

While Blackwell said the current funding system works well, she said that if the judicial branch wanted more money, she would not be opposed to looking into a change.

Contact the University Editor at udesk@unc.edu.