We are skeptical whether or not the amount of funding channeled to MASSPIRG is warranted, but even if you believe it is, we think that you should vote against the coercive funding mechanism that MASSPIRG insists upon. The existing mechanism of funding is severely lacking in transparency and is unnecessary, even if you believe that we should be spending exactly as much as we currently do on MASSPIRG. Voting “No” will allow us to finally redefine our relationship with MASSPIRG, and perhaps to properly evaluate it as a group equal to others on campus, rather than treating it as special and distinct.
Amherst College’s yearly contribution (at $9 a semester per student) is close to $30,000 dollars. This money is charged in addition to your student activities fee and is subject to approval by a majority vote every two years. Proportionally speaking, this represents a huge amount of spending on a single group, with few other student organizations receiving as much, which begs the question of whether MASSPIRG really deserves to be one of the best-funded organizations on campus.
MASSPIRG does very little on campus, compared to many Center for Community Engagement (CCE) -sponsored community outreach groups with similar missions. Such groups spend countless hours — and comparatively fewer resources — on direct service to communities off campus, reflecting the very grassroots nature of public service and advocacy work that many Amherst students believe and engage in. MASSPIRG spends most of the funds we channel to it on a full-time staff member who manages the Smith and Amherst chapters and the rest on lobbying and research efforts.
Sadly, there is a marked lack of clarity in MASSPIRG’s use of our donations. Unlike other clubs, they are not required to submit an annual budget or provide an accounting of the money they spend to the Senate or to the student body. This lack of transparency is systemically related to the method of funding that they insist upon, and cannot be solved unless we vote against renewing our compulsory yearly contribution to them. Furthermore, MASSPIRG has existed at least for the past two years without collecting on its annual $30,000 in fees. We, as well as many other Senators, cannot understand how a statewide organization can continue to function with such poor accounting. Were it not for information revealed in a Senate-originated inquiry into the Association of Amherst Students’ accounts, MASSPIRG might very well have not realized such money was owed to them. This lack of accountability and transparency undermines their mission.
The opt-out system and all-or-nothing approach that MASSPIRG utilizes are coercive in nature and harmful to the student body’s interests. In an opt-out system, the burden is placed on dissenters to remove themselves from participation, creating a disincentive from withdrawing membership. Currently, the structure for withdrawal is a measly slip of paper that gives students the option to get a $9 refund. Should a student miss the submission window or forget to fill out the slip, their agreeing to MASSPIRG’s existence is implied. As such, not everyone who ‘donates’ the fee may actually agree to the organization’s existence.
Even this does not seem to exist in the current academic year, calling into question once more whether students really have a choice in membership. As Senators attempted to negotiate a reform of the system, MASSPIRG organizers were adamant in keeping the existing fee structure. This “my way or the highway” approach runs counter to students’ desires to allow MASSPIRG as to continue its work without the heavy costs and inefficient use of funds.
MASSPIRG is not unique in its mission. As was stressed in an earlier article in The Indicator, there are a host of other groups on campus that fulfill the same mission. None of these other groups require funding in the blank-check manner that MASSPIRG insists upon. Although MASSPIRG representatives argue that they need to spend much of the money on lobbying efforts, it is questionable whether or not that means they must preserve the existing structure of funding. While perhaps useful in the 1970s when the national Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) was founded, most Amherst students are concerned with direct service work and direct advocacy on a grassroots basis — all currently supported by the CCE.
The CCE, a relatively recently founded organization, seems to embody the work and values of MASSPIRG. Although it is new, and has faced some teething problems, the CCE provides the administrative support and intellectual guidance of community engagement, activism and advocacy work. The direct impact of such work is readily felt in our local community, while empowering and educating numerous students in effecting meaningful change. Students interested in MASSPIRG’s work could easily be supported by the CCE.
Because of MASSPIRG’s low profile on campus and unwillingness to submit to standard budgetary procedure, the student body and Senate have no way of evaluating MASSPIRG’s efficacy on or off campus. With the last two years under their belt, the group would be hard-pressed to name any effective or sustainable accomplishments that a majority of campus could recognize.
We want to reiterate that we are not inherently against the goals of MASSPIRG. We are against the structure of the organization as it stands, as it is an ineffective use of resources. Senators are attempting to gauge students’ opinions on MASSPIRG by presenting a survey this Thursday asking if an opt-in system is preferable; we believe it is. However, if MASSPIRG insists on maintaining the status quo, we urge you to vote for its ousting in next Thursday’s binding referendum. The coercive and non-negotiable relationship with MASSPIRG is detrimental to the students’ interests and should not be allowed to continue as is.