Everyone knows that access to higher education plays a crucial role in enabling upward social mobility. But given the increasing costs of higher education, is Maryland’s flagship university doing enough to ensure that everyone has the same access to a quality college education? I would argue that even with the tuition freeze, students are asked to pay too much.
Don’t get me wrong; I know that the school has lost funding from the state and is still fighting hard against this economic downturn to keep funding secure and maintain the tuition freeze. I’m not suggesting that university President Dan Mote should magically come up with millions of dollars – instead, I want to propose a new budgeting method that would save the university money and at the same time increase revenue. (OK, so maybe it is a kind of magic.)
I’m suggesting that we follow the advice of the United Nations, European Union, World Bank and countless other international organizations and implement participatory budgeting here at this university. What is participatory budgeting? It’s been defined as a form of direct, deliberative, universal democracy that lets all stakeholders discuss budget initiatives and make relevant decisions. In the past 30 years, participatory budgeting has been implemented worldwide with unbelievable success in ensuring transparency and accountability, aiding development and increasing efficiency.
Here’s how it works: A small part of the capital budget (the part used for short-term expenses, not things such as salaries or maintenance) is set aside for participatory budgeting. Then, “neighborhoods” (small sub-divisions such as colleges or dorms) hold meetings to discuss the budget and the budgeting process, and to learn about how to propose new initiatives. Each “neighborhood” suggests projects that should be funded and presents them at a city-wide (in our case, university-wide) meeting. Anyone interested in participating is allowed to speak, but only stakeholders (students, faculty, staff – the exact definition of a stakeholder should be defined at the start of the process) can vote. The group discusses how money should be spent and decides by vote which projects or initiatives it will fund. The participatory budget then becomes part of the official university budget and the money is spent. However, participants should be given easy access to information about the status of participatory budgeting initiatives so they can track the implementation process.
At this point, I bet you’re saying, “Yeah, right, ask people to go to meetings? No one would show up.” Actually, as the number of students running for University Senate this year might indicate, we’re not all as apathetic as many may think. In fact, if past experience from around the world is any indication, participatory budgeting tends to draw large numbers of people, especially those who don’t normally participate.
If you can trust me on that last point (I would love to put examples and references here, but I have a word limit and footnotes don’t work too well in a newspaper), there’s still one big problem preventing participatory budgeting from becoming the new, innovative budgeting strategy that would make the university a leader among its peers. None of this can work without strong support: both top-down and bottom-up. The first step is getting someone up there in the president’s office to notice this proposal and agree, then we – students, faculty and staff – need to make it known that we’re ready and willing to get involved and guide policy to benefit us, as well as the university.
Lida Zlatic is a senior art history and classics major and a member of the University Senate. She can be reached at zlaticdbk@gmail.com.
