‘ ‘ ‘ It cost $30,000 to bring David Plouffe to Pitt, $25,000 for Mo Rocca to speak here and… ‘ ‘ ‘ It cost $30,000 to bring David Plouffe to Pitt, $25,000 for Mo Rocca to speak here and another $25,000 for Bridget Marquardt. But no administrator made the choice to have these speakers. It was an entirely student-led decision, but the problem is that just one student made the decision: Pitt senior JJ Abbott. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Within the last year Abbott has decided how to spend the $765,500 that Student Government Board allocated to the Pitt Program Council more or less single-handedly. This includes almost $127,000 that PPC has dedicated to lecturers this year. A single $30,000 lecture would mean almost $60 per ticket for students who attended. ‘ ‘ ‘ The money comes out of the $80-per-semester undergraduate activities fee, which SGB allocates to student groups every year. And while SGB has made some questionable allocations in the past, it has at least overseen the decisions. ‘ ‘ ‘ But PPC operates by a different code: The executive director has full authority to spend the money how he pleases. He just needs one administrator ‘mdash; Kathy Humphrey, the dean of students ‘mdash; to approve the speakers. ‘ ‘ ‘ This system obviously has a flaw, but Pitt has no problem with handing nearly three quarters of $1 million of students’ money to a single undergraduate student leader so he can distribute it as he pleases ‘mdash; on anything from rock concerts to Karl Rove. ‘ ‘ ‘ This isn’t to say that Abbott hasn’t done a good job during his tenure. For the most part, it appears as though he makes decisions with a variety of student input and that he’s generally responsible with the money. But if a less scrupulous or less responsible person headed the PPC, it would only serve to highlight the glaring flaw in the system, which is now only covered by Abbott’s competence. ‘ ‘ ‘ And the current system at least gives agency to students themselves rather than placing the decisions in the hands of administrators. It’s better that we as students have a chance to decide how our money is spent ourselves, even if it is through PPC’s own decision-making process. ‘ ‘ ‘ Ultimately, we have little problem with the fact that PPC chooses to spend the money as it does, although we would like more student input on decisions, like which speakers to choose for lectures or which bands might play at concerts. But every student at Pitt could theoretically go to PPC’s meetings and give his input, so it’s hardly the council’s fault if students don’t. ‘ ‘ ‘ It’s a problem that the ultimate authority still rests in the hands of PPC’s executive director. Students have no power to influence the final decision process, even though it’s their money being spent. ‘ ‘ ‘ Students could possibly elect the next PPC director democratically or even institute a board of executives who make decisions concurrently. But any change to the executive directorship would have to retain the ability to make quick decisions and a smooth turnaround ‘mdash; something implicitly offered by a single student leader acting as a decider. ‘ ‘ ‘ It’s fair to say that PPC does a good job representing the interests of students and attempting to be responsive to their desires. But the fact that PPC’s leadership structure exists in a state almost completely absent of oversight causes deep concern.