The Student Government Board has been facing criticism for its decision to spend about… The Student Government Board has been facing criticism for its decision to spend about $60,000 on 10 fiberglass panther statues – and for good reason.

The board was both hasty and ill-informed in its decision-making process this summer over whether to spend what could range between $47,850, according to SGB president Shady Henien’s estimate, and $70,000 according to a board member who wishes to remain anonymous, on the panther statues.

The board plans to assign 10 randomly selected student organizations to decorate the statues every year.

Board members who voted against the project – which was intended to help build school spirit – cite lack of student organization feedback, incomplete research and the likelihood that the proposal draws from some members’ wish to leave a mark before the upcoming elections as their chief objections to the panther project.

According to board member Sheila Isong, who voted against the measure, board members were commenting and voting on the measure before they had been informed of all of the facts, adding that she’s still not sure that they have all of the facts.

One of these facts is how exactly the board plans to finance the project and what it plans to do with the panther statues after the alumni vote on the winner at Light-Up Night.

Henien admits that the board will use funds from the student activity fee to cover the initial costs of the project, but has suggested that businesses might sponsor the statues in the future, citing business support of similar efforts at Boston University.

We support the decision to have local businesses sponsor the project – if SGB had received investments from businesses before it agreed to pay the initial $60,000.

It is irresponsible to cover the project’s initial costs on the assumption that businesses will pay them back down the line. Sure, businesses might welcome the idea of investing in the statues, but what if they don’t?

And even if businesses weren’t interested, there are countless other ways SGB could have funded the project.

Henein cites “alumni enthusiasm” as part of his justification for ordering the statues. Why didn’t he call on the alumni to help fund the project?

On the issue of what will be done with the statues after Light-Up Night, SGB has only said that it hopes to put them on display around the Cathedral of Learning and the William Pitt Union until they are repainted the following year – another logistical nightmare.

It’s hard to imagine where the Cathedral and Union lawns have the space to accommodate 10 of these statues.

Our last, and strongest, objection toward the SGB decision is the large expense it is making toward something that can be achieved so simply.

If SGB wants to increase school spirit, there are less expensive and more all-encompassing alternatives.

Rather than limiting only 10 organizations to getting involved, why not purchase space for a mural, which multiple student groups could take part in painting?

The bottom line here is that $60,000 is a lot of money –