After hearing some complaints about student-group funding in the fall, Dean of Students Kenneth Elmore approached some of Boston University’s student leaders and suggested they compose their own budget proposal after gathering a student consensus. The result was a proposal written by the Allocations Board to turn over group funding to the hands of this appointed oligarchy.

After a semester of debate over the suggested model, even Elmore is suggesting students continue discussing it, saying they should discuss a democratically elected funding group.

Students must heed this advice and continue to protest the AB’s proposal. The Board is made up of accomplished students who understand how to distribute funds, a complicated process that is comprised with intricacies of which the AB is probably more knowledgeable about than most administrators.

But it is the AB’s motives that are cause for concern. It is impossible for an appointed Board made up of a particular type of students to represent the student body. Only an elected group can achieve this.

A Board that doesn’t have to worry about appealing to voters is too powerful. There needs to be a check on the AB’s decisions. Because its job is to deal with thousands of dollars, the group should feel pressure to meet the community’s demands. If this pressure isn’t there, the AB will have a hard time controlling its biases when deciding which organizations should receive funding in favor of others. An election would not just apply this forceful lobbying, but also diversify the group and therefore weaken its biases, or at least dilute them.

Because funding is such a difficult task, it will be important to put the right people on the AB. To ensure that some experienced members remain on the Board, there may need to be some sort of compromise between a completely democratic system and an appointed system.

It is important that student leaders create a new proposal that will work best for the student body. When drafting new proposals, the creators must take all the necessary time. In response to the AB’s original funding system, the Union briskly developed a reactionary proposal. There should not be this rush to make a new model. It will be a long procedure, but listening to student demand is a must. And students are willing to wait as long as the heads of the groups who deal with finances come up with something that accurately reflects their wishes.