What in the hell is wrong with UI Student Government? The members were elected on behalf of the students to represent their interests, and now they’re going to the state Board of Regents and asking them to increase our financial burden? What kind of leadership is that?

Why should the students pay any more than they already are? Where is the added value in paying even more of our hard-earned cash? How does this make me better off in the future?

If this was your initial reaction to hearing that the university was considering a $100 spring surcharge, then you are not alone. It was my reaction as well. Before I explain my reasoning in support of this surcharge — and in case you haven’t had the time to read a newspaper every day for the last year — let me get you up to speed.

Since the fiscal year began in July, the state government has asked the university to make two reversions in the order of $34 million and the recent $25 million. This totals $59 million, or about 25 percent of the original $235 million state allocation. To put that number into perspective, revenue generated from tuition this year was roughly $296 million. Add another $46 million from cost recoveries, and the total amount for the General Education Fund for 2009-10 was $577 million.

To help make up for the first round of cuts, the university had help from federal stimulus money and implemented several strategic management policies, such as offering early retirement packages to employees in order to bring in younger, less-expensive workers; by not filling vacant positions; and by moving many employees from the general fund to research grants. These actions have prevented the UI from resorting to mass layoffs, furloughs, or coming to the students for more money.

In order to make up for the latest cut of $24.7 million, the university will again implement strategic polices that will do as much as possible to avoid layoffs or furloughs. The spring tuition surcharge of $100 per student would generate roughly $2.3 to $2.4 million, or 10 percent of what needs to be cut.

So why us? Why not make the faculty and staff pick up the burden? Or the university? The answer is that the faculty and staff will contribute significantly to make up for the budget shortfall, and after the first two rounds of budget cuts, the university is now being spread thin — too thin to the extent that it is just now asking us to pitch in.

If students do not pitch in, the university is at the point that it will have to resort to layoffs or furloughs. This will result in one or a combination of the following: fewer professors, fewer teaching-assistant positions, fewer staff, fewer programs, fewer departments, or fewer services. The surcharge is not to add to anything; it is to prevent us from losing more of what we need.

I am asked to advocate for policies that are in the best interests of all students, and I have been in student government long enough to know which positions are going to be popular and which are not.

To think any of the “fewer” measures could benefit students is a position with which I cannot agree.

If you’re still outraged and upset at this surcharge, I understand. These cuts were not a result of mismanagement or poor planning on the behalf of the university. They are a result of the national recession and if we want to maintain the level of quality that we enjoy at the UI every day, then $100 per student is the cost.

Michael Currie is president of UISG.