On Thursday, April 2, Macalester College Student Government (MCSG) met in the Weyerhaeuser Boardroom to discuss the outcome of the previous week’s “Budget Bonanza,” results of the annual student survey and questions for the upcoming final meeting of the Administrative Finance Advisory Committee (AFAC) for the year later this month.
This year’s Budget Bonanza, according to the Financial Affairs Committee (FAC) chair David Christenfeld ’27, was “significantly better than last year.”
Christenfeld told the meeting that the total amount requested for this semester was around $150,000. The FAC ultimately gave away $81,000, just $6,000 short of their $87,000 target for the semester. He also told the meeting that the major difference between this year and last year was that rejected requests were almost entirely due to code violations or vagueness, such as a lack of specific line items, rather than budget shortages, and praised the specificity of this year’s requests, noting one budget that included the line item of 24 ounces of salt for 94 cents.
“Anything we could approve, we did approve,” Christenfeld said.
After unanimously approving a revised and clarified budget for the Groove Group, attention turned to Communications and Engagement Committee (CEC) chair Sammi Shelton ’29, who presented the results of MCSG’s annual student survey.
A total of 81 students responded to the survey. Respondents identified residential life and dining as the top issues they wanted to see MCSG take action on.
CEC acknowledged that response rates this year were lower than usual and identified feelings of disengagement and a lack of clarity on MCSG’s duties and impact as some of the main drivers. They also speculated that emotional burnout from Operation Metro Surge in the Twin Cities was a factor this year, as well as other issues respondents pointed out.
Free responses from students suggested a legislative board forum at the beginning of the year to encourage engagement between students and representatives, as well as clearer communication of disability resources as possible ways for the Legislative Body (LB) to improve.
Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) chair Emma Rohrs ’26 then took the podium to provide updates and respond to questions on her role as a student representative on Educational Policy and Governance Committee (EPAG), whose primary focus has been on making course surveys more equitable for students and staff and updates to the faculty handbook.
Christenfeld returned to discuss his role on AFAC. Christenfeld said that in theory, the committee is a way to provide feedback to the administration on their financial decisions. In practice, the committee “hasn’t really served that purpose at all.”
“It’s typically just me and Patricia Langer, and it’s more Q&A,” Christenfeld said. “I think that provides its own valuable piece, but whether I’m actually providing input to them … I think it’s a question.”
Christenfeld stressed, however, that the committee is important as a space where students can ask questions to Patricia Langer through Christenfield and reliably get a response. With that in mind, Christenfeld asked if legislative body members had questions for the last AFAC meeting of the semester.
“I already have a lot of questions about the High Winds Fund and how that operates, and its potential contribution to gentrification,” he added. “But I hope people have other questions.”
LB members posed questions about what financial factors influenced Macalester’s choice to increase the residency requirement from two to three years, starting with the incoming class of 2030. Christenfield responded that he would ask, and Emma Rohrs ‘26 speculated that based on conversations she had in EPAG this year, part of the decision was less financial and more geared towards guaranteeing housing for students.
The meeting ended with Cabinet updates, where the CEC reminded students that any feedback about Public Safety conduct and personnel can be submitted to the feedback form on Macalester’s website.
