While many students have been quick to rally either for or against the Panda Express chain on campus, something that has been left out of the conversation is an explanation of the financial circumstances that are being used to explain the necessity of the chain's presence. What members of the Store Operations Board, some ASUC Senators and the ASUC Auxiliary have been saying is that the ASUC will go into deficit within a year if we do not find a new source of revenue. But the unanswered question is, how did the ASUC end up in this position?

The answer to the question "why," according to members of the Store Operations Board who organized a small community forum on the issue last Wednesday, is that the Auxiliary's spending will go up $290,000 this year. The Auxiliary, for those who don't know, is an arm of the university administration that manages ASUC finances. It was created in 1998 as a compromise between the university and the ASUC: in exchange for the university bailing the ASUC out of debt, the university would achieve a degree of control over ASUC activities and spending through the creation of the Auxiliary. Another condition of the agreement is that the ASUC has to foot the bill for the Auxiliary's expenses.

So, when we say that the Auxiliary's spending has gone up $290,000, we are really saying that an additional financial obligation is being imposed on the ASUC by the Auxiliary. That additional obligation is what is pushing the ASUC into a potential deficit and is being used to justify the imperative of bringing Panda Express to campus. Makes sense.

What doesn't add up, though, is the fact that the Auxiliary's role has not been interrogated enough, considering that the ASUC is scurrying to find new sources of revenue to pay for the Auxiliary's existence. Since it is student money that pays for it, students and the ASUC must play an oversight role over the Auxiliary to ensure that all Auxiliary spending, every dollar and cent, is actually a necessity for the student body. That responsibility is part and parcel of every ASUC elected representative's job simply because every Auxiliary penny spent, is a penny lost for student organizations.

The Auxiliary will say that it has been operating under capacity for two years, and that in fact it needs to hire even more staff to perform its tasks. Those salaried positions take a huge chunk of the Auxiliary's budget, which in turn is a huge chunk of the ASUC's budget. We need to ask what the Auxiliary's role is in performing and deciding what those tasks are and should be. Is it to be at the forefront with the campus administration, or is it to support the work of ASUC representatives? Further, we need to make sure that the Auxiliary's running tab is not compromising the ASUC's independence by forcing or pressuring it to adopt certain commercial policies, like abandoning a decades long tradition of supporting small independent businesses by bringing a large chain like Panda Express to make it easier for the Auxiliary to continue expanding.

Auxiliary staffing is determined by Auxiliary Director Nadesan Permaul, and there is no doubt that the Auxiliary's power has been expanding for the past two years since Mr. Permaul was appointed director. What is absolutely necessary is a reevaluation of the Auxiliary that affirms its role as an institution that supports the ASUC, not directs it. We need to make sure that the ASUC remains solvent and is not threatened by bankruptcy, but also that the Auxiliary is kept in check as a service to students, and not as an overseer. One way to do this is for the student body and the ASUC to reclaim ownership over the Auxiliary by performing more active oversight over Auxiliary activities, expenses and staffing decisions-especially when discussions around chains like Panda Express, which should be open to campus discussion and deliberation, are framed as "now or never" decisions in times of crisis.

If the ASUC had stronger control over the Auxiliary, we would not be in a position of supposed crisis as we are today. The worst decisions are the ones made by people pretending there are no other choices on the table. The $700 billion bailout of Wall Street is only the most recent example of such a decision. The Auxiliary and members of the Store Operations Board seem to be trying to pull a fast one on us now by framing this issue in a similar light. When it comes down to it, after all, Panda Express is a bailout plan for the Auxiliary, not for student groups or for the ASUC.

A rush to bring large businesses to our campus, without fully discussing the potential consequences or questioning the framed necessity for it, is not in the long-term interests of the student body or ASUC autonomy. The Panda Express discussion, therefore, is not merely about students' culinary preferences. It is most importantly an issue that strikes at the heart of the relationship between the Auxiliary and the ASUC, and it is time for ASUC representatives to collectively acknowledge that relationship as well as its right to question Auxiliary expenses.