An ASUC Senate bill that would launch a $15,000 website redesign is a deeply misguided attempt to boost transparency and better serve students. On top of the inappropriate spending put forward in the bill, the selection of an outside contractor typifies a process that overlooked student talent on campus.

The ASUC’s current website is itself a relatively new product, just launched in 2014, which still greets site visitors with “Welcome to the new website for the ASUC!” We fail to see how many elements listed in the proposed contract — integration of social media and embedded livestreaming — are not on the existing site, which already boasts a Twitter feed and “video vault” of meetings.

Although the senate bill originally stated that $15,000 had been obtained by the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Student Services and Fees, the committee had, in fact, allocated $10,000 to the ASUC for the project. Those involved in the process attributed the discrepancy to a miscommunication.

But a $5,000 miscommunication is extremely troubling. Without the full $15,000 from the committee, the ASUC will pool money from savings on past projects and other funds.

The chancellor’s advisory committee is charged with recommending how an annual $972 per-student fee is divvied up. Although $10,000 taken from the pockets of the entire student body amounts to less than $1 per student, the ASUC’s progress thus far on the project demonstrates a careless attitude toward prudent financial planning.

Because the advisory committee does not post its meetings’ minutes or agendas online, contrary to guidelines written by former UC president Mark Yudof in 2010, students without ASUC connections cannot easily find out what discussions led to this proposal. We also know there was no general request for student input: There were no Facebook events, townhalls or surveys directed at the larger UC Berkeley student community.

Citing a lack of experienced student developers, the original proposal form stated that past ASUC staff members have been unable to adequately develop a website that fits all the organization’s needs.

The ASUC doesn’t need to redesign its entire website but can improve functionality within its current platform. For any add-ons viewed as truly necessary, such as a “secure online donation system” or “embedded Google Calendar functionality,” the ASUC can easily find a qualified student on campus to engineer them.

The new website will unfortunately benefit those inside the ASUC more than those unassociated with student government. If a $15,000 site redesign expense had been put to student voters through a referendum, it’s questionable whether it would have passed or gone so unnoticed.

While it’s admirable that the ASUC is aiming to increase awareness of its activities and make its resources more accessible, the current website is more than capable of meeting those goals. Additionally, we fail to see a substantial — or any — demand from students for components proposed in the contract.

With the looming possibility of tuition hikes, student representatives often demand that the university more transparently disclose where our tuition dollars go. But fees are no different and should be held to the same standard of accountability.

We are at a loss as to why the ASUC might well be paying $15,000 to a private firm for a website redesign it does not need. We hope the senate draws on the talent of student website developers and rejects this bewildering expense.

Editorials represent the collective opinion of the Senior Editorial Board as written by the opinion editor.