It seems like there is no end to cleaning up the garbage dumped on the U last year by the Associated Students of the University of Utah.

Last week, the editorial board decried the U collecting nearly $40,000 in student fees meant to fund a Student Media Council that does not exist. True to form, the sustainability fee, another resolution shoved through the approval process and presented to the U Board of Trustees by Patrick Reimherr, last year’s ASUU President, has met a similar fate. The sustainability fee was passed by the ASUU General Assembly and Senate in March before being cleared by the Trustees.

After being collected, 70 percent of the fee money was to be put in an inexhaustible, revolving loan fund dedicated only to sustainability projects that guarantee a return. The remaining 30 percent would be allocated for sustainable student projects. The initiative also called for the hiring of a coordinator who would help a committee of students and faculty choose worthwhile projects and ensure both funds would be maintained.

At the time, we questioned the seeming lack of solid plans on how the initiative would function, as did some dissenting ASUU senators. Six months later, though approximately $72,500 in fees has already been collected from students, the initiative still lacks any concrete organization. The committee in charge of pursuing the projects the sustainability fee is supposed to fund doesn’t yet exist, and there are no drafted policies or procedures on how such a committee would function. Meanwhile, the coordinator has yet to be hired, though Myron Willson, director of the Office of Sustainability, said he hopes to fill the position in October.

But the coordinator position itself seems redundant. The U already employs a director for the Office of Sustainability. Is it really necessary to create another position to direct campus sustainability projects? If so, what exactly is the function of the director if not to direct these projects?

The fee is another example of last year’s ASUU administration forcing incomplete, questionable and costly initiatives through for approval. More disappointing is that these same fee increases were successfully pushed through both the Trustees and the Utah State Board of Regents, who should know better. The U is now the owner of two piles of money sitting in university funds with no destination.

Considering that the fee has no goal, it should be cut immediately until a complete sustainability initiative can be redrafted or the effort abandoned. Meanwhile, the Trustees and Regents should think twice before rubber-stamping every half-cocked student initiative that comes across their desks.