Tonight the Government of the Student Body senate will discuss, for the fifth time, the Varsity Task Force proposal for the Cyclone Cinema.

The proposal sparked some controversy within the GSB, and some have suggested that a student referendum may be in order. We’d like to tell you why that’s the wrong move.

First, the proposal is complicated, and in order to fully dissect and understand it, a substantial understanding of GSB funding processes is required. We don’t for a moment doubt students’ intelligence, but the information doesn’t boil down easily.

Case in point: The first hour of our editorial board discussion wasn’t spent on arguing about the merits of the proposal itself; rather, it was spent describing, explaining and understanding how the funding for the project would work in the first place.

Essentially, money from three different GSB sources — the investment account, the capital projects account and regular allocations — would be used to fund the theater. Each source accrues money in different ways, and each has specific rules on how the balance can be disbursed.

More importantly, however, is understanding that these pools of money are filled by student activity fees for the purpose of funding student activities, such as events, movies and concerts and student organizations. These funds are separate from your tuition money, from the money that pays your professors and builds buildings on campus.

Admittedly, the Varsity proposal comes at an awkward time — smack dab in the middle of university budget cuts. But the funds are from separate sources with separate purposes. Logic dictates that each be considered in isolation.

Referendums, though, tend to become emotional decisions. With only a few sentences to describe a project and a “yes” or “no” checkbox, referendums often boil down to the interpretation of a few key words.

If the Cyclone Cinema project is to succeed or fail, it should succeed or fail for the right reasons — because GSB Senators, as our elected representatives, with a full understanding of the project, have carefully weighed the benefits of the investment against the risks.

If the project succeeds or fails because of PR, the wording of a referendum question, misunderstanding of funds, accounts or student fees, emotional or political reactions to spending during a time of budget cuts, or any one of a myriad reasons unrelated to the project itself, then the decision will have been poor, regardless of the outcome.

The project should be evaluated based on its merit. The people who are in the best position to do that are our GSB senators. They have read, debated and questioned every aspect of the proposal. More importantly, they have the context to understand how spending GSB money on the theater has the potential to affect other GSB-funded projects — from the biggest student organization to the smallest event — in the future.

That doesn’t mean students can’t have their say. On the contrary, many senators have sought out and expressed opinions they’ve heard from their constituents, and we’ve printed the letters we’ve gotten about the project in our opinion section — and will continue to do so.

But it’s called representative democracy for a reason. So, represent.