Good intentions are fine and well, but without a plan of action, those intentions are quickly wasted away or even lost.

The Student Government senators certainly know this. That was evidenced by their vote on the green fee resolution on Oct. 8. On an issue for which SG was supposedly so enthusiastic, it only passed this green fee by one vote, 16-15, according to a Kernel article on Oct. 9.

You don’t have to read too far between the lines to figure out what this means. Many of the senators aren’t sure of the direction of this resolution.

The green fee is a commendable effort and a small step in the right direction, but UK students must hold SG accountable, and part of this is seeing definitive results.

This green fee sets an amount of $6 to $8, but it is unclear what this money is actually being used for. The resolution was passed but this editorial board is still wondering what, if anything, this does for the students. Moreover, it is unlikely that students will be able to see the fruits of this proposed green fee.

SG Sen. Robert Kahne, the sponsor of the original resolution, requested that it be tabled to go back and re-assess how the funds would be allocated. Instead, SG went ahead and passed it anyway. This was poor judgment on the part of SG, especially with so many question marks surrounding the resolution.

A big problem with the resolution has been a lack of specifics. UK students should expect a clear explanation of why this green fee is needed, as well as exactly how the money will be allocated. The only two concrete things mentioned in the proposed amendment to Kahne’s resolution were having UK President Lee Todd sign a document committing to sustainability and hiring a sustainability coordinator.

That is not a sufficient enough explanation. This green fee could support things like purchasing energy-efficient light bulbs, or the water-saving appliances the university has been pushing so hard for. Instead, students are left to guess about how exactly these funds will be used. There are so many things that fall under the broad category of “green.” And sustainability coordinator sounds like it would have a broad job description. This entire amendment is just too vague.

“This is a piece of the pie that is going somewhere without a plan,” Sen. Rob Oakley said in the Kernel article.

Furthermore, let’s talk about these two uses of the green fee. Is having Todd sign a document about sustainability commitment going to have any direct effect on sustainability at UK? Students need some proof that their fees are being put to good use, and signing a piece of paper is not conclusive evidence.

Finally, there’s the issue of timeliness. Many of these senators, including, Kahne, will probably not even be around to reap the rewards of a green fee. For students graduating this year or next year, the sustainability coordinator is not going to help them, especially if he or she isn’t appointed until 2009. SG should work toward the green fee having an immediate impact for all students.

This editorial board applauds the new green fee resolution, but it needs revision so it can directly benefit students.