Remember last week’s headline for Student (government) Association? University Union received $1 million at SA’s meeting, which described the results of last Monday’s Designation of Surplus Funding bill. This article details how after only an hourlong debate, the general assembly stimulated UU’s large-scale concerts with $1,005,172 and the budget process with $422,023 — totaling over $100 per student.

What they don’t explain, however, is the backroom politics associated with the bill. Informed in late spring about the surplus, SA President Neal Casey and Comptroller Jeff Rickert had more than six months to discuss what to do with our money, yet only kept this information from the assembly until nine hours prior to the vote. Although they mean well, Neal and Jeff forced student representatives to condense half-a-year’s deliberation into nine hours and clearly were not interested in what student representatives have to offer to the decision-making process of student government.

Furthermore, Neal and Jeff knowingly proposed a designation — which requires a working understanding of the financial system surrounding the student fee — to an assembly comprised of many new members. Attempting to remedy this deficiency with a short PowerPoint presentation, Neal and Jeff did try to educate the assembly. But it was clear by the technical questions, which extended well into deliberations, that this understanding was not reached. Despite their good intentions, knowingly presenting a financial bill to an uninformed assembly, Neal and Jeff have at best undermined the assembly as a decision-making body and, at worst, unethically manipulated its judgment.

Believing the vote was not an infringement of the assembly’s ability to make an informed decision, Neal and Jeff attempted to justify the bill by referencing recent resolutions that went before the assembly without its prior knowledge, namely those on Home College Committees and on cyberbullying. This thought process, however, does not consider new members’ lack of experience with finances, but, more importantly, misses the entire point.

What happened to other opportunities? When asked if they considered other options, they emphasized the lack of event space and argued that more, bigger concerts are what students want. My question to them is: Why didn’t you consider what students need? What about subsidizing laundry services or academic tutoring, installing more lefty desks in classrooms or buying more blue lights?

I’ll leave you with this thought: When there are so many opportunities that our $1.4 million could have made possible, did anyone consider what it says about us when we prioritize a Lady Gaga concert over financial stability, academic success and student safety?

This article is not meant as an attack on UU or Neal and Jeff, personally, but rather a criticism of the current SA administration’s policy perspective and procedure.

Nick Iaquinto

SA Assembly Member

Published on October 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm