Last year, the three-member executive board of the Student Association legally changed the SA budget to provide themselves with free tuition in addition to the wages they earn as public servants for the students of this university.
The money used to cover this expense, which could amount to upwards of $15,000 per semester, will come out of the mandatory student activity fee (not covered by most scholarships or the Tuition Assistance Program) which has a budget funded by the approximately $70 student activity fee each full-time undergraduate pays per semester. This money is supposed to be allocated to clubs and events like the Spring and Fall Fests; last year, the student body passed an increase in the fee specifically so the quality of the Fests would be improved. Taking $15,000 away from the budget - and from an unspecified location of the budget - not only runs counter to that proposal, is not fair.
Before they decided to make the students responsible for the tuition, the members of our student government e-board approached the administration and asked for a waiver of tuition - and were turned down. The notion of our student officials asking the administration for a favor should raise a few eyebrows. One of the SA's purposes is to represent the undergraduate student body to the administration and serve as advocates for the students should their interests collide with those of the administration. If the SA president, the person who is supposed to represent the students to the administration and protect them when necessary, is in a position of debt to the administration, there is little question that the essential lines separating the administration from the student government would be blurred.
However, because the funding for the e-board tuition came in the form of a stipend increase rather than a tuition waiver, it is questionable if the SA can ensure that the money will actually go toward the e-board's tuition alone. It should be noted that SA officers are not enrolled at UB only to work for the SA - they are students, not university employees, and fee money paid by other students should not go towards funding someone else's education.
Rather than bundle the stipend increases within a bulk budget, the executive board ought to have brought the proposal to the floor of the SA Assembly, in order to gauge whether the student body at large would be in favor of having their student activity fee - an expense not covered by the Tuition Assistance Program or Education Opportunity Program, and therefore, an out-of-pocket expense - before placing it before a senate composed of students who either ran on SA President Christian Oliver's Results Party ticket, or were appointed by him.
The members of the executive board - Oliver, Vice President Jennifer Brace and Treasurer Naazli Ahmed - also made sure their fall 2002 tuitions would be covered retroactively, nullifying any claims that the purpose behind this raise was altruistic and solely aimed at making the positions attainable to any student, regardless of economic status.
Oliver has attempted to justify the student's paying his tuition by pointing out that officers at other SUNY universities are being paid more than at UB. Oliver knew this, however, when he ran for office. The same holds true for Brace and Ahmed; if they could not afford to hold the positions, they should not have run for office.
Oliver also points to others receiving stipends at UB, such as graduate assistants, who receive more than he and his two governing partners. What Oliver fails to realize, though, is that GAs are an essential factor to undergraduate education, whereas he, Brace and Ahmed are not.
SA must now decide if they are a moneymaking corporation or a governing body. If they are actually a government, they must realize that their main position is that of a servant. If the members of the executive board are interested only in the financial aspects of their jobs, then they are ill suited for their positions.
If the SA believes that any student will support paying a fee unrelated to tuition so that someone else can get a free education, they are sorely mistaken. Moreover, it is not the students' responsibility to pay for their elected officials get a degree; the role of the student and the role of an elected official are two very different things.
Governments are put in place in order to serve constituents and fight for their rights. Technically, our student government has done nothing wrong; all the rules were followed and no technicalities have been neglected. That does not, however, make the actions taken morally or ethically correct.
It is unfortunate that many students connect politics and politicians with crooked dealings and self-serving moves, but when it hits this close to home, it is no wonder the polls are empty on election day.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
