The fight over $1 just got tougher.
Since the beginning of the semester, talks between the Student Association (SA) and The Spectrum have fragmented over approximately $37,000. One dollar from every undergraduate student per semester has, in the past, been taken from the Mandatory Student Activity Fee and then given to The Spectrum in the form of a subscription fee, pending a vote of the undergraduate body.
The funds currently hang in the balance after The Spectrum was left out of this year's Mandatory Student Activity Fee referendum. While SA has cited a SUNY Board of Trustees guideline in excluding The Spectrum from the Sept. 22 through Sept. 24 vote, The Spectrum's Editorial Board continues to contest elimination from the ballot.
SA President Peter Grollitsch and SA Treasurer and Spectrum Board of Directors Treasurer John Martin both have expressed willingness to sign a contract with The Spectrum for the funds to be allocated to the paper under the condition that SA receive half of the seat representation on the newspaper's Board of Directors.
Both parties contest the meaning of the $37,000. The Spectrum operates under the assumption that the funds are a subscription fee from the students merely transferred through SA, while the student government sees the money as a subsidy to the newspaper.
"We're just evaluating the situation and we want to change it from a subscription fee," Grollitsch said. "We don't feel that it is [a subscription fee] anymore. We feel that it is money that [SA] would contribute to The Spectrum."
Editor in Chief of The Spectrum and Chair of The Spectrum's Board of Directors Stephanie Sciandra believes that it is not within SA's right to change the nature of the funds from a subscription fee to a subsidy.
Moreover, The Spectrum Editorial Board in its entirety feels that should SA gain control of half of The Spectrum's Board of Directors, which manages the finances of the newspaper, the student government would be able to block the financial endeavors should they disagree with the content of the paper.
Currently, The Spectrum holds four seats on the board to SA's three. Under SA's proposed revisions, the ratio would either be four to four or three to three. The Editorial Board feels that this would cause a conflict of interest.
"We are not a SA club and they are treating us as such by asking for half of our board. They don't contribute half of our income. They see themselves as an investor but a private company wouldn't allow an outsider to control half of their board," Sciandra said.
According to Sciandra, the proposed change also creates potential conflict over editorial content concerning the student government in the future.
"Whether or not it is the intention of this administration to control our content, it sets The Spectrum up for future problems," Sciandra said. "We are supposed to be independent. We are not supposed to be a mouthpiece for SA, or anyone else for that matter."
Grollitsch looks at the possibility of holding half of the seats on The Spectrum's Board of Directors as a way to keep the student body's voice heard when it comes to the money of the undergraduate body.
"John [Martin] and I feel that we'd like some accountability and some meaningful representation on the board," he said.
Senior Managing Editor of The Spectrum, Sergeant at Arms of The Spectrum Editorial Board and Board of Directors member Chris Ryndak disagrees with Grollitsch concerning SA representation on the board.
"There's a reason why there is freedom of the press," Ryndak said. "If they are worried about checks and balances, there are provisions in [The Spectrum's] bylaws which, if a Spectrum [board] member is acting unethically, that person can be impeached by the Editorial Board for their actions. If SA would have equal representation, there would be no real check on those members and they would have the ability to essentially block anything The Spectrum would want to do financially."
According to Sciandra, previous legislation has stopped the student government from breaking from the bonds of an intermediary role concerning the funds.
"Previous SA leaders have attempted to change or eliminate the subscription fee in the past and every time, The Spectrum has challenged those attempts," Sciandra said. "Courts, as well as the Student-Wide Judiciary, have ruled in favor of The Spectrum in the past and have decided that SA is an intermediary for those funds."
Ryndak also asserts that SA is overreaching their authority in restricting the allotment of the fee.
"I feel that just because there wasn't a vote for The Spectrum this year, it doesn't give SA the right to allocate the money any which way they feel they can," he said. "It shouldn't have to be so difficult between the two parties. It's not like it's a brand new problem. It comes up every time."
Conflict tends to arise between The Spectrum and SA at each four-year increment, when the Mandatory Student Activity Fee is typically increased.
When, in 1985, The Spectrum was in danger of bankruptcy SA established a separate allotment of funds for The Spectrum. During the crisis, SA decided that one dollar from each student's fee would be provided to ensure the paper's financial stability.
In 1993, SA leadership cut all funding to The Spectrum, which led the newspaper to file a lawsuit against SA. A judge ruled in favor of The Spectrum and from that point forward it was determined that students would vote on financing their student newspaper.
Problems arose again in April 2004, when SA pulled $34,000 in funding from the publication. That August, the Student-Wide Judiciary (SWJ) ruled in favor of The Spectrum, stating that the withdrawal of the funds on SA's part was "unfounded."
The SWJ said that because it is the student body's decision to fund the paper, SA had no right to pull the money. They stated that while SA thought the money belonged to its organization, it was determined that the student government was only an intermediary in the funding process.
In a Sept. 3, 2004 interview with The Spectrum, Lorenzo Guzman, a previous SA Senator and Senate Chair, stated that SA believed because the funds were transferred through the student government, they could decide what was done with the money.
"They don't understand the dollar is not [SA's]," Guzman said.
The ruling by the SWJ established SA as an intermediary in The Spectrum's funding, ensuring that the newspaper will receive the money as long as the student body votes it into a mandatory fee.
"Therein lies the problem with the mandatory fee," Sciandra said. "Now, SA has found a way to circumvent previous rulings by just not having a vote for The Spectrum. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the nature of those funds. Instead, separate provisions need to be made to let the students decide whether or not they want their money going to The Spectrum, as they have in the past."
Martin says that while the negotiations between SA and The Spectrum are troublesome, SA has no plans to reallocate the money to other areas in their budget.
"Personally, SA is not against giving this money to The Spectrum," Martin said. "We are just looking out for the students' assets. That's what we're trying to do at this point. The money couldn't be moved from the current line [on the budget, to be redirected for another purpose] without approval from the Senate. It would have to be approved by the Senate if it were going to be spent anywhere else."
As talks between SA leadership and The Spectrum continue, both Sciandra and Grollitsch look to mediation as an attempt to spark an agreement.
"We're not opposed to some compromise," Sciandra said. "Maybe mediation can point things out to both sides, and show where we can make concessions to resolve this in such a way where everyone feels satisfied."
Both parties have verbally agreed to mediation prior to more severe proceedings.
Coverage of these events and future proceedings can be found in upcoming issues of The Spectrum.
The Spectrum
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
