"SA Can't Agree on How to Use $300,000"

The Student Association Senate voted Thursday to move $300,000 within its budget, but it couldn't agree on how to use the funds.

The money was moved from a line entitled "Projects" to a new line named "Long Term Projects Capital Equipment." With the movement of the money came a resolution - a list of stipulations that would have to be followed in order to use the money from the new line.

But the resolution did not pass. The vote stood 3-10-1, but some Senate members worried that the money is "too open" without any restrictions on how it can be spent or allocated.

"Because the [new] line doesn't have the proper restrictions on it, we could buy $300,000 worth of gumballs," said On-Campus Senator Kittie Pizzutelli. "It's not illegal to buy $300,000 worth of gumballs [as it currently stands]."

The money was originally moved into the "Projects" line on Feb. 12, when SA Treasurer Sikander Khan motioned to move part of a fund he referred to as a "cushion" or "rainy day" fund; the money was rollover from the mandatory student activity fee in past years.

The new line - Long Term Projects Capital Equipment - is different than most other lines in SA's budget because it won't get zeroed out, transferred back to "Cash and Investments," and reallocated as the next year's Senate sees fit, unlike typical SA lines, according to Sub-Board President Chris Noll. All of SA's accounts are handled through Sub-Board.

The measure ensures that any money in that fund will be available to future SA administrations and remains visible on the General Ledger.

The failed resolution, written by Engineering Coordinator Dan Pastuf and the Finance Committee, built off Khan's three original guidelines for the new line; Khan suggested that the money spent from the line must have long-term benefits to the undergraduate student population, the project must last for a period of at least five calendar years, and the project must have the potential to provide services to at least more than half of the undergraduate population.

"Personally, I felt that these guidelines did not provide enough clarity," said On-Campus Senator Daniel Ovadia. "For instance, the initial guide did not establish a means of determining if a project would actually benefit half of the undergraduate student population."

The resolution contained Khan's three guidelines and three new stipulations. The new rules highlight the process SA members would have to go through in order to receive money from the new line. In short, Senate would have to review each and every proposal to make sure the projects could meet Khan's original guidelines.

Senate Chair Darwinson Valdez believes the Senate should have passed the resolution because it simply built off of Khan's original guidelines that it approved previously.

"My question is if you gave us those guidelines and those are the guidelines you want to be followed, why do you not want it to be a resolution?" Valdez said. "I think the Senate should have the power, just as we do with the new and innovative line and the co-sponsorship line, to approve the spending of this new line. It's special; we didn't have that line before."

The new line in the budget is for "capital equipment," a category involving direct purchases that the Senate doesn't regularly monitor. The Senate usually only monitors "budget adjustments" - the movement of money from one line to another.

"We do not need to see every single thing that the money is being spent on because if we look at all of it, we will die," said Jonathan Grunin, a former senator who served as a proxy at Thursday's meeting. "And not die because it's being spent on improper things, die because they do so much spending every single day. Yes, it can be monitored [by the Senate], but it's just not practical."

Grunin argued that Senate should put stipulations and controls on the money, but it's going about it the wrong way. He suggested that money should not be allowed to go out of the budget from the new line, and it can only be transferred to other lines. This way, Senate would have to approve how the money is spent.

"As far as insisting that there is an entire presentation and proposal any time money is being attempted to be spent from that line, that is unrealistic," Grunin said. "We do not know how often that line will be touched, and we do not want to create unnecessary red tape."

Unlike the original guidelines set forth by Khan, the resolution would be binding and the rules would have to be followed by future SA executive boards and Senates. Khan, a non-voting member of the Senate, did not agree with the resolution because he was not made aware of the additional guidelines before the meeting. He also argued that SA already has "internal controls" in place that determine how money is spent and allocated, and the new guidelines only will make things more difficult for future Senates.

"I wanted the time to go over it and read it," Khan said. "It was a violation of [SUNY] guidelines. What would have happened if Senate would have approved a resolution that is in violation of SUNY guidelines? That's why I wanted to take the time to read it."

The violation Khan referred to within the stipulation reads:

"For projects with total expenditures that exceed $20,000, bids must be attained from at least three different vendors to ensure that monies are spent efficiently and products are attained at fair market value."

Khan stated that all projects must obtain bids from a variety of vendors, regardless of expenditure size.

Khan has been in communication with Pastuf and other Finance Committee members since Thursday's meeting in hopes to better understand the resolution. The resolution will be brought up to the Senate again in two weeks, and Valdez believes the senators will pass it because of the extra time to research the stipulations.

"We will have to see again because looking at the nature of [Thursday's] meeting, there was a lot of proxies," Valdez said. "Proxies don't represent exactly what the student voted for and they have no knowledge of what it's like to be a senator. If it was actually our senators that were there, we could have frozen that money and waited until next Senate meeting, and we could have waited to make an educated decision with two weeks of research."

Email: news@ubspectrum.com