The SA budget for next year was announced Wednesday night at the Senate meeting. It includes the total student stipend portion of the budget being reduced from $255,450 to $181,000. Meanwhile, the individual stipends for president, vice president and treasurer will remain at $12,000 per academic year.
The treasurer writes the SA budget and the Senate later approves it. All appeals must be written and submitted by Friday at 5 p.m., and the Senate will consider them on Sunday before approving the final budget.
What presented itself on Wednesday night, as the budget was initially announced, is a problem of leadership from those in the highest offices of SA. There is an egregious gap between the top officials' stipends and the allotments going to all other students.
The next-highest paid position is chief of staff, which receives a maximum of $4,500 a year - $7,500 less than the E-board members.
SA leaders have vocalized their intentions to be transparent about all proceedings and to make sacrifices on behalf of the student body. They have expressed a desire to reduce spending in order to avoid another deficit, but when the cuts needed to be implemented, the sacrifice did not fall on those at the top.
$12,000 - roughly $400 a week - is well above a fair amount of money for a college student to earn over the course of an academic year.
Anna Lubitz, president of Stony Brook's Undergraduate Student Government, receives an $8,000 stipend. Binghamton SA President Mark Soriano receives a stipend of $4,000. Geneseo SA President Carly Annable gets $1,750.
It is poor leadership to demand specific cuts to areas of the budget but to be unwilling to take a hit yourself. Even a symbolic cut of $500 a semester would have made a statement.
The voice of the student body should care about the student body.
Over the course of UB's most recent SA election, a common sentiment expressed by students was that SA doesn't really affect many students' college experiences. This most recent incident is an example of the way students should be paying attention to how SA operates and how decisions made by those elected can impact the institution - which by extension impacts students' lives.
The top positions are expecting too much. If they were serious about avoiding a deficit as their primary concern, they would reduce their own stipends as well.
One of the issues that should be brought to students' attention is that the budget for each academic year is formulated by the preceding year's officials. In other words: Nick Johns, Lyle Selsky and Siddhant Chhabria will not be implementing their own budget. They maintain the budget their predecessors put in place.
The majority of the work of the SA E-board has more to do with maintenance. After a year of experience and learning the mechanics of how a budget works, they are able to devise a budget that those taking their place can manage.
It should be stated that Johns serves on the Finance Committee and played a role in drafting this budget - protecting his upcoming stipend. The problem remains that too much money is going to those in these positions, and the concern for the student body that has previously been articulated was not demonstrated with this decision.
When complaints were brought to the Senate Wednesday night, Johns responded with animosity to the notion that he shouldn't be making that much. He said he was "insulted" by the assertion that he would be overpaid.
Senators have responded to The Spectrum they feel the insinuation was that if he wasn't getting paid the $12,000 stipend, he would not be doing his job.
That is probably not the idea you had of the man you voted for during the elections - the guy who campaigned on the premise he was a "normal" college kid in touch with average students' lives.
How many average students do you know making $6,000 a semester for their on-campus positions?
It is a problem that at this point there is already a gap between Johns' rhetoric and his behavior.
Email: editorial@ubspectrum.com
