Sub-Board I

On Thursday morning, every UB student received an e-mail from the Student Association declaring two things: Spring Fest is Friday night and SA is considering pulling out of Sub-Board I, Inc. Usually, when something of this magnitude is brought to the student body, it comes with both a means and an end. At this point, SA president-elect George Pape is not offering a plan, showing a lack of both vision and feasibility.

For the last 33 years, SBI has provided a number of valuable services to students or student organizations: the accounting services, the pharmacy, Health and Human Services, Group Legal Services, and more. In that time, SBI has built and maintained the necessary infrastructure and history to adequately service students in all areas under its umbrella. While Bill Hooley, SBI executive director, has said some services will continue even without SA money, services would be reduced and jobs would be lost - needlessly so.

Pape and SA say all the services SBI provides could be moved over to SA's guidance and that none would suffer in the process. With the evidence he has provided, however, it is difficult to believe. The startup cost of building and staffing a corporation to serve as SA's version of SBI will be a significant investment for SA to make. More importantly, that entire procedure would have to be accomplished in the space of only three months. The SA staff already spends the summer preparing for the upcoming year. Add this to their burden, and we must wonder if either job will be served well.

The advantage to doing so, of course, is the increased representation on the board for SA. The number of representatives SA has on the board, proportional to their contribution, is admittedly not fair. In reality, however, many of the representatives from the other schools do not even show up to the board meetings, allowing SA the majority vote in many cases. Despite that, undergraduate representatives cannot second motions that are brought up by their own group, so they would be forced to work with the other student governments.

The obvious question is, why? SA has not tried to change the bylaws to fix the problem they are so quick to complain about, despite having a president who has been in office for two years and an undergraduate in the SBI president's office this year. In addition to not providing any clear plan for how the transaction will occur, Pape has failed to show an acceptable course of action. It is almost difficult to even call his proposal a plan, as Pape has offered no guidance outside of his seemingly illogical first step.

"I understand how it looks," Pape said, "unfortunately, given the circumstances, it's not something that we're not able to comment on." We are happy to hear that Pape has a plan for the future; we would just like to hear what it is. Pape claims he has the SA Senate fully behind him, and yet at least two senators have said they have not been fully informed about the situation. Such details should not be hidden from the undergraduate population, let alone from the SA Senate.

While Pape said he is interested in hearing the voices of the students, it will not be until after he releases his plan to the public. We must admit, his timing is perfect; not only are students too busy to actively fight his actions, but in a week or two, there won't be many students left on campus to notice what SA does. To completely discount the opinions of the constituents he is supposed to represent is a huge disservice, especially while it is claiming to act in their best interests.

As it stands, Pape's proposal seems either a bluff or just imprudent. We would welcome the chance to stand behind our student government if they take a definitive stand on a problematic part of student life. But until that time, we cannot support SA's actions. If there is a plan, it must be presented to the students with clear answers on how he is going to set up all the Sub-Board services by August. Pape's grievances against SBI must be clarified and other solutions must be explored. If there is a goal that needs to be accomplished, it must be done without cutting any support, services or jobs.