To the Editor:
In an attempt to clear up some of the facts and misrepresentations previously brought forward in this paper, we are writing this as part one of two letters to the editors.
In this letter, we would like to present the most recent history and case law pertaining to this situation, and in the next letter we will provide additional information and the rationale for our actions so that you can better appreciate our point of view.
On February 11, 2009, The Spectrum published a "call to action" entitled "Sense-orship" in which The Spectrum claimed that Student Association officers "continue to withhold your subscription fee of $1 per student per semester," adding, "The money was originally intended to be transferred from the Student Mandatory Activity Fee to The Spectrum." The editorial then goes on to accuse SA officials of attempting to engage in censorship.
We have never attempted to censor any student or student group.
The subscription fee for The Spectrum (formerly collected as part of the Mandatory Student Activity Fee) no longer exists. Prior to the fall 2008 semester, a fee of $1 per student per semester was taken out of the Mandatory Student Activity Fee and paid to The Spectrum, based upon line-item referenda in which students voted for that expenditure. In the fall semester of 2008, no question regarding funding The Spectrum was presented for a vote based upon recent changes to federal constitutional law.
There have been significant changes to the laws governing the allocation of student activity fees in recent years-both at the SUNY level, and at the federal constitutional level, beginning in 2000 with the U.S. Supreme Court case Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth.
In 2004, the State University of New York Board of Trustees provided that, "The student government may provide for use of advisory referenda of the student body with respect to particular funding decisions but may not agree to be bound by such referenda." Beginning in 2004, based upon this change in the law, the referenda concerning funding The Spectrum became advisory only, not binding.
This continued to be the effective policy regarding the use of referenda concerning specific allocations of student activity fees to specific recognized student organizations (such as The Spectrum) until November, 2007 when the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that use of such advisory referenda was no longer permitted under federal constitutional law, which superseded the contradicting SUNY policy. In deciding the case of Amidon v. Student Association of the State University of New York at Albany in November 2007, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided that even advisory referenda were now specifically prohibited.
This change in the law forced SA to change the way we handle activity fee referenda and allocations to recognized student organizations such as The Spectrum. In the fall of 2008, no questions regarding allocating specific portions of the Student Activity Fee to any particular recognized student organizations were directly presented for general student body vote (even "advisory" vote), as we were no longer allowed to do so. In June 2008, SUNY also proposed changing its rules to comply with the federal ruling.
That being said, given the history and case law, we feel that any litigation that The Spectrum would bring against us, would in fact be them forcing us to use student money to defend a case in which they, not us, would lose.
[EDITED FOR LENGTH]
Peter Grollitsch and John Martin
SA Preisdent and Treasurer
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
