You Tell Me: What should USG's Policy Be for Off-Campus Trips?

So another interesting Senate meeting occurred last night, and I am sure there will be a flurry of articles written about it from the perspective of the press, but I've decided to share my perspective of the meeting as its Chairperson. The main attraction, again, was the off-campus trips policy at the heart of recent controversy, which is explained here.
 
Last week, even though no legislation regarding the policy (adopted by last year's senate) was to be discussed for a few weeks, enough people expressed interest in addressing it that I placed the issue in the agenda to be discussed, which it was. Considering a debate was had, and another debate on the subject would be heard when legislation was actually ready, I considered the issue closed for now.
 
But last night, a crowd of sports clubs joined the meeting (as they have a right to do) expecting special speaking privileges to speak about the topic again, even though it touched on none of the business that night. In the interest of equity and time, I did not permit any special speaking privileges, especially since they were unjustified in this case. They were each given 3-minutes to speak during Open Agenda.
 
Nonetheless, showing a flagrant disregard for the rules I established, the speakers, one-after-another for well over a half hour, berated the freshmen Senators for a policy they had no hand in creating. Fed up for the disrespect they were demonstrating to the senators, and to rules of the meeting itself, my patience ran out and I adjourned the meeting fifteen minutes early.
 
From my point of view, the entire night was orchestrated by a few rabble-rousing individuals, for whom much of my respect has been lost. But the issues at hand last night are more important than the people involved.
 
Off-campus trips are a great privilege, and most schools cannot afford to pay for nearly the number that we do (I think it would be hard to find another SUNY school that is as generous with their student activity fee as we are). But they also provide a disproportionate benefit of the SA Fee to those who receive them, so all that is asked of them is for them to carry the weight a little bit and pay 15%. Not 50%, not 25%, not even 20%—only fifteen percent! Where else can a person, going on a trip, have 85% of it paid for by somebody else?
 
When the senate decided only to fund 85% of off-campus trips last year, it was a decision made based on fairness to all the students paying the fee and a matter of fiscal prudence. It was in no way targeted to sports clubs, as they assert, and in no way truly hampers their ability to function. But let's address that matter.
 
From my experience, sports clubs are the most self-serving organizations funded by the USG. They feel entitled to ridiculous high levels of funding, while at the same time they claim they technically don't have closed membership, but they really do. They have a de facto closed membership because if they don't have tryouts (some do), you still can't really participate fully if you're not good enough to make it in their league.
 
After stating the obvious, I now fully expect sports clubs to come after me and accuse me of being bias against them, and that bias influenced the budget. Neither could be farther from the truth, which is what is even more infuriating. In the budget Senator Maiorella and I personally drafted last year, I cannot think of a single sports club, with a few rare exceptions for separate reasons, which received a cut under the guidelines we used, and most received increases of sizable amounts.
 
Yet they still complain. We have increased their budgets, lessening their other out-of-pocket costs, but because we are asking them to pay for a portion of their trips they are suddenly unable to? Ice Hockey Club remains one of the best examples of this outrageousness. 2 years ago they had only $30,000—now they have $83,000 (and requested over $90k), but they were at the meeting last night saying they could not afford to pay 15% of their trip costs. Now, unless the cost of playing ice hockey tripled in two years (it didn't), the team is clearly able to afford that cost, especially after we've relieved them of so many other expenses. I urge the Senators to look at this and not accept their spin tactics.
 
And their duplicity goes deeper. When they submitted a budget application in the spring, it was under the pretenses that it was absolutely what they needed, no less. When the senate eliminated expenses that were ineligible for USG funding, they then determined that of the remaining, we would only fund 85% of off-campus trips. Yet, in spite of their claims of absolute need, I was told last night that all of the clubs present would be completely satisfied with their current budgets, so long as they did not have to pick up any of the costs. What that boils down to is the fact that their original claims to necessity were fabricated, that they could function completely fine with 15% less money for off-campus trips. It makes you wonder whether they really need the rest of what they claim they do. 
 
I have no interest in cutting people off from speaking, or appearing as though I disrespect them personally. When I say I believe in republican government (that's "republican" with a little "r", not the party), I do not just mean I think it is a good form of government, I honestly believe that representing the people who elected me is my biggest responsibility, because I serve with their trust.
 
I do not believe most of the students at Stony Brook want their money spent sending these clubs on all-expenses-paid trips off-campus. I think they'd much rather see a student government operating with fiscal discipline that addresses their actual interests, like providing tutoring, cheap railroad tickets, advocating student interests and creating events on campus they can partake in.
 
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the less-than-0.2% of students present at the meeting last night really does represent the feelings of the student body. And if that's the case, should I even bother?
 
You're the students; you're the people whose money is being spent. You tell me.
 

—Nathan Shapiro
USG Executive Vice President

Editor's Note: Nathan Shapiro is also a staff member of The Independent, but does not cover USG-related stories.