The new USG constitution; why it was the best hope for the students
|
Unless you have been living in a hole or haven’t been reading the newspaper this past week, you probably are aware that the new USG constitution has failed. Not only has it failed, but it failed miserably. By this point in time, I think it’s a moot point to place blame as to why it failed, or on the flip side, why it didn’t pass. I think it’s a fair assessment to say that the constitution was not as well advertised as it could have been. It is also fair to say that many students feared the worst possible scenario was imminent if the constitution passed. Again, I think it is time to move on from the blame game and actually take a look at why it failed and what it means for the future of students at Stony Brook University. The new constitution came about with only the best intentions in mind. It was not to take funding away from clubs, it was not take voting away from students, and it was not done because we are power hungry. All lies perpetrated by individuals who were either to ignorant to look up all of the facts for themselves, or by individuals who wanted to see the document fail because they have a vendetta selfishly against us and do not care about the students at Stony Brook. The new constitution was designed to make that final transition from Polity (the former student government) to the new USG. For those of you who are unaware, Polity was decertified in 2003 for many reasons and a new government was formed. Many clauses in the new constitution were built in checks as an over-reaction to many of the abuses that happened under Polity. Now, that Polity is memory, we must make that final transition to a Student Government that is focused on the Students. Let me explain why. The current government is a model of inefficiency and bureaucracy. It is composed of an eleven member executive board that has no clearly defined roles and worse off, in the past, has been filled with individuals simply interested in a line on their resume and a paycheck. If they actually cared about the students, they would work hard to fight for students rights and stand up to administrators. Instead, they collect their necessary signatures, and if they’re running unopposed, simply logon to SOLAR and vote for themselves. Then, they disappear for the rest of the year, into the USG suite, only to reappear on payday. It is these individuals that have ruined our current system of electing eleven executive members, and because of them, a change is necessary. The next argument against a system such as this is that students want the right to elect their own representatives. Indeed a valid argument, although not the right one. Students need look no further than our Federal Government to see who their elected officials are in this new system. The Federal Government, as with State Governments, has Senators and Representatives (Assemblymen in New York State) that are their voices in government. The same would hold true for Student Government. The new senate would be expanded to approximately thirty senators. They would also represent their respective constituency were the clearest divide is; between commuters and residents. I do not understand how electing representatives from different colleges is an accurate cross section of students interests. It is obviously between residents and commuters, and history shows us that residents are able to enjoy their student activity fee more than commuters. They are more involved in clubs and they attend more activities. Is this fair? I think not. Presently, I can only think of two commuters even involved in student government, and one of them is outlined in the constitution! Clearly, this is the better way to represent students, not an inefficient executive council that is unclear what their job is. There have also been arguments that expelling senators by a 2/3 vote is a dangerous provision. I beg to differ. First, the new senate will have approximately 30 members. 2/3 would be 20 senators. Given the apportionment of residents to commuters, this would net 16 residents, and 14 commuters given the 1 senator per 500 student’s ratio. In an expulsion scenario, you would need ALL of the residents to vote for it, and four of the commuters. Given the weight of expelling a member, I am quite sure you wouldn’t get expelled for not combing your hair. The constitution does not make clear what the grounds for expulsion are because they need to be able to police themselves. Adding language that could be misconstrued could potentially tie the senate’s hands and have them stuck with dead weight. In our current system, senators can only be impeached through a ¾ vote of the executive council. This begs the question why would the executive want to impeach a senator? It is in the best interest of the executive council to have an ineffective senate. The senate passes laws that the executive must enforce. Why would the executive make the senate more productive? Additionally, if senators begin missing senate meetings, this makes it harder for the senate to be able to impeach executive council members. ¾ of the filled seats of the senate are required to impeach an executive member. Having senators not show up just makes impeachment less likely and far more agreeable to the executive council. Expelled senators are still entitled to appeal to the Judiciary. This is outlined with all students’ rights to due process. Going back to the new composition of senator’s, you can also see how this would be a greater check on the president’s powers. While all of these items were substantial, they were nothing in comparison to the belief that clubs were losing their rights. No matter how hard we tried, no matter how much we tried to explain, it just wasn’t enough to alleviate student’s fears. This was perhaps our biggest problem that we did not educate as well as we should have. Students were scared into frenzy when they thought we wouldn’t fund them because we didn’t like their club. Completely untrue, we are bound by state law, NYCRR 302.14, more commonly referred to as the Chancellor’s guidelines. It says in section C 1(i) “The student government shall prepare and approve a budget governing expenditures from student activity fees in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the student, government, and consistent with the principles of equal opportunity and viewpoint neutrality, prior to registration for each academic year. The constitution and by-laws of such student government shall specify the criteria governing eligibility for funding of and allocations to student organizations from student activity fees. 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. Allocations included in the budget shall fall within programs defined in paragraph (3) of this subdivision. The approved budget shall thereafter be presented to the chief administrative officer prior to the registration for each academic year for the view and certification that the allocations (from the fee and any proposed sources of revenue are in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (3) of this subdivision upon determination by the chief administrative officer, or designee, that the approved budget is in compliance with these regulations, he or she shall so certify, and such certification shall authorize the collection of the fee at registration.” We may not discriminate against any clubs, it’s against the law. We also are bound by Federal law and the first amendment, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech guarantees that clubs may put up or hand out whatever literature they would like, regardless of the opinions of USG. Proponents will also allege that we do not specify criteria for funding in the constitution. This is also false. They are laid out in Article I of the new constitution, Declaration of rights. Section 2 states “The Undergraduate Student Government shall hold inviolate the rights, privileges and immunities afforded by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New York State and no law or policy shall stand which abridge the same.” Section 3 “The Undergraduate Student Government shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of members of the Undergraduate Student Government; nor shall it deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And finally Section 4 “No member of the Undergraduate Student Government shall be denied the right to participate in any and all activities held by organizations funded by the Undergraduate Student Government; but organizations may charge fees reasonable to defray their costs.” The current constitution goes further, however, it simply is redefining viewpoint neutrality and equal opportunity. Our financial bylaw, the correct document that enumerates funding criteria, already has all of these provisions in it. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you pick up a copy. Clubs also believed they would lose their right to appeal their budget. This is also untrue. Funding decisions are, how they’ve always been, determined by the senate. The senate, through the budget committee, examines clubs who request money. They then look at determining factors, such as missions and goals, fiscal prudence, contribution to the campus community, and how many students they reach out to. Other factors are considered, but these are the main ones. We also take into account what a club needs to survive. Clubs are asked to explain their expenditures in their hearing process so we can understand better how these funds are spent. Now, there are two instances per year when a club may request money. For the following year, clubs request money during the spring budget process. This is when USG prepares their annual budget. The budget committee looks at over 150 clubs and makes funding decisions based on the aforementioned criteria. Putting a budget together is no easy task. Believe me, I’ve done it. It requires hours of work trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. While not all clubs receive the money they requested, they are all treated fairly and they all receive the money they need to survive. If a club is unhappy with the level of funding they receive during this process, they may appeal it; in the fall. Every year, USG has rollover funds. These funds are from unspent club budgets from the previous year as well as increased enrollment. The exact size of the rollover is not guaranteed, but it usually has a fair amount of money. All clubs that did not receive a budget may appeal to the senate to get the money they need during this process. Attempting to appeal funding decisions to the court would be counterproductive. The first reason is that the courts exist to interpret existing laws and policies. Funding decisions are inherently policy decisions and belong in the legislative branch, the senate. Second, it would be nearly impossible for a club to prove that they cannot survive without a certain level of funding. I’m quite certain that they could cut back on some events or other cost cutting measures. They would survive, albeit not at the level they want. Third, and perhaps most important, is public scrutiny. The annual budget is debated on the floor of the senate. In last year’s case, it was on the floor three times. Clubs who were concerned over what funding they would receive had ample opportunity to review the budget on more than one occasion. This budget also needs to be passed by a 2/3 majority and finally needs approval from the Vice President for Student affairs, Dr. Baigent. Last year, after winning the election, President Antonelli went nearly line by line, explaining almost all of the funding decisions to Dr. Baigent. Only after Dr. Baigent was satisfied, that everybody was treated fairly, only then did he sign off on the budget. Alternatively, if a court were to determine funding, it would be by 3 individuals in the judicial council, in a locked room, reviewing only one budget. What would happen if the court ruled in favor of the club, then what? Do they freeze the entire budget? Do they order the senate to appropriate money from the balanced budget with no surplus, invariably taking money from another club? Do they make them wait until next year for rollover funds that may not exist? The budget committee just balanced USG’s 2.7 million dollar budget and 3 individuals in a locked room hearing from one club could overturn the whole thing? Not a very good scenario for all of the other clubs keeping count. Another glaring item is that of the amount of the student activity fee. Currently, students are required to fork over $94.25 per semester. For those of you who don’t know, the Activity is capped at $100 per semester, by state law. A few years back, it was some $20 cheaper, but facing a budget crisis, the senate and the executive council, with 2/3 vote each, raised the fee. Even though the students voted down by referendum, it was advisory referendum, and therefore the USG could do what they wanted. Last year, an amendment was passed to make that impossible. The student activity fee would now be set by binding referendum. Binding referendum means just that, it’s binding. The USG may not substitute their will for the will of the people. However, through various lawsuits, binding referendum is now illegal. This means that ALL student activity fee questions will still be advisory and USG may set the fee as they so please. Now, under the new constitution, restrictions are placed on how much the fee can be lowered or raised on sliding scale. This is a better system then what we have now, where the senate and the executive council can set the fee to whatever they want. For those of you who are concerned that these items are not in the constitution anymore, and want them enumerated, know very little about constitutional law. A constitution is designed to be a framework that other laws hang off of. For those of you who are a bit skeptical, I suggest you read the Federal Constitution as well as New York States constitution. You can see that they are the basic framework and law after law is then added, rounding out the government. By enumerating everything in the constitution, it becomes a very rigid document, and in many cases, handcuffing the government, and not allowing the flexibility we need to act swiftly, in the best interests of the Students. Additionally, it enumerates the rights of our constituents; the students. Again, for the proponents, we are not here just for the clubs; we are here for ALL of the Undergraduate Students at Stony Brook. These rights also filter down to the clubs, so rest assured, your rights are still very much intact. In fact, I would even say that they are stronger. The new constitution, had it passed, would have provided us with the framework to move forward as an organization designed to work for students. Instead, it was struck down by individuals who were operating under false information. While I would not rule at another attempt for a new constitution with many of the suggestions, I think that we are now severely weakened. I would like to remind you what you are left with. You are left with a government that has no separation of powers, and given the right circumstances; an individual or individuals could exploit every facet of government. You are left with an ineffective executive council who will most likely not vote to have their jobs removed again. You are left with an organization, which by its very existence, is set up for only one reason, to give out money. You are left with an organization that is not built to fight for student’s rights and have their members accountable. And lastly, you are left with an organization designed for failure. My only regret is that I did not write this sooner. If anybody has any questions, by all means, please contact me and I will be happy to speak with you. Jonathan Hirst |
I would first like to address Mr. Romano by informing him that when I spoke of Vendetta, I was not speaking of him. I had heard from another former USG official to vote down the proposal for no other reason than "just because" While I do not wish to get into another back and forth with Mr. Romano, I feel compelled to address some issues he had brought up.
In regards to the binding referendum, I think that it is clear that the direction in which the state and federal courts is going is to eliminate such referendum. My interpretation of the amount of the student activity fee is inherently budgetary because it determines how much and how many clubs we fund . Three years ago, the USG raised the fee by 20$ to fund clubs facing a potential budget crisis. If that isn't a budgeting decision, i'm not sure what is. Regardless of that, I may remind the reader that the fee is 94.25 with a cap at 100$. The maximum we could increase the fee would be 11.50$ for the year. I personally believe that a new, more streamlined approach, such as the one in the new proposal makes for a more efficient government.
Getting back to the clubs rights. I think again that Mr. Romano is missing the big picture. He would rather have hundreds of clubs draining the USG budget while large, more well run clubs, suffer because they can not get funding. And then, god forbid, we tell them they can't spend their money frivolously. I am at a loss for words because they entire point of having a budget committee and a senate is to manage the student activity fee. If Mr. Romano had it his way, all clubs would get what they ask for, and if we have a deficit, so what, across the board cut. Well, the problem with that is that this deficit could be well over a million dollars, and then what? Cut everybody 30% or more?? Why?
He also alleges that clubs should be able to spend their money the way they see fit. In fact it's in the constitution. However, the constitution and financial bylaws contradict each other by allowing the treasurer to reject a voucher. If the treasurer MUST allow all clubs to carry out their missions and goals, how do we stop clubs who spend their money irresponsibly? The answer, according to Mr. Romano, is that we shouldn't be allowed to, once they are granted their budget.
As i have stated before, I am more than willing to sit down with anybody to explain the budget process. It is complex and tedious, but so many people don't understand it. We have state and federal guidelines we have to adhere to, many of which people don't know. Regardless of whether or not a new proposal is in the cards, it is important to understand how things work. Just about every student I have spoken with doesn't understand it. Inform yourself, ask questions, and decide. The ball is in your court.
I just have to laugh at Mr. Hirst's statements.
"You are left with an organization, which by its very existence, is set up for only one reason, to give out money."
And your new Constitution changes that how, exactly?
"You are left with an organization that is not built to fight for student’s rights and have their members accountable."
And your new Constitution changes that how, exactly?
"And lastly, you are left with an organization designed for failure."
Well, that's been the case for the past 4 years now, and I sure as hell don't see that changing.
I had a whole 1500-word essay expounding on those pithy points but honestly, what's the use? Making USG a viable, accountable, student-advocate organization is about as likely as someone teaching a chimpanzee how to fart out Le Figaro.
I can't wait for the day someone figures out that USG needs to be dissolved.
Sam Goldman
Stony Brook Press Ombudsman
Mr Goldman,
While I appreciate your criticism, I don't think you fully understand why I made some of the points that I made. I will attempt to clarify and you may respond in kind.
I say that the new constitution will change how the government works in a number of ways. The first point is the elimination of the executive council. You say that USG should be accountable, and I could not agree more. While I doubt that this is something that will happen over night, I think it is worth the time and effort to lay a foundation for years to come. BY eliminating do-nothing positions in USG and having a single Executive responsible for the effective operation of the Government is a step in the right direction. Our current system has absolutely no accountability. I am sure you can understand why being as that most of the elected positions are staffed with individuals who are simply there to collect a paycheck and a line on their resume. Most of these positions hardly are competitive and once the necessary signatures are obtained, voting for yourself is simply a formality. By narrowing the elected executive to three positions, it would make the elections more competitive and therefore, the candidate pool would be more qualified, I'm assuming. Students would scrutinize candidates more before casting their vote, again, this is not something that happens overnight.
The next important step is by splitting the senate into commuters and residents. This is clearly the divide in the student population, not by colleges. I believe that commuters are underrepresented in their government and that should change.
I could get into it more, but I think I have addressed some of your points. I also believe that a lot of your opinions are based on former abuses that occurred in USG. Again, I don't think we are perfect, nor do we profess to be. I also don't think the new constitution is perfect. But I think we can all agree that something needs to change, and we believe that this is the best place to start; by building a government for the students and by the students. We are currently operating under a system that the administration handed down to us, and that needs to change.
Mr. Hirst,
Thanks for the comment; I guess I'm going to write my big essay after all. Let me get some whiskey first. There. That's better.
I appreciate the acknowledgment that the Constitution is essentially an Administration-crafted document, and as such there are serious errors in it. It's very heartening to hear someone admit this, actually.
But if you think your constitution goes far enough in addressing the problem, you are very, very wrong.
The problem, more so than any other, is one of perception. You say that people who decry certain changes in the government know little about constitutional law. Fair enough. But I can also turn around and say that those who are proponents of the Constitution know little about human nature.
1. Do you think that, after the abuses of Polity and first two years of USG, you can really sell the student body on a student government with less laws and not more? If my rights are being taken away I want those rights right there in the Constitution so I can point to them in writing and say "THIS is the law you are breaking." Yes, there are bylaws and bills, but USG's track record on these things is spotty at best. After all, we needed a law that guaranteed open agenda, and I should note that a year after the C&O Bill of Rights was passed, a former member of the Press tried to enforce the bill and was told flat out by a VP that "that's not a real bill."
You really think that can't happen again? You place far more trust in USG than I do.
2. Ask any student - resident or commuter - to name their USG Senator. The increase in commuter voice is good, but it does not go nearly far enough. Right now a fair case can be made that NO student is truly represented adequately in USG. Students don't know what Senator they have to go to if they have an issue. They go directly to USG. And if they go directly to the SAC, well then, why have Senators at all?
"Dorm districts" may be the only thing Polity ever got right.
Oh, and by the way, if you think having fewer positions in USG is going to lead to people in the position for reasons other than a paycheck and the notch on the resume, you are dead wrong. Especially if the stipends are increased to compensate for the fewer positions. (For the record, I am of the firm belief that no one at USG should receive any money.) More important, though, is the perception that this is why people are running for student government positions. For the student body to scrutinize candidates, they have to want to scrutinize candidates, which means they first have to believe that the student government is of value to them. If they think USG is a BS organization, it doesn't matter if you have 3 positions or 300.
3. The thing that needs to get beaten over everyone's head is that "students' rights" and "the rights of clubs to get and use their money" is not one and the same. There are many students who don't belong to a club or organization. What are you doing for them (and I mean besides Dane Cook)? What are you doing for clubs besides giving them funding? Can a club go to USG if they have an issue with administration (such as the ridiculous grade-point requirements they're instituting for club officers, or, say, the Press' continual squabbles with Rich Wolcott) and get representation? Right now, the Press goes either to the Press Alumni Association or the Student Press Law Center for help when we should be going to USG. Hell, even your law firm has been markedly unhelpful to us in the past.
This, I will admit, has nothing to do with the Constitution; it is more of a change in attitude that is needed. I am not advocating a confrontational approach (though the Press is confrontational by nature). I am merely stating that USG must be a partner with administration in all respects; being a partner means that both sides respect each other's views, but neither side will be afraid to stand on principle.
I'll end by quoting you:
"I also believe that a lot of your opinions are based on former abuses that occurred in USG."
I make no apologies for that. "Former abuses" can very easily become "current abuses" unless people and institutions are ready to prevent them. While I respect and admire your passion and again appreciate your acknowledgment that USG is a deeply flawed institution, Mr. Hirst, USG needs significantly more change than your proposed constitution provides.
You might think this is an adequate starting point. I think you need to inch a little closer to the starting line before the gun goes off.
Sam Goldman
Ombudsman, Stony Brook Press
Mr Goldman, your points are completly valid. I agree that students rights are NOT the same as clubs rights. I know somebody who is insisting that clubs rights are paramount, but I won't mention his name. I'm sure you can figure out from the posts. The problem is that we should be more concerned with students rights, this is the problem that I think we fall into every year where people and organizations think of USG as a piggybank and nothing more. We need to get away from that. Yes, we do fund organizations, but we are also here to advocate for students rights. I think we have made huge strides this year. We go to University Senate meetings, FSA BOD, University Senate Committee meetings, and so on. Administrators know who we are and we have regained much of the credibility that USG has lost over the past few years from inept officers.
I would like to also say that with the current crop of USG officers, some of the abuses you speak of would never happen. Perfect we are not, but we certainly do our best to stand up for students, including the Press.
In regards to the "rights" in the document, I tend to disagree with your "show me" reasoning. All of these rights that individuals claim are gone are in the Federal and State Constitution. I'm not sure why people feel that if we don not specifically mention freedom of speech, they feel we are taking it away from them. It is called the supremacy clause, and we are not above the state and federal constitution.
Lastly, I think we are at an excllent starting point. I think that we have a dedicated and proactive group of officers that are trying their best to make sure the organization is able to grow. I think you will agree that under the current system it is all but impossible to move forward.
My Thoughts
I couldn't help but read this and note several problems with this opinion piece. Though it looks like this piece was written over a month ago, and I cannot say how the situation has changed or what the USG has done to update their proposal most recently. But I would like to take the time to comment anyway.
VP Hirst writes, "...I think it is time to move on from the blame game..." in his opening paragraph. A wise move, since the proposal was defeated precisely because of its content, not because of the persons who pointed out problematic clauses to the student body. And so, humbled by the student body which soundly rejected its proposal, we would think that the USG has learned something from the objections raised, and is ready to make big changes to the proposal before it's brought back onto the ballot, and that the blame game is over. Right?
Well, in the very next paragraph, he writes, "The new constitution ... was not to take funding away from clubs, it was not [to] take voting away from students, and it was not done because we are power hungry. All lies perpetrated by individuals who were either to ignorant to look up all of the facts for themselves, or by individuals who wanted to see the document fail because they have a vendetta selfishly against us and do not care about the students at Stony Brook." Is it me, or does that sound like a bit more of the blame game?
As one of the chief critics of the proposal, I just wanted to note that I never wrote or said that the proposal would take away funding, voting rights, or that it was proposed because the framers were power-hungry. I have no vendetta, though I was accused of having one repeatedly.
I originally thought I could support this proposal, and I even told the framers that I would. I didn't go home that day and suddenly realized that I had a hidden vendetta which needed to be fulfilled . I went back home and re-read the proposal, compared it with my notes I had taken when I sat down with the framers, and determined that the justifications which had been given to me were insufficient and that I had committed an error in declaring my support. I felt bad enough that I even wrote an email to EVP Shapiro to let him know that I would not be supporting it publicly - and why - so he wouldn't be blindsided by my opposition. His response which made me see red was when he wrote that my greatest fault was my support for clubs over (what he perceived was) the best interests of the student body. I told him in reply that if the proposal did not take away club rights, then they would not vote down the proposal.
I then set out to wage a legitimate campaign against the proposal. I wrote an opinion piece with the Statesman, and I met with VP of Clubs and Organizations Jeffrey Akita to enlist his aid. He wanted to help, and asked me what he could do. I reminded him that he had the constitutional power to inform clubs of changes in USG policies, and that therefore he could send out a message to all clubs informing them of all the rights that are presently in the Constitution that would not be included under the new proposal. He agreed and I drafted the letter, which he endorsed and was sent out to all funded clubs. Akita was subsequently accused of breaking the law by President Antonelli, who promised to hold him accountable, though nothing came of it. Both the Advocate General and the USG Attorney saw no violation.
About that time, and as a result of the letter having been sent out, a Facebook campaign was waged against the proposal. I participated largely by writing on the group's wall. I defended my arguments and avoided personal attacks, though my opponents did not, save for VP Hirst, who kept things in the legitimate area of discourse and did not attack me. I thought it was a good debate and a healthy one which was remarkable in the USG's history. The level of participation in the fall elections was a bump up from previous years. Heck, more students participated in this year's fall elections than the spring elections! That's never happened before. However, there was no misinformation in the letter Akita had sent out. Turnout against the proposal was based on legitimate opposition to it. VP Hirst's interpretation that the proposal was defeated through misinformation in my opinion is an insult to those who voted "No" for legitimate reasons.
It just so happened that many of the rights which were in the current Constitution were not provided for under the new proposal and were not contained under the principles of viewpoint neutrality and equal opportunity, nor provided for under State or Federal law. This included having the right for a club to use its funding which has been granted to carry out its mission, being guaranteed an appropriate level of funding to function effectively in carrying out its mission, and the right to appeal to Senate's funding decision to the judiciary as an added layer of protection and a means of applying those constitutional rights if the Senate got it wrong. That was one argument which I made repeatedly, which was never refuted effectively.
One final thing which I never got too much of an opportunity to talk about: the amount of the student activity fee. VP Hirst states that "through various lawsuits, binding referendum is now illegal." Not precisely. According to Southworth v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, binding referenda on how much an organization is to be budgeted are unconstitutional because they are not viewpoint neutral. However, there has never, ever been a lawsuit where it was found that setting simply the student activity fee by a binding referendum was unconstitutional. Nor was there any case which found all binding referenda used by student governments to be unconstitutional. To prove that, if binding referenda are so illegal, then why is it okay to determine if the activity fee is mandatory or voluntary by way of binding referenda? The USG Senate unanimously passed a resolution on this very topic in favor of binding referenda on the amount of the student activity fee just this past year, which VP Hirst voted for.
I have since met with VP Hirst, and he has noted to me that in 8 NYCRR 302.14 (C)(1)(i) it states "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." This clause was added in response to the Southworth decision, which as noted above, found binding referenda on how much organizations were to be budgeted were unconstitutional. That decision never ruled on a binding referendum simply on the amount of the student activity fee, or on the issue of all binding referenda which may be utilized by student governments.
VP Hirst also informed me that the SUNY Assembly, which last year apparently intervened on our behalf on this very issue, has changed its tune, and that it now reads the above clause to mean that setting the amount of the student activity fee is a "particular funding decision..." That's funny, because that's exactly the argument the Senate voted against in its resolution last year. Our opinion then was that a "particular funding decision" was how much we budget particular organizations, and that a binding referendum on a "particular funding decision" did not extend to simply setting the amount of the fee. To call the Assembly's apparent about-face disappointing would be an understatement, but for the USG to embrace this interpretation without a fight or even informing the student body is a tragedy. That resolution, penned by then Senator Shapiro, was probably the single best piece of legislation that came out of the Senate last year which stood up for the right of the USG to amend its own constitution.
The student body deserves an explanation as to what happened here, as many students like having the amount of the fee determined by binding referenda. And if we're going to be told that the reason we cannot have a binding referendum simply on the amount of the fee is because of a lawsuit, then the USG, the SUNY Assembly, and whoever else believes that should be able to cite the case which overturned binding referenda simply on the amount of the fee or all binding referenda that student governments may utilize. One thing that is for certain is that Southworth did not find all binding referenda to be unconstitutional. Here is what that decision stated:
"It remains to discuss the referendum aspect of the University's program. While the record is not well developed on the point, it appears that by majority vote of the student body a given RSO may be funded or defunded. It is unclear to us what protection, if any, there is for viewpoint neutrality in this part of the process. To the extent the referendum substitutes majority determinations for viewpoint neutrality it would undermine the constitutional protection the program requires. The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views. Access to a public forum, for instance, does not depend upon majoritarian consent. That principle is controlling here..." I would note that a binding referendum simply on the amount of the student activity fee does not substitute "majority determinations for viewpoint neutrality" since simply setting the amount of the fee has nothing to do with how much any particular organization will be budgeted or the proper criteria that may be used when such organizations are budgeted funds. So, for example, if the USG puts a binding referendum on the ballot to cut the student activity fee $1.00 from $94.25 to $93.25 per student per semester, there is no First Amendment violation because in order to vote yes or no, students need only take into consideration how much they are willing to pay for the student activity fee, not whether or not they agree with the viewpoints of any particular organization that is not on the ballot.
At the same meeting, I advised VP Hirst to amend the proposal to take into consideration the objections that came up after the proposal was put on the ballot, so as to make for the best constitution that is the most likely to be ratified. I told him to take the entire text of Article II, Section 3 - club rights - and put them back into the proposal so as to guarantee ratification. I wager the USG could get their proposal ratified if it included those club rights. There were other legitimate objections raised as well during the process, including the manner in which senators are to be removed, the dissolution of the Executive Council, and more, and these were not necessarily my biggest gripes with the proposal, but the USG should take them into consideration as well to aid in ratification. Otherwise, if a very similar proposal is put onto the ballot which excludes the aforementioned club rights, does not explicitly spell out the criteria for removal of senators, etc., the student body should do what it did last time, and vote "No."