Budget woes, impeachments and a penis scandal, oh my! The offices of the Stony Brook Undergraduate Student Government on the second floor of the Student Activities Center are filling up with gossip, political jockeying and the clashing of power-hungry egomaniacs. Oh, and some governing.
Southampton
Following President Samuel Stanley’s recent announcement on the closing of the Stony Brook Southampton Campus, the Undergraduate Student Government had voted to rescind the original budget passed on March 19, 2010.
With the closing of the former Long Island University campus, USG was left with $80,000 that would have funded Southampton’s student organizations. The money, according to USG Treasurer Moiz Khan, is being allocated accordingly to unique Southampton clubs that don’t repeat any of the mission goals of any current USG funded clubs at Stony Brook.
Any additional money will be directed to the general fund to be used for Fall Revisions, emergency funding and grants.
The USG Senate had also voted in favor of allocating $10,000 towards transportation and other related costs for a student-led protest, against the closure of Southampton and budget cuts to Stony Brook, in Albany. The money would be used for buses and for supplies to make signs and such.
A protest was held last Monday, April 19, in which Southampton students marched for miles to Stony Brook and held a sit-in outside the administration building.
Penis-Gate
The USG Judiciary ruled to remove Senator Daniel Graber from office following a two-thirds majority vote by the Executive Council to impeach him for inappropriate acts and behavior.
An investigation conducted by the Executive Council, according to a letter sent to Senator Graber on November 20, 2009, found Graber guilty of leaving a pornographic image tiled as a background on a USG Senate office computer on November 5. The Executive Council had signed a contract that offered Graber a chance to regain the council’s confidence in his continuing senate service. The contract required that Graber publicly apologize for his actions, write and sign a letter to that effect, coordinate a sexual harassment and diversity education workshop and enroll in an anger management-training course.
The requirement of the anger management course was in response to Graber’s reaction to his loss of a USG election for the position of President Pro-tempore of the Senate to Senator Syed Haq. A number of senators, who asked for anonymity due to the pending case, confirmed that Graber had taken Haq’s business cards and lit them on fire.
However, for a senator to be impeached, the USG Constitution requires that a three-fourths vote pass, and, given that only eight out of the eleven members had voted, the requirement wasn’t fulfilled. Of the three remaining votes, one sided with Graber, another abstained and one member of the Executive Council had been absent during the time of vote.
“The reason they established such a contract is because my actions were not of the level warranting impeachment,” said Graber, in an email. “They tried to impeach me based on not fulfilling their contract. To simplify: If my actions were impeachable, then why didn’t they do it six months ago?”
Graber said he had fulfilled all but one of the requirements of the contract; coordinating a sexual harassment and diversity education workshop by February 26, 2010. Graber says that such training videos on sexual harassment were not accessible through the university, and that he would not pay $800 out of his own pocket to pay for the video.
“The truth of the matter is that there are people in the Executive Council that don’t like me,” said Graber, calling the move a political assassination.
Impeachment City: Population USG
Since the Judiciary failed to ask for the minutes for the meeting when the Executive Council moved to impeach Senator Graber and failed to acknowledge that a three-fourths vote had not been reached, some senators are considering impeaching the entire judiciary.
Additionally, one senator, Alex Dimitriyadi, who defended Graber, pointed out that the Executive Council had not sent their legal brief to the executive secretary (of the USG professional staff) for filing, when, according to Dimitriyadi, Chief Justice Geordan Kushner had gone on a tirade about the senate overstepping its boundaries.
In the court’s decision to not delay Graber’s trial, Chief Justice Kushner had gone as far as to say the current USG Constitution violates itself. The Senate’s ability to create judicial bylaws breaks the series of checks and balances implied by the framers of the document, according to Kushner.
“It’s all about interpretation,” Kushner said. “The Supreme Court should have power to review all power and legislation and declare them unconstitutional,” said Kushner, who feels that the Judiciary is acting underneath the Senate.
As for the oversight into not asking for minutes and checking for a three-fourths vote against Graber, Kushner pointed blame at the Executive Council. “It was a bad mistake on behalf of the Executive Council, they should’ve known how many votes they needed.”
Dimitraydi’s push for impeaching the Judiciary is based on what he called pure incompetence. “They all [Kushner and the other four Associate Justices] signed documents in which they acknowledged their incompetence by stating the Constitution was unconstitutional.”
However, despite calling Dimitriyadi a spin-doctor, Kushner says he isn’t worried about being removed from his office. “A justice can be impeached but the Constitution does not say which body removes them,” said Kushner, whose term expires next semester. “It’s a flaw in the Constitution. There are a lot of flaws.”
In fact, the USG Constitution says quite plainly, in a section explicitly labeled as dealing with the impeachment of members of the judiciary, that the Executive Council and Senate remove justices. This is detailed in Article VIII, Section 3, subsection A.
SAB
For the past year, the USG Senate, as well members of the Executive Council, have been pushing towards a less sovereign Student Activities Board. Recently, the Senate, through USG bylaws, voted in favor of allowing the Vice President of Student Life to hold power over an SAB event. The SAB would need a two-thirds vote in its general body to overrule the veto. The measure was implemented to try and gain control over the way SAB operates.
However, newly suggested changes would be a lot more drastic. Senator Dimitriyadi introduced a new bill, proposing the creation of the Student Programming Agency—essentially a new version of the current SAB that would operate underneath the umbrella of USG rather than separately—as is currently the case.
“One of the biggest problems with student life on this campus is that there is no representative body that plans events for the entire campus.” Dimitriyadi said. “USG is the only one that represents all 15,000 students, and the idea is that we are going to do a lot more on large scaled events, looking to attract 5,000 to 8,000 students.”
However, members of the current SAB, who voiced their opposition at last week’s Senate meeting, feel the introduction of the SPA is both unproductive and a misuse of Student Activity funding. “Creating a ‘new SAB’ is just making the exact same SAB now,” said USG Senator Aneta Bose. “The only difference is that they [the USG Senators] are giving themselves power and wasting our students’ activities fee so they can get paid while the students will see less events on campus,” said Bose, a former Vice-Chair of SAB.
While originally the bill had included legislation that would’ve paid the members of SAB doing the work, Dimitriyadi says the funding was later removed following criticisms from both the USG Senate and SAB. The bill, as it stands, would provide a $100 per week salary for the sole director of the SPA, who would be nominated by the USG President and confirmed by the Senate.
The proposed bill has since been revised and is awaiting committee approval before being put up to vote on the Senate floor.
The Stony Brook Press
Latest posts by The Stony Brook Press (see all)
- The Pull List: May 3rd - May 4, 2013
- Stony Brook University Tops NYIT 6-4 - May 4, 2013
- Farewell Editorial - May 4, 2013
Am I reading this right? The SB Southampton campus is shutting down most of its operations and there is $80,000 in student activity fee money from the Southampton students that is being put back into the general budget of the main campuses clubs and organizations. Why should the students on the main campus benefit from those who have now lost their rights to an education that they were promised? This is a double whammy and that money should be returned! This is not a case of finder’s keepers. This money was to benefit those attending the Southampton campus,doing anything else with those funds is a misappropriation of student activity fee money. These are two separate campuses and that money should not be comingled. Return that money! Again,Shame on you USG!
I would like to remind the Stony Brook press that they should also be a little more responsible for what they put in print. What I am referring to is the cover of Volume 28 Issue 10
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23914374/The-Stony-Brook-Press-Volume-28-Issue-10
I believe in freedom of speech but I can’t even give your paper a PG-13 rating!
Dear Save Southampton,
The Student Activity Fee is collected in the Fall and Spring of every semester. In Fall 2010, there will not be a Southampton Residential program, and consequently, there will not be a Southampton Student Activity Fee. It simply is no longer the case that there are two separate campuses.
Here at USG, we are currently working with the Southampton Student Leadership to use that $80,000 that was normally appropriated to Southampton clubs entirely on Southampton clubs that will move from the Southampton campus to the Main campus.
To Moiz Khan,
Yes, the student activity fund is collected in the Fall and Spring. But this $80,000 must represent unspent student activity fees that were collected from past semesters from the Southampton students. So this money is actually being rolled over from one academic year to the next. isn’t it?
If you are currently working with the Southampton Student leadership then you should have no problem with allowing them the use of any roll over funds to be used for their lawsuit.
According to the USG Facepage site, USG’s mission is to “advocate for the students and make sure the Student Activity Fee is properly spent.”
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Undergraduate-Student-Government-at-Stony-Brook-USG/7705889791#!/pages/Undergraduate-Student-Government-at-Stony-Brook-USG/7705889791?v=info
You hit the nail on the head when you said two separate campuses. That is exactly what they were, two separate campuses. Now you want to combine money that was intended for campus life on a campus that just had its life line cut. USG wasn’t left with that money, nobody challenged USG about that money until now.
You make it sound like every student on the Southampton campus is now registered or will be registered on the Stony Brook main campus. This is no different than any other transfer student and along with paying tuition comes the student activity fees.
Who are you kidding, you also make it sound like each club will back up their boxes and the very same students who were involved in the clubs and organizations at Southampton will just fall into their new home at Stony Brook. Not happening!
The 80,000 does not represent the funds that were collected in previous years. The budget for the 2010 and 2011 Academic Year simply includes money from expected revenue from the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 semesters. Unspent money that falls into the carry over period is moved into accounts that will be accessed for Fall Revisions.
Yes all the clubs will not move over to the Main campus and so our first priority will be to cater to those who do and then to those clubs that may form on this campus from mainly formerly Southampton residents.
Excuse me, did you say THERE WILL NOT BE a Southampton in fall? How can you be so sure? There’s a big fight going on over that so the game ain’t over yet. I suggest that no one leave the stadium till the last out in the 9th.
And you just said there are NO LONGER two separate campuses but the PROPOSAL to close Southampton would not even take effect until August 31. Isnt this a little bit of jumping-the-gun?
I saw the USG Senate Resolution condemning this closure and resolving that the closure WILL BE rescinded and the residential college WILL remain in operation. Have you no faith in your own resolutions?
Come on now. The patient ain’t dead yet. Heroic measures are being and they may just work to keep it alive. Don’t send out the Mass cards yet.
How can you expect revenue from a campus that will no longer have any kind of campus life or undergraduate students to pay student activity fees? Doesn’t make any sense!
So you have already been combining the rollover money from both, the activity fees that were paid by Southampton students and the rollover fees paid by Stony Brook Students.These are two separate campuses and should have been handled as two separate accounts. Is that what you are saying, that the money gets pooled together in June?
Doesn’t USG have a lawyer on retainer? If Assemblyman Fred Thiele and Senator LaValle have requested an investigation by the NYS Comptroller’s Office and the NYS Attorney General maybe you better consult a lawyer before USG counts its chickens before they hatch!
http://www.hamptons.com/News/For-The-Record/10522/Thiele-And-LaValle-Call-For-Stony-Brook.html
This is not meant to hurt USG in anyway, it is to protect you; as it is blatantly obvious that the administration could care less, its never their money they screw around with!
Regarding the comment about SAB:
Senator Dimitriyadi introduced a new bill, proposing the creation of the Student Programming Agency—essentially a new version of the current SAB that would operate underneath the umbrella of USG rather than separately—as is currently the case.
There is no more room under that USG umbrella! As it is, USG has left the students of Southampton unprotected to weather the storm that left them defenseless against Hurricane Stanley!
Leave SAB alone and concentrate on doing the jobs you were elected to do! USG is great for jumping the gun and acting prematurely without taking any consideration of any consequences.
Are the inmates running the jail? I see no mention of the USG President anywhere! Whats he up to these days or is he just playing the lame duck?
you shouldn’t be getting ahead of yourselves over there at west. but since it seems that you already are counting your chickens before they hatch, make sure you have a good finance/accounting major on your committee keeping the tally. you may just find yourselves having to send that money back east come fall.
For full disclosure, I’m the PR person for USG.
I think we need to hash out a few details of the way USG operates.
Student Activity Fee Budgeting
We have specific requirements stated in the SUNY Chancellor’s Guidelines and our Constitution that forced us to absorb the anticipated $80,000 SAF from students that would have attended Southampton next year.
1. USG must work with Dr. Peter Baigent to create a budget. The university provides us with enrollment estimations for next year upon which we create a budget. This number often changes, as estimations are never perfect. You make a good point that there may be far fewer students from Southampton than expected, but this will be an issue to deal with in the fall.
2. USG must allocate funds to the campus that pays them. As of right now, there will not be any Undergraduates from Southampton paying a student activity fee.
3. We are required to establish a budget before the end of this semester. We cannot wait for a decision to re-open Southampton, despite our support and hope for such a decision to be made over the summer. As it stands, there will be no Southampton undergrads, and we are required to budget as such. Naturally, if there are Southampton undergrads in the fall, 100% of the Student Activity Fees that they pay will be restored to their campus.
Moiz answered questions regarding what we are doing with the absorbed money to protect transferring Southampton students.
The Budget is not made on judgment calls or symbolic decisions. We must use the most recent information we receive from the administration. Dr. Baigent must ultimately approve our budget, and I can assure you he would not approve a budget that appropriated money to a campus he believes to be closed indefinitely.
USG is on your side here; you should focus your anger on those responsible. The entire administration was in support of this decision, and the University Senate didn’t criticize the decision either. So far, the only official support you have received from West Campus has been the USG, because regardless of campus location, we are all Stony Brook Undergraduates, and we are here to represent your interests.
We provided you an extra $10,000 to protest in Albany (an extra 1/8 your entire budget). We passed a resolution to support Southampton, and another to condemn the state budget cuts. The budget cuts made at the state level are just as responsible for the Southampton closure as the Administration’s decisions made to distribute the cuts. Please see the Press Release and both resolutions here:
http://groups.google.com/a/stonybrookusg.org/group/press/browse_thread/thread/ac0abca90404ec0b#
We look forward to working with all of you next year, but we hope that you will eventually earn your campus back as well. If there is anything else we can do to support your cause, please email the new president, mgraham [at] sbusg.org, or the entire senate, senate [at] sbusg.org
SAB/SPA
SAB has always been under the USG umbrella. Although they operated very much like any other club, they have always been officially considered an Agency of the USG. We appointed their chair and had the power to veto any allocation of funds.
SAB meetings will still be open and advertised to the public as they always were. Any student will be allowed to join event committees so that they can become directly involved in planning events, rather than sitting through a meeting just to vote on allocations.
I’ve also heard talk about how we should be more fiscally conservative in a time when the University is suffering. We do not receive any money from the state, and therefore state budget cuts have no effect on USG. Our budget is only affected by the number of students enrolled. We would only be concerned with budget cuts if Stony Brook cut enrollment or if the Student Activity Fee was voluntary.
If you have concerns, we are all students here, so please talk to us directly. Sometimes the way we operate is confusing to outsiders. We are not affiliated with the University. They don’t speak for us and we don’t speak for them. I encourage you to email me with any further questions: dmazza [at] sbusg.org
To David Mazza,
So they (university) don’t speak for you! It seems that Dr. Baigent, the VP of Student affairs had something to say about rescinding the budget or he wouldn’t have allowed it. This was premature and irresponsible!
Your statement: “As of right now, there will not be any Undergraduates from Southampton paying a student activity fee”, you’re taking no consideration to what the future holds.
Dr. Baigent is administration, obviously he would believe that this campus “WOULD BE CLOSED INDEFINATELY”. That is the first time that someone is saying that they actual believe there is no hope, and as far as Stony Brook is concerned; Southampton is dead in the water.
If USG allocates funds to the campus that pays them, then you are acknowledging the separation of campuses. Southampton should not have been labeled an “Agency” of USG. USG doesn’t even recognized the Southampton Board of Finances as an agency in your own Constitution.
As far as the $10,000 to protest Albany, I think the students of Southampton actually paid their own way; since USG puts both USG’s and Southamptons rollover (reserve) funds into one “general fund.” It must have been nice for the Southampton students to be able to participate in something both campuses have an interest in and that is the SUNY budget cuts. It was also nice to see that USG sacrificed new computer equipment so that the Southampton students could go to Albany.
Senate Meeting Minutes from 4/13/10:
http://sbusg.org/2010/04/13/senate-minutes-41310/
14.0 Appropriation Act 15 – Presented by Treasurer Khan
-$10,000 for Southampton students to travel to Albany 18-0-1. A discussion was held. Sen. Machalow made a motion to amend the motion to strike ‘computer equipment’ and replace it with ‘Budget Cuts’ Protest.’ Seconded and approved without objection. Sen. Cushing made a motion to approve the Act as amended. Seconded. After no debat, a vote was taken and the act was approved (18-0-1).
You most certainly could have waited and left the budget alone until the Fall. This would have been no different than USG giving NYPIRG a budget of $125,000 in 2007-2008 and then not allowing them the use of it.
Fall revisions are just that; revisions to a budget that had been previously approved by the VP of Student affairs. This all could have waited until the Fall. Instead, 6 days after Dr. Stanley made his announcement, the USG Senate votes to rescind the budget. This sounds very disingenuous of an organization that is supposed to advocate for students rights. I guess you will be putting $10,000 of the $80,000 that was meant for Southampton into your revised budget for Computer Equipment. You just delayed that purchase for the good of your fellow students!
Since, I have your attention, I guess I am talking to you directly.
I do not wish to contact you, because that would be a closed discussion, and this needs to be addressed publicly, so that others can see exactly what is going on.
Did you happen to see that the Senate just passed a bill that increases transparency for SUNY, CUNY and Higher Education Service Corp Trustees.
Take a lesson from this, USG needs to be more transparent!
Here’s another thing to consider!
If the students that were displaced because of Pres. Stanley’s decision; have now enrolled at Stony Brook and are on the west campus in the Fall; then they need to be given an opportunity to vote and have a voice.
Anyone that was newly elected to the USG Executive Council or USG Senate will be considered Interim and another election that will include those students from Southampton and anyone else who wants to run for office,should be held. Anyone who’s position is unopposed will automatically keep the position that they originally won in March.
Put the welcome mat out and let them see how a dysfunctional student government really works. Who knows,with some east end attitude, USG may just get it right in 2010-2011.
I’ve just been watching up to now, but the comment above me is the first one to make me actually laugh. Something of that sort is never going to happen. Ever. I’m speaking as a USG observer here. Them holding a fall election that isn’t for vacant seats or the freshman rep will never happen and there aren’t enough people who care enough about USG to make them do anything about it.
USG is the piggybank for the clubs. That’s about it. I don’t know why Southampton feels its some sort of mythical force that does anything of value, but it really isn’t.
Also, Dr. Baigent made them redo the budget mainly because the administration didn’t like the fact that they slashed The Statesman. Southampton wasn’t really in that discussion. It quickly became part of it once the announcement came out, though.
That is flat out wrong. No administrative official advised us whatsoever about clubs and organizations that we give funding for.
To Moiz Khan,
Sorry, but USG does not have the last say on the approved budget, Dr. Baigent does!
This is the link to the SUNY University Wide Policies and Procedures regarding the Mandatory Student Activity fees:
http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=358
Under:
5. Changes to approved budget
Changes to the approved budget after certification, either prior to or subsequent to the collection of mandatory fees, shall be SUBJECT to ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW and certification by the CAMPUS president or DESIGNEE in the same manner as was applicable to the original budget.
Here is the link for the the procedures for The Mandatory Student Activity fees, Fiscal and Accounting procedures
http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=525
By certifying the budget, Baigent has the last word.
This takes the heat off of you, let’s put blame where it belongs, on the administration and the Campus Designee! It’s all about control!
Who decertified Polity, Baigent’s predecessor, VP of Student Affairs, Dr. Fred Preston, with the blessings and assistance of President Kenny, that’s who!
I bet your Administrative Director never gave you a copy of these policies and procedures, did she? or better yet, why would she?
USG is getting to be like a bunch of mushrooms, keep them in the dark and pile a bunch of crap on them!
I have read the state policies and procedures with regards to the Student Activity Fee. In fact, both Eunice Ro and Dr. Baigent referred me to the documents the minute I took office.
I have worked with Dr. Baigent this entire semester and he has stated “The Undergraduates decide the disbursement of the Student Activity Fee” on multiple occasions. He made it clear that his involvement is merely to ensure our compliance with state and federal laws.
I think your antagonistic approach to the administration is simply misplaced.
I don’t see it as an “antagonistic approach”, I prefer to use the term “food for thought” and I am “shedding light” on the misperception that the administrators have USG’s best interests in mind.
The Comment you made about Dr. Baigent stating that “The Undergraduates decide the disbursement of the Student Activity Fee” and that Dr. Baigent made it clear that his involvement is merely to ensure our compliance with state and federal laws; definately needs to be looked at more closely.
So,then what you are saying is that he is just sealing the deal and following protocol of the formality of signing off on the budget.
This sounds like someone has a rubber stamp with his signature on it and that “someone” is being irresponsible and negligent with its use.
So, that’s how he makes the big bucks! Maybe he is so involved in so many other things that he just doesn’t care!
“Visionary New VP Controls Everything Under the Sun”
http://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/1951/43565/1/Statesman,%20V.49,%20n.%2037.PDF
Reading the SUNY policies, doesn’t mean they are being followed. A case in point; when was the last time USG solicited services such as legal, auditing services and insurance? One wonders what personal or political connections the administrators have with those service providers to sustain a relationship beyond the 3 year term.
The policy on that states:
Periodic bidding for all major services (e.g., accounting, legal, and insurance services) should occur every three years. All such fiscal commitments shall bear a statement that the approval by campus officials indicates only that the purpose of the fiscal commitment is in compliance with the provisions of the Trustees policy governing student activity fees and that the commitment does not constitute a fiscal obligation of the State of New York.
it also states:
A request for proposals for auditing services should be made every three years.
Those rose colored glasses need to come off!
Thanks Alex,
I knew I would get a chuckle out of that one and some of what I have put out there is to get feedback. But everything I have posted needs to be addressed and I have shed some light on who gets the most out of that Piggybank.
My anger is really not with the students. It appears that USG is only as good as the information they are given and USG and the Students of Southampton have both been misled. It happened to Polity and it looks like USG is headed in that same direction.
I don’t trust the administration on the SB campus and the students shouldn’t trust anyone making over $60,000 a year on that campus. The more they make, the more they lie! That means there are a lot of tenure administrators that speak with fork tongues.
Now I am going to push David Mazza’s buttons!
To David Mazza,
I always like hashing things out, I guess since Moiz hasn’t posted anything lately, I can consider you as my new sparring partner!
Here it goes……..
In your Press release you write:
The USG supports its constituents in Southampton, who are all voting members of the USG.
They didn’t get to vote for what will be their new student government, if and when they are on the west campus, did they?
What was the voter turn out for the mandatory student activity fee on the Southampton campus?
You always end your press releases with this statement:
About the *Undergraduate Student Government (USG)*: We represent and serve more than 16,000 undergraduate students at SUNY Stony Brook University. The USG is responsible for appropriating student activity fees to approximately 160 funded clubs and organizations in order to create a sense of community on campus and to enhance student life. For more than 50 years, we have been an organizing force for student power on campus through activism and
representation throughout important decision-making bodies at the
University.
I guess USG doesn’t represent the Southampton students. Leaving the undergraduate students on the Southampton campus out of this statement, shows that there is a line drawn between these two campuses. That same line needs to divide USG student activity money from Southampton’s.
USG on Wikipedia doesn’t acknowledge the Southampton campus either. I found that very interesting, as it was last updated on 2/25/10 at 18:34. Gee,I wonder who updates that!!!!
For four years, the Southampton campus has contributed their student activity fees by UNKNOWINGLY having their rollover reserve funds put into a general fund for USG. And this is how they get treated!
I guess no one goes to the AD for advice, because these are things that he/she should be spot checking, Isn’t that someone who makes over $60,000 a year. Enough said!
I’m done for today!
Discovered something else that seems off:
The format for the USG budget that is printed on the USG website has changed. There is no line items documenting the Revenue, which represents projected activity fees collected in the Fall or Spring. There is no line item disclosing the amount that USG has in reserves. I also found it interesting that the older budgets stated that it was Based on “Student Activity Fees of $94.25″ and that the estimated revenue was described as “F.T. FEES FALL” and “F.T. FEES SPRING”. What does “F.T.” stand for? My guess is “FULL TIME”. But the students who are not attending classes “FULL TIME” are also paying student activity fees and they are charged per credit.
Undergraduate Tuition and Fees:
http://www.stonybrook.edu/bursar/tuition/ug.shtml
So by stating that the budget is being based on “STUDENT ACTIVITY FEE OF $94.25″ on USG’s budget, that means that there is no accounting for any Part-Time students that paid the activity fee. There is no line item accounting for Part time fees collected. Where’s that money?
Then you have Summer Session student activity fees, where is that money being documented?
When Summer session is over does that money go into the rollover/reserves?
In the Chancellor’s Guidelines and the Audit Guidance for Student Government Associations, it states that USG should request proposals for CPA services every three years and that the formal bidding procedures are outlined in the Student Government manual.
Have you followed the Chancellor’s Guidelines? Did you know that you are also supposed to get bids every three years for other services, such as insurance and legal? Ever see that Student Government Manual?
USG, where is the oversight?
To Alex H. Nagler,
I thought the name Alex H. Nagler was familiar. I wanted to thank you for the great job you did with the Stony Brook Press Archives.
The history of abuses by the administration just shows that the “Fleecing” of SUNY students is nothing new on the Stony Brook campus. Starting with the meal plan right down to the student activity fees.
Job, well done!
Stony Brook University
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Branch campuses:
Manhattan
Main article: Stony Brook Manhattan
In 2002 the University established a presence in Manhattan with the opening of Stony Brook Manhattan. It is located on the 2nd floor of 401 Park Avenue South. The 18,000-square-foot (1,700 m2) facility allows Stony Brook to offer professional and graduate courses targeted towards students in the city, as well as undergraduate courses during the summer and winter sessions. It is currently being expanded with another floor in an adjoining building.
Southampton
Main article: Stony Brook Southampton
On March 24, 2006, the University completed the purchase of the 81 acre Southampton College (on the east end of Long Island) property from Long Island University with the intent to develop it as a full college campus focusing on academic programs related to the environment and sustainability.[13] Since then Stony Brook expanded its program originally started in the fall of 2005 when it started offering an undergraduate marine sciences program, with teaching and research facilities at the campus leased from Long Island University. An enrollment of about 2,000 students is expected within the next five years. Professor Martin Schoonen was appointed interim dean of Southampton campus on August 3, 2006.
As of April 7, 2010, the University has closed the Southampton campus for new admissions and residence. [14]. The reason for this change is due to severe budget cuts by New York State that forced the University to make immediate cuts. Students at Southampton are being given the option to transfer to West Campus to continue with their academic programs.
This page was last modified on 18 April 2010 at 00:35.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stony_Brook_University
What exactly is Stony Brook University’s priorities?
At the 4/20/10 USG Senate Meeting the USG Senators were given a powerpoint presentation on a new facility which will open in about 2 years. Is this facility going to accomodate the displaced Southampton students? Not unless they want to sleep on a gym floor!
4.0 Presentation on the Campus Recreation Center by Dr. DiMonda
-Dr. DiMonda gave a powerpoint presentation on the development of the Campus Recreation Center. The facility will open in about 2 years. She then took questions from the Senate.
http://sbusg.org/2010/04/20/senate-minutes-42010/
Did anyone ask why a Campus Recreation Center takes priority over the education of the Southampton students? In a time when we are experiencing severe BUDGET CUTS you don’t build a new Recreation Center.
How about the basketball coach from Hofstra who had a five year, three million dollar contract, who resigned without coaching one game because of a DWI arrest. Who is worth that kind of money? Better yet, where was that money coming from to pay him that outrageous salary?
The faculty who educate our students would love to get that kind of a contract.
Wake up! Education is NON-NEGOTIABLE!
Computer Equipment?
In regards to the amendment made to Appropriation Act 15, we have a template for appropriation acts, and Moiz forgot to remove “Computer Equipment” on the top from the last time he used the template. The rest of the act described an allocation for your trip. Debbie often makes catches minor mistakes like this for us so that we don’t pass some silly typo into law.
Fall Revisions
This issue will indeed wait for the fall. If there are Undergraduates at Southampton in the fall, I can assure you that we will reallocate that money to their campus immediately. Although now it seems more likely that Southampton will become an independent SUNY campus, in which case USG would lose the entire $80,000. Since budgets can’t predict something like this, we would have to deal with it then.
Transparency
USG complies with New York State Open Meeting Law, which requires all meetings to be open to the public. We also make all minutes available online, which is why you were able to find that small snippet out of context. I could just as easily put those minutes in a file cabinet and tell you to visit our office. In fact, that is exactly how we operated for the last 50 years. This is the first year that we have posted Senate minutes and reports online consistently. This has been one of my major initiatives thanks to our EVP John Kriscenski.
For the past several years, we have also taped every senate meeting and made it available on SBUTV. Unfortunately, I don’t believe Southampton receives SBUTV. We are making an effort to put these videos online as well, but there are copyright issues that I don’t understand myself yet.
Elections
Our Constitution and Election Bylaws set a timeline for elections that cannot be modified for special circumstances like this. It is unfortunate that freshman and transfer students have no opportunity to vote for any seats other than vacancies and the Freshman Rep.
@Nagler
I will agree with Alex on one point, USG’s influence on campus is limited. However, Dr. Baigent’s does not usually comment on club funding decisions, he is more concerned with logistical issues such as this.
Board of Finances
Unfortunately I am unfamiliar with Southampton’s place in USG. I was not a student here when USG wrote the Southampton Organic Act. It was my understanding that Southampton students were able to vote in USG elections on SOLAR, but we have had so many problems with SOLAR Elections that I wouldn’t be surprised if I am incorrect. We were trying to work with the Board of Finances to amend the Organic Act this year, but this news derailed those efforts.
Summer Student Activity Fee
Summer fees can only be used in the summer, just like winter fees. Any surplus from the summer rolls over to the next summer. Just like any fall/spring surplus rolls over to the next fall. The Treasurer makes the summer budget during the summer, and it is entirely separate from any other budget.
Chancellor’s Guidelines
I’m not the best person to ask for this, but I know that our time is almost up with our current lawyer of five years, I also know that we need to look for new insurance soon, and I haven’t heard anything about the status of our Auditing service, but we receive annual audits. One of the important roles that Dr. Baigent holds is making sure that these processes occur, because it would be difficult for students to keep track of these timelines when most of us are only in USG for two years.
Excessive (non-academic) Spending
I hate hearing this line myself, but funding comes from different places. The Campus Recreation Center is a long-term project that has already been financed, and is generally unaffected by state budget cuts. Students fund the Athletic Department with a $223.50 fee per semester, more than twice the Student Activity Fee. They can afford some incredible things with their budget, which probably exceeds 6-7 million (unaffected by state budget cuts). State budget cuts don’t usually affect the less important aspects of the university.
Closing
I still don’t understand why you feel compelled to spar with me, but I’m willing to continue out in the open. I don’t see Dr. Baigent or President Stanley replying here. To be frank, it is very clear to me where Stony Brook’s priorities are. The previous administration purchased Southampton, and the new administration de-prioritized it. Welcome to the battle for public higher education, we’ve been fighting it all year.
To David Mazza,
I felt the need to challenge you to see if I would get a reply and I am impressed with what you have to say.
Although, it may seem that I am taking pot shots at the Executive Council, I am only trying to make you aware that USG is being inadequately supervised. What you don’t know and aren’t being told will hurt you!
The exclusion of the Southampton campus should have been something that your Administrative Director should have picked up on.
I found the Southampton Organic Act very self serving and disingenous for USG. Someone on the USG Executive Board should contact the 2007-2008 President and Executive VP to see who actually wrote it; since both had to sign it.
In the Southampton Organic Act, USG dictates how things are going to be handled, with no input from the undergraduates on the Southampton campus. There is no mutual agreement, it is all one sided.
In another comment, I saw that the 2007-2008 USG President resented Stony Brook for taking over the Southampton campus when he wrote this:
Then there is the animal of Southampton. While I can appreciate the good intent of expanding to another campus, the toll it is taking on the main campus is just not right. President Shirley Strum Kenny has assured us (University Senate Executive Committee) that none of the money or resources from the main campus are going to Southampton, but that’s just impossible. A sub-committee of the University Senate has been established to look into this. I have been placed onto the committee because this affects the limited resources of our quickly expanding main campus.
That sounds like a good reason for him to sign that document.
Take what the “Southampton Organic Act” says about:
MEMBERSHIP:
All matriculated undergraduate students at Stony Brook
Southampton are, by virtue of being undergraduate students of Stony
Brook University, members of the Undergraduate Student Government.
(somebody forgot that they are supposed to be members, as they were excluded from the many benefits USG offers)
SUPREMACY CLAUSE:
The Constitution, and, except as otherwise provided,
all the laws and financial policies and procedures of the Undergraduate Student Government, shall have the same force and effect within the said campus.(DO as we say, not as we do!)
OPEN MEMBERSHIP:
Any activity, club or organization funded by the
Undergraduate Student Government or the Government of the Campus at
Stony Brook Southampton, shall be open to all members of the
Undergraduate Student Government, both at Stony Brook and the Campus
at Stony Brook Southampton. (Southampton had no access to the discounted LI Railroad tickets, No PASS program was set up at Southampton and no Legal Clinic either)
I can go on with all that is wrong with this document, but I think I have made my point.
There was a lot of dissention among the Executive Council in 2007-2008 with talk of impeachments and resignations. The USG President certainly made his mark that academic year.
There still remains the transparency of the Executive Council meeting minutes and the USG operational meeting minutes. Neither appear on your website. I’m sure they contain a lot of “Snippets” that I would take issue with. You are headed in the right direction and please tell the USG EVP, John Kriscenski, thanks for sharing and that he did a great job getting the senate meeting minutes out there!
One little suggestion I would like to make is that the name be recorded on the Senate minutes of whoever is considered the administrative authority (not a student) at those senate meetings. This places accountabilty on that person.
Now for campus recreation. Why does so much of the student activity fee go to sports clubs? No wonder Campus Rec has so much money that they can afford a new Recreation Center.
I can’t believe half of what USG financially supports on that campus as far as sports clubs are concerned. Alex H. Nagler is partially right; for some clubs, USG is a piggybank, but for others it is a reason to come to Stony Brook for an education. With an ice hockey and roller hockey team, both making it to the nationals they have brought new interests to this campus.
USG financially supports: Crew, Ice Hockey, Men and Women’s Rugby, Roller Hockey, an equestrian team, boxing, bowling, numerous dance clubs, cheerleading, archery, fencing, handball, kumdo,table tennis, tennis and the list goes on. In 2009-2010, didn’t USG subsidize campus recreation with a budget of $170,557.10?
If the Athletic Dept. is getting $223.50 a semester per student, why are you funding campus rec? With all the money USG and Polity has given Campus Rec over the years this new recreation center should be called “The USG Recreation Center”, don’t you think? That will never happen!
I still hear no denial that the unspent carry over money from the Southampton students who paid the activity fee, is being put into USG’s “general fund.” If this is the case then the Southampton students actually paid for their own trip to Albany. If this practice were to continue, the USG “general fund” would grow to benefit the Stony Brook campus students over the Southampton campus students.
I look forward to your rebuttal.
Another suggestion.
For even more transparency, USG should have a discussion board on its website.
The fact that someone chooses not to reveal their identity usually means that they fear retaliation, but that shouldn’t discredit what they have to say.
The concerns are real and the questions need to be asked and answered.
Being shutdown at a Senate meeting isn’t the way to handle things, just ask the USG President from 2007-2008. Oh, to be so empowered!
Here is a Youtube video worth watching:
Please sign the petition:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/savesbs
Organic Act:
Much of the language that you point out is very standard and found in most of our legal documents. This sort of language is mandatory for us to operate. Of course it would be ideal if we could operate all the same services on an 800 student campus an hour away, but I think it is fair to say that this responsibility would have fallen upon the Board of Finances. It is unfortunate that USG wasn’t in closer contact with the BOF this year. I only heard bits and pieces of all the drawn out bureaucracy that BOF had to deal with from USG and Student Activities.
Supervision:
Your comment about supervision irks me a bit. The whole idea of student government is student autonomy and control of their own money. We have far more supervision than ever before, but any more than this would really limit our power, whether used productively or destructively. It is unfortunate that you can’t guarantee competent leadership every year, but I think we did pretty darn good this year.
Nobody supervises our Senate Meetings, they run like any other student event. Although there are usually several administrators present at the meetings, including our Administrative Director, they are only spectators. We obviously have a parliamentarian to clarify rules of order and legal matters. He also takes the minutes.
Campus Rec:
I’m not an athlete myself, so I wish we didn’t have to throw so much money into Campus Rec or the athletic clubs, but there are many clubs I wish we didn’t have to fund. Those type of judgement calls are illegal for us to make. I know it sounds silly.
Surplus:
If there is any surplus from your $80,000 then yes, it will have to spill over into next fall’s budget revisions. (unless you had found a way to spend everything before the end of the year). Transferring Southampton clubs will be able to request more money in Fall Revisions, and I have a feeling that a few of them will be able to drastically expand their budget at that time because our fall revisions surplus is usually over $200,000. Southampton’s surplus will be a drop in the bucket for us. I think you should look at this as an incredible financial opportunity to expand your community’s influence. We are usually happy to give clubs almost anything they ask for within reason.
Transparency:
I am the admin user of the website. I don’t do that to hide myself, but I don’t think it is appropriate for the home page to have a voice. It should just be content. Most people will assume that the webmaster or PR person writes it, and I am clearly labeled as the webmaster and PR person. Blog posts from specific members are labeled properly. Press Releases work the same way. I don’t say “written by David Mazza,” but I do always put my contact info at the bottom.
Discussion Board:
Funny you should mention that. I tried to restart the one on blackboard, but I don’t like that one. This summer we are going to try GetSatisfaction.com. I was just working on it tonight. Check it out: http://getsatisfaction.com/usg
There will be a feedback button hovering on every page, and it will be integrated into the website. We also used to have commenting/emailing functionality, but that isn’t working at the moment.
I watched the video, I suppose my reaction is “yes, obviously.”
I think I already signed the petition, but I did it again anyway. Funny you should mention that people hide behind anonymous names because they don’t want to be accountable for what they write. I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen a single thing identifying you in this conversation. My very first line was: “For full disclosure, I’m the PR person for USG.” with my full name just above that. I always include my email address, but I think this website hides it.
If you would like to remain anonymous here, that is ok. But I am really curious to know who you are. You know a lot of recent history that I’m curious about. Please, please, please email or call me: dmazza [at] sbusg.org or 631-816-2030. I’m happy to give that out to the public.
Maybe,in time you will get to know who I am!
I appreciate your response, it is very refreshing to see the VP of Communications and Public Relations take his position seriously. You have earned my respect!
Thank you for signing the petition.
I was limited for time earlier and I got to thinking about this statement:
Nobody supervises our Senate Meetings, they run like any other student event. Although there are usually several administrators present at the meetings, including our Administrative Director, they are only spectators. We obviously have a parliamentarian to clarify rules of order and legal matters. He also takes the minutes.
Seeing that USG only had $2,000.00 in the 2009-2010 budget for a Parlimentarian, tells me that you are getting exactly what you are paying for. Is this person a professional registered member of the National Association of Parliamentarians, who has completed extensive study, training, and experience in parliamentary procedure and maintains continuing education and experience standards in order to achieve and maintain his certification?
For $2,000.00, I would assume not. Big mistake!
In previous years USG had a registered parlimentarian and the service cost a lot more than $2,000.00.
Under the SUNY website there is a page for Audit Guidance, go to “Oversight”
Audit Guidance for Student Government Associations
http://www.suny.edu/UniversityAuditor/sga.cfm
Oversight
The Campus should include the SGA as an assessable unit within its internal control program. (Best Practice)
The Campus should ensure there is proper and effective Campus support (advisement and services) for the SGA. A responsible Campus official should be present at all board meetings and available to advise students on various matters. (Required)
Your Administrative Director needs to be more than a spectator and I don’t see that this individual is qualified to be a “RESPONSIBLE” campus official.
Again, I am challenging you to do better. Knowledge is power and you need to know that cutting corners and allowing your Administrative Director,(who makes well over $60,000 a year) to sit and speculate, only leaves USG vulnerable.
Stay curious, because I have your attention and you will probably figure this out.
PS. looked at getsatisfaction.com, this looks doable!
Another Piece of handy information:
Your Administrative Director is an “At-Will” FSA employee and the FSA Manangement Handbook states that:
Employment is on an at-will basis, so that either FSA or the employeee may end the relationship at will any time and without cause or prior notice.
EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL
It is the policy of FSA that all employees who DO NOT HAVE a written employment contract with FSA for a specific, fixed term of employment are employed at the will of FSA for an indefinate period.
1) Employees who DO NOT HAVE an individualized written employment or a collective bargaining agreement contract are employed at the will of FSA and are subject to termination at any time, for any reason, with or without cause or notice. At the same time, these employees may terminate their employment at any time and for any reason.
2) No company representative is authorized to modify this policy for any employee or to enter into any agreement, oral or written, that changes the at- will relationship. Supervisory and manangement personnel should not make any representations to employees or applicants concerning the terms or conditions of employment with FSA that are not consistent with FSA policies. No statement made in pre-hire interviews or discussions, or in recruiting materials of any kind, alter the at-will nature of employment or imply that discharge will occur for cause.
3) This policy may not be modified by any statements contained in this Handbook or any other employee handbooks, employment applications, company recruiting materials, company memoranda, or other materials provided to applicants and employees in connection with their employment. None of these documents, whether singly or combined, create an express or implied contract of employment for a definate period, or an express or implied contract concerning any terms or conditions of employment. Similarly, Company policies and practices with respect to any matter should not be considered as creating any contractual obligations on FSA’s part or as stating in any way that termination will occur only “for cause”. Statements of specific grounds for terminations set forth in this Handbook or in any other Company documents are examples only, not all-inclusive lists, and are not intended to restrict FSA’s right to terminate at-will.
4) Completion of an introductory period or conferral of regular status does not change an employee’s status as an at-will employee or in any way restrict FSA’s right to terminate the employee or change the terms or conditions of employment.
She is not an employee of USG, so you do not have an employment contract with her. She is an employee of FSA and is an at-will employee.
Contrary to what you may, or may not have been told, just like the students at Southampton, she can be given the boot at any time!
Campus Announcements for the week of 02/21/2005
Administrative Director
Not-for-profit agency at Stony Brook University seeks a dynamic individual to manage the operation of the Undergraduate Student Government office. Required: Bachelor’s degree, plus a minimum of five years related management experience including some experience in a university/college setting are essential, together with excellent customer service, and communication skills. Familiarity with marketing, public relations, budget management, labor relations, and good judgment. A working knowledge of word processing, spreadsheets and e-mail systems are also necessary. Candidates possessing these abilities and experience in a not-for-profit, multi-cultural environment and/or secondary education setting, and working with college student populations, are especially encouraged to apply. Excellent benefits and a rewarding, challenging environment. For consideration, send resume with cover letter and salary requirement by 3/10/05 to HR Manager, FSA, Stony Brook University, 250 Stony Brook Union, Dept CA-FSA , Stony Brook NY 11794-3209 or fax to 631-632-6573. AA/EOE
http://naples.cc.stonybrook.edu/DoIT/newsflash.nsf/dab87f33d45446f285256f770054808d/3ac3d9fe26d727f685256faf0054a83f?OpenDocument#47
You got to love the internet!
The Senate choose a low-cost parliamentarian this year. I am not aware of the details of his resumé, but I know that we were able to save a significant amount of money with him, and he was a wonderful parliamentarian and an expert in our laws. We were extremely satisfied with his performance, but I don’t think he will be able to continue next year for personal reasons.
The Administrative Director attends every Senate and Executive Council meeting. If the USG feels she isn’t qualified to perform her job, which is largely to supervise and assist us, then we will address that internally. I don’t think we need another administrator to supervise us, but we always encourage them to attend meetings to observe and provide information.
Several of us are well versed in our rights with regards to our employees and FSA’s union and non-union employees. However, this is not a discussion that would be wise to continue online.
Not-for-profit agency at Stony Brook University seeks a dynamic individual to “MANAGE” the operation of the Undergraduate Student Government office.
MANAGE-to administer or to run something,to be in charge of something such as a store, department,or project and be RESPONISBLE for its smooth running and for any personnel employed.
Being that the title of this article is “Your Student Gov’t At Work… Sort of” and reading the content therein; I question the managerial skills of the individual hired to “MANAGE” the operation of the Undergraduate Student Government.
Re: Content therein
Budget woes, impeachments and a penis scandal, oh my!
Gossip, political jockeying and the clashing of power-hungry egomaniacs. Oh, and some governing.
May I remind you of something you wrote:
David Mazza
Full Disclosure: USG Member here.
It is true that this senate has done little or nothing to advocate for students, but that is because we allow students to win who are only here for their resume, or the meager $60 /week. It is true that when faced with a real issue, the majority of the senate will respond with blank stares.
I believe that was posted in the SB THINK magazine and that is on the internet.
TRANSPARENCY! Can you feel the DRAMAZ!
“Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”. -John F. Kennedy
Office of Communications-USG Budget 2009-2010 $6,250.00. that’s $4,250.00 more than what USG had in the budget to pay a Parliamentarian.
I don’t remember seeing any advertisements in the Stony Brook Press or other campus newspapers for the USG Senate meetings, the PASS program, Free Legal Clinic, sales of the LIRR tickets or any club or USG events.
The students support the papers because USG gives them student activity money to operate, but USG, itself, does not support the papers by using the services they provide. You need to do better, use your resources and work together. ADVERTISE!
A little accountability of the $6,250.00 in the communication budget, what did the students get for $6,250.00?
USG Wins Spirit Contest at SUNY Student Assembly
http://sb.cc.stonybrook.edu/happenings/?p=2445
Stony Brook was represented by various members of the 2009-2010 Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Executive Council
My Questions:
1)Why was there not one student from the Southampton campus there?
2)Didn’t Joe Antonelli graduate from Stony Brook in ’09?
3)Why is Joe Antonelli pictured in the SBU Happenings with the rest of the USG Executive Council at the SUNY Student Assembly?
4)Who paid Joe Antonelli’s way to the SUNY Student Assembly, USG?
USG – You’ve got some explaining to do!!!!!!
Oh, that’s right,the Southampton Board of Finances is just an Agency of USG.
Tell that to the Southampton Executive Board
USG wins “School Spirit” contest, no wonder why you excluded the Southampton students, they had their “SPIRIT”, dreams and future ripped out from under them on 4/07/10.
1) The stipulations as far as who can attend are fairly clearly listed in the USG Constitution.
2) Yes
3) He was at SUNY Student Assembly
4) SUNY Student Assembly did. Mr. Antonelli was the Treasurer of the SUNY Student Assembly a couple years ago, and they requested him to attend the conference as a volunteer.
Save Southampton:
Hey Gayle,
There is a Southampton bus in the SAC loop that you can throw yourself under. Why don’t you concentrate on getting a job, instead of wasting the Student Activity Fee with your frivolous lawsuits.
Re: USG Wins Spirit Contest at SUNY Student Assembly
This was a good example of transparency. Your honest response is what is expected of someone that holds a position in USG.
You can now see how things can be perceived and speculation of wrong doing enters into the picture. This is where accountability comes in.
If you read the SUNY policy on State Assembly it states that:
III. Membership in the Assembly
A. Membership
The student assembly shall consist of representatives from member institutions and organized student groups as hereinafter defined.
B. Member institutions
Each campus of the University shall be a member institution according to the following: the graduate division of each university center; the undergraduate division of each university center; each of the other state-operated campuses; each community college; New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University and one from the four statutory colleges at Cornell University.
KEY WORDS-”EACH CAMPUS”
Purpose of the Assembly
The student assembly shall be the official organization by which University students participate in University-wide governance. The student assembly shall provide the following:
1)A forum for consultation and the exchange of information between University students, the chancellor, and the University Board of Trustees on matters of a University-wide nature which affect student concerns;
2) A communications network for campus student government leaders.
Doesn’t Southampton have an Executive Board with a Governor?
If ever there was, a more important time for the students of Southampton to be present; it was at this particular Student Assembly.
Organized student groups:
Students representing constituencies traditionally underrepresented within the student assembly shall have an opportunity to meet, communicate and recommend resolutions for consideration by the student assembly. The opportunity for these students to voice their concerns will enable the student assembly representatives to consider concerns and view points that may not otherwise be introduced.
KEY WORDS- “UNDERREPRESENTED” more like not represented at all.
“OPPORTUNITY”- this was a missed opportunity.
http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=14
Student Government
Responsibilities of the student government include but are not limited to the following:
Provide programming to the general student body, as well as recognition and funding on a non-discriminatory basis
KEY WORD-”RECOGNITION”-Having no presence at the Student Assembly makes them null and void and that effective date came on 4/7/10.
http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=525
Again, the USG Constitution doesn’t recognize Southampton, even as an agency.
The appearance of this picture in the SB Happenings, with USG winning the “School Spirit Contest”, makes it look as if you threw Southampton an anchor instead of a life jacket, as they were told to “sink or swim” nine days earlier.
LAWSUIT
A group of Stony Brook Southampton students and a nonprofit filed a lawsuit on Tuesday that claims cuts to the campus are illegal and seeks an injunction to keep the school running in its current form for the time being.”
Southampton News – Stony Brook Southampton students file suit -
http://www.27east.com/story_detail.cfm?id=280408
School News from The Southampton Press and The East Hampton Press
QUESTIONS?????
Aren’t the undergraduate student activity fees $94.25 for a full-time student and isn’t that the amount the students voted on in March?
http://sb.cc.stonybrook.edu/bulletin/current/policiesandregulations/financial_info/tuition_fees.php
Student Activity Fee $94.25/Semester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergraduate_Student_Government_at_Stony_Brook_University
Then why is it listed as $94.50 for 12 credits on Stony Brook’s webpage for Undergraduate tuition and fees?
http://www.stonybrook.edu/bursar/tuition/ug.shtml
Is USG getting an underreported amount of actual activity fee money collected and how long has this been going on?
We have moved on from being nickled and dimed, now they are taking quarters!