The 2011-2012 budget released a few weeks ago by the Undergraduate Student Government has sparked outrage from members of many clubs and organizations. Nearly all of them have seen budget cuts, some dramatic.
USG blames the cuts on a new policy brought about by the threat of a lawsuit from the national conservative organization Young Americans for Freedom. Last year the Stony Brook chapter, angry that it was denied funding in its first year (as every club is), got the national organization to fund a legal team that threatened to sue Stony Brook University, USG and anyone else it could think of in an attempt to bully its way into a budget.
USG quickly adapted a policy, outlined in the United States Supreme Court case Board of Regents of Wisconsin v. Southworth, known as viewpoint neutrality. Sources inside USG have suggested that this was done to avoid paying legal fees; indeed, YAF dropped its threats of a lawsuit and declared victory.
“The Supreme Court developed the rule of viewpoint neutrality to protect the First Amendment rights of unpopular groups by prohibiting government from discriminating against them based on what those groups believe or say,” explained Nathan Shapiro, the Interim Administrative Director of USG at the time of the threatened lawsuit. “In the context of student government, the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment requires public universities to distribute mandatory student activity fees in a viewpoint-neutral manner.”
In the recent past, USG denied recognition and funding to clubs that held very similar mission statements, not wanting two nearly identical clubs to each collect a budget. The argument USG made in YAF’s initial hearing was that its platform was too similar to that of the College Republicans.
Now, no longer able to make such determinations, USG has placed strict new restrictions on all clubs’ spending.
“The policy works by assigning a set price to each item a club might request USG funding for,” explained USG Treasurer Thomas Kirnbauer. Now, there is a ceiling on speakers’ fees and big events like fashion shows and banquets, no matter which club is requesting funding.
“Now,” said Kirnbauer, “a club can spend up to $2,000 on a single speaker and a total of $6,000 per year.”
Current USG President Mark Maloof, who ran on a pro-club platform, called the budget cuts “upsetting” and said he hopes “that they will be made up for in the Fall revisions process.”
During Fall revisions, “rollover money” — money allocated but not spent the previous year — is redistributed to clubs and organizations.
“I can’t say exactly how much (there will be) at this time,” said Kirnbauer of the rollover money, explaining that USG is still paying off last year’s bills, “but it will be in the six figures.”
If Kirnbauer is correct, it could all but erase most budget cuts, assuming clubs file the necessary paperwork and Maloof’s administration relaxes some of the strict spending limitations imposed by last year’s USG.
Last year’s Senate passed the current budget on April 28, but the entire bill wasn’t put online until recently. A number of sources inside USG, including Maloof, identified viewpoint neutrality as the reason for the budget cuts.
Executive Vice President Deborah Machalow was the Senate’s presiding officer when the budget was approved, and lobbied heavily against its passage. While she wasn’t able to win over last year’s Senators, her message did appeal to voters.
“I can’t imagine clubs being cut again,” she said, citing that her and Maloof’s United Studetns Party had won a vast majority of the senate seats and would not pass a similar budget.
But at least for the start of this academic year, a number of clubs will have to operate on reduced budgets thanks to YAF’s lawsuit which, ironically, resulted in cuts to both conservative and liberal organizations, and didn’t achieve YAF’s goal of getting itself a budget.
As the new budget made its way around Facebook recently, club members, angered by the significant cuts to their budgets, began questioning some of the decisions made by the budget committee responsible for crafting it.
Members of the Stony Brook LGBTA vented in Facebook statuses that while their club lost $5,000 in funding, USG’s own budget for Agencies, Services and Operations gained more than a quarter of a million dollars.
According to Kirnbauer, who was on the committee that wrote the budget and helped establish the current spending limits, most of the cuts are due to the new policy, as well the practice of not returning unused money to clubs for the next year, and not an effort to fund USG services.
An additional $38,000 also disappeared from the overall USG club budget due to an accounting change that reclassified the Resident Hall Association from Clubs and Organizations to USG Agencies, Services and Operations. It does not represent an actual cut in club funding.
We have yet to see the final budget for this academic year, and it remains to be seen whether USG officials’ prediction that many of the cuts made last year will be restored in the revision process will be borne out. But the damage done by YAF’s threat may be lasting, and unless the resulting policies are overturned, will likely be causing some headaches at clubs accustomed to putting on large events.
Trevor Christian
Latest posts by Trevor Christian (see all)
- Say it Ain’t Snowe - March 6, 2012
- Chernow Promoted - March 6, 2012
- A Liberal Helping of Comedy - March 6, 2012





I don’t see why the liberal groups are so upset. After all, this is part of the concept that President Obama has made a focal point of his administration – ‘ spread the wealth ‘ and promote a mosaic of diversity. I am sure the liberal leaning groups, being far superior (in their own mind) to any conservative organization can appreciate the spirit of diversity and tolerance in a university setting that prides itself on a melting pot of ideas.
As usual, USG needs a scapegoat. YAF stood up for their constitutional rights and obviously USG still doesn’t get it.
Stony Brook “Restore[s] Sanity,” Declares Young Americans for Freedom Eligible for Funding!
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/freedom-of-association/stony-brook-%e2%80%9crestores-sanity%e2%80%9d-declares-young-americans-for-freedom-eligible-for-funding/
Looking for that $175,000.00, well here is $130,887.26 of it!
SAB’s budget went from $404,000.00 in 2010-2011 to $534,887.26 in 2011-2012 that is an increase of over $130,000.00. Is there a ceiling on the cost of any of their activities?
@Michael: Most of the clubs at Stony Brook lost money, not just liberal or political groups. Sports, religion, other interests, and even conservatives were cut. Most of the wealth was ‘spread’ to one organization, as pointed out by Anonymous below.
@Anonymous: We’ll have a full article on SAB up soon.
Pingback: NYSUNY20/20′s widespread Economic Impacts « The American Beacon
Pingback: YAF Picks a Fight with Us | THiNK Magazine
Pingback: YAF Hearts Think Magazine | THiNK Magazine
I would just like to clarify something about this article that was not made clear by the author.
While I contributed an explanation of viewpoint neutrality for Think Magazine, I was NOT a source for any details regarding USG, YAF or the budget process.
Pingback: Left Wing Campus Magazine Attacks YAF For Defending First Amendment |
Pingback: Left Wing Campus Magazine Attacks YAF For Defending First Amendment « College « Missionary College
Exactly why is USG not Incorporated?
Reasons to Incorporate Your Nonprofit Association:
You Want Protection From Personal Liability for the Group’s Activities:
If your group finds itself the target of a lawsuit, incorporation can provide welcome peace of mind. Nonprofit corporations can be sued — but their members and directors are generally protected from personal liability, meaning that their own money, houses, cars, or other property isn’t at risk. That’s not true of an unincorporated association.
Your Advocacy Efforts Might Provoke Legal Quarrels:
Although nonprofits may engage only in very limited political advocacy (unless they elect to follow special federal lobbying rules), advocacy efforts may occasionally draw a nonprofit into an unwanted lawsuit. Incorporating can support directors and officers in defending the lawsuits and protect them from personal liability.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/five-reasons-incorporate-nonprofit-association-30266.html
This is why USG is not incorporated:
The Stony Brook press Vo.24 Issue 5- 11/13/02
Polity Decertified, Could Soon Be Disolved
A new student government (USG) could be formed in such a way that it prevents itself from incorporating. This step would allow the University Administration and the student body greater CONTROL of the governing body’s actions, a status that many have claimed was missing from Polity.
Nice! So, those who serve as officers and directors are put in harms way to allow the University Administration and the student body greater control.
Obviously, we know that since most of the student body doesn’t vote, they control very little.
If YAF had to threaten USG with a lawsuit to get greater control for the student body, then more power to them.
What was missing from Polity was the oversight of the Campus Designee. The University Administration sabotaged Polity by allowing them to self destruct. When they should have been supportive and intervened when internal controls were not being followed, they looked the other way. It’s all about CONTROL and how to get it!
Doesn’t history tend to repeat itself?
Wasn’t there a Viewpoint Neutrality Act written by Esam Al Shareffi when he was a USG Senator? I believe he has also served as the USG Parlimentarian and USG should have known better.
VIEWPOINT NEUTRALITY ACT
Article I Title
The title of this bill shall be the “Viewpoint Neutrality in Budgetary Decisions Act”
Article II Budgetary Process
Section 1 The Undergraduate Student Government (USG), and any of its agencies,
committees, or entities, including but not limited to the USG Executive Council, the USG
Senate, USG Supreme Court, the Budget Committee, and any other persons involved
with any aspect of the budgetary process shall conform to viewpoint neutral criteria when
deciding on the funding of any club, group, organization or entity.
Section 2 Failure to adhere to viewpoint neutral criteria shall be considered a “wrongful
act of substance”, as pertains to the treatment of this term in the USG Constitution.
Article III
Section 1 The Executive Council is authorized to enforce Articles I – III of this bill,
including the adoption and execution of policies and procedures made pursuant to it.
Section 2 Articles I-III of this bill are law having full force and binding.
Section 3 This act shall come into force immediately upon its approval.
USG Senate Falling Apart=Posted 4/27/07- by Esam Al-Shareffi
http://sbindependent.org/wp2/usg-senate-falling-apart/
I quote Mr. Al-Shareffi
“It seems therefore that this Budget, like its predecessors, is suspect and tainted with numerous violations of viewpoint neutrality principles.”