Expensive purchases, like ambulances, are paid in large part by undergraduate students.

Your professor is in the middle of a lecture when he suddenly begins having severe chest pains and fears he is having a heart attack. Someone dials 911. An ambulance is dispatched, and within minutes, he’s on his way to the hospital. Everyone in the lecture hall probably took it for granted that a 911 call would receive this response. But whose ambulance responded, and who paid for that ambulance ride? The ambulance was likely operated by the Stony Brook Volunteer Ambulance Corps (SBVAC), and as for who paid for it, that answer may surprise you: if you’re an undergraduate student, it was financed in large part by the Student Activity Fees you and your classmates pay every semester.

The idea for this article came into my mind as some friends and I, all relatively familiar with the Undergraduate Student Government budget, were casually discussing the issue of club funding before a USG Senate meeting. We were talking about which clubs received the largest budget allocations when someone mentioned SBVAC. Founded in 1970 and staffed by fully qualified student volunteers, SBVAC is not only our primary emergency medical service but also one of the largest and oldest student organizations on campus, and one that consistently receives some of the largest budget allocations from the USG. My friend opined that SBVAC provides a vital service to the entire campus community, not just undergraduate students – after all, someone had to respond when your professor was having that possible heart attack – and that it was therefore unfair for USG to bear the burden of being the organization’s primary source of funding. USG serves not only undergraduates, but graduate students, faculty, staff, visitors and anyone else who happened to need emergency medical attention while on campus.

I’d seen the USG budget many times before, and was aware of the large size of SBVAC’s budget allocation in comparison to those of other student clubs. In 2008-2009, it was the only club that allocated more than $200,000, or around 13% of the total allocation for club budgets, which was spread over 98 clubs. But I’d never given it a second thought; after all, as my friend had pointed out, running the primary emergency medical service on a campus with a population in the tens of thousands is an important job, and one that inevitably costs a lot more money than the operations of a typical club. Perhaps I hadn’t seen the ‘forest for the trees’: sure, SBVAC deserves to be well funded, but why was it treated not as a public service but as a student club, and why were undergraduate students disproportionately responsible for it’s funding?

A bit of cursory research on the web site of the National Collegiate EMS Foundation, of which SBVAC is a member, revealed that this arrangement is not terribly uncommon, but there is a wide variety of funding arrangements for college and university EMS groups. For example, similar organizations at Binghamton University and the University at Albany are funded in the same way as SBVAC, by their respective student governments. The ambulance service at SUNY New Paltz supplements funding from the college by billing the patients it transports, unlike SBVAC, whose services are provided free of charge. Outside the SUNY system, Columbia University’s ambulance service again relies both on funding from the university and on reimbursements from patients’ health insurance; Rochester Institute of Technology’s service is funded entirely by its Student Health Center; and at Cornell University, emergency service is funded much like SBVAC, through the student government. So despite the array of funding options on display, money from student governments seems to be a very popular way of paying for what seems more like an important public safety function than an activity for students (even if the organization is made up of student volunteers, as SBVAC is).

When I spoke to SBVAC President Christine Larose about her organization’s funding, she lamented the instability inherent in the USG budget allocation process, but did not necessarily welcome a change in its funding structure. She noted the large fluctuations in the size of budget allocations from year to year, and that it has been “lately, more down than up,” but was not particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of being funded by the university.

A direct financial relationship with the university “would have its pros and its cons,” Larose explained. “It might be financially beneficial, but we would lose some of the autonomy we have now.”

Direct funding from the university, of which SBVAC currently receives none, would mean more direct control by the university’s administration and less flexibility for the organization, a situation of which Larose is understandably leery. For now it seems that SBVAC is content to sacrifice a bit of financial security for greater freedom in conducting its operations. Besides, with rampant budget cuts always looming on the horizon, university funding might barely be less volatile than that provided by the USG.

So that leaves me where I started, with the issue of fairness to those of us who, as undergraduates, are mainly responsible for funding SBVAC. For the 2009-2010 academic year, SBVAC requested a budget allocation of $182,000 from the USG. Combined with a projected $2,000 in funding from the Graduate Student Organization and $25,000 from New York State – the latter being the only funding SBVAC receives that is not directly from student fees – it projected a total income of $209,000. In this situation, undergraduates would have provided 98.9% of SBVAC’s student-provided funding, with graduate students paying just 1.1%. This, despite the fact that undergraduates make up only 76% of full-time students and 66.4% of total students at Stony Brook according to the Fall 2009 enrollment figures provided by the university. And despite the service also being used by its employees, visitors and others, the university contributes nothing at all.

Regardless, SBVAC does not appear set to receive the $182,000 it requested from the USG; while budgets are still subject to revision, its current allocation for 2009-2010 is $145,209.30. Based on Fall 2009 enrollment figures, that’s approximately $9.85 per full-time undergraduate. (Part-time students don’t pay the Student Activity Fee.) This is significantly less than the $201,000 it received in 2008-2009 (when it requested $199,410), but far more than the $98,189 it received in 2007-2008 (when it requested $131,419.20). Even with the lower contribution, if the GSO contributes the projected $2,000 (which works out to about $0.42 per full-time graduate student, or about 4.3% of what each full-time undergraduate pays), USG will be responsible for 98.6% of the student contribution to the SBVAC budget for 2009-2010 and, assuming a $25,000 contribution from New York State, 84.3% of the total.

Even at this relatively high cost, SBVAC is still clearly an asset to the Stony Brook University community. But that is the entire community, not just undergraduates; and whether the burden of funding it is distributed fairly across that community is another matter, and certainly a debatable one.