Senate
tries to close USU, cut Union funding
By
Joseph Serna
Online Forty-Niner
Assistant City Editor
The Associated Students Inc. Senate picked and chose which student organizations
to adversely affect at Wednesday’s meeting, retreating from closing the
University Student Union Monday for a boycott and disturbing scheduled meetings,
then subsequently trying to reallocate $3,000 from the Union Weekly’s
budget when the paper’s staff was not there to object.
The “Resolution to Endorse and Uphold the Great American Boycott 2006
on May 1” sponsored by Sens. Naomi Cruz, College of Liberal Arts, and
Elisa Herrera, College of Education, attracted a small crowd of student activists
to support it.
The resolution calls for the ASI Board of Directors to stand in unity with
all individuals, parties, and organizations for basic human rights — a
reference to the recent controversial bill in the Congress that makes illegal
immigrants felons, sparking protests across the country.
The most contentious part of the Senate’s resolution also had the most
force behind it.
In the original draft, ASI would shut down all of the USU Monday, an “economic
boycott,” closing all the food vendors, rooms and facilities the entire
day symbolizing united opposition to the bill in Congress.
“
This is the kind of thing you want to be remembered for,” Sean Duenser,
a political science student, told the Senate. Others echoed Duenser and urged
the Senate to not back away from the resolution’s action and its consequences
in order to avoid conflict.
“
During these times it’s important that we have a campus body that’s
willing to stand up and speak out against injustice,” said Sen.-elect
Christopher Chavez, College of Liberal Arts for next term. “I can only
implore you to give this bill a fair consideration and not shut it down on
emotional pathos.”
“
I’m all for us making a resolution with actual teeth,” said Sen.
Mike Emenhiser, College of Business.
He then qualified his view, saying the Senate needs to at least explore the
ramifications of shutting down the USU for a whole day and what effect it would
have on student employees.
Through three different amendments introduced and voted down, the senators
delved into the possibilities removing any action whatsoever, shutting down
the USU between noon and 2 p.m., or only shutting down the food vendors such
as Subway and El Pollo Loco.
However, each amendment posed problems.
Most senators seemed to agree that without the resolution demanding some sort
of action in protest, the resolution was pointless.
Financial demands, specifically having to compensate vendors up to $15,000
in expenses and lost revenue, according to Dave Edwards, director of the USU,
negated any statement an “economic boycott” of the USU might have,
senators said.
Though shutting down the USU for a few hours would be feasible, ASI administrators
said, in the end the Senate withdrew that amendment as well.
The one hurdle the resolution could not overcome was the inconvenience closing
down the USU would prove for a number of student organization events, such
as the Student Support Services graduation ceremony.
In the end, the Senate amended the resolution, withdrawing the proposal to
shut down the USU, and instead will post signs urging a campus-wide boycott
of USU services and informing students of a speakers platform in front of the
bookstore between noon and 2 p.m.
The Senate then moved to amending and approving next year’s ASI budget.
Members of the Union hovered in and out of the Senate chambers throughout the
meeting, anticipating rumored opposition to their publication’s funding.
“
I just want to point out that this Senate is supposed represent the students
of this university, and if you’re doing that then don’t cut our
budget,” said Patrick Dooley, the Union’s Editor in Chief.
Expecting some senator to put The Union’s budget to the chopping block,
he addressed the body before any motion on the publication’s budget had
been made.
Sen. Kory Witt, College of Health and Human Services, later confirmed the rumor
and their fears.
Witt proposed an amendment reallocating more than $24,000 of the Union’s
budget to fund scholarships through the corporation. He maintained his amendment
would only affect the Union, and not other student media such as K-Beach Radio
or the Gold Mine Yearbook.
ASI Executive Director Richard Haller then warned the Senate if it went through
with the massive budget cut it could face litigation.
“
If you do this you’re opening [the Senate] to some serious legal challenges,” Haller
said.
He noted in past cases between university administrations and university newspapers,
the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the publications and viewed budget cuts
as limiting first amendment rights or censorship.
The Senate then voted down the motion, citing it may be unconstitutional.
The Union staff members walked out of the Senate chambers applauding, with
one member yelling “nice try” as they exited.
After the Union members were long gone and amendments and debate over the budget
were drawing to a close, Sen. Justin
Toderoff, also of the College of Health and Human Services, made a second attempt
at cutting The Union’s budget.
“
Now that they’re gone can we cut their budget?” Toderoff asked,
evoking laughter from many of the senators.
Haller recommended if they were going to cut the Union budget, they could budget
them for an additional $3,000 in revenue to offset their loss.
They could have the same spending money, but would have to work to harder to
offset the difference, Toderoff said.
The second amendment only called for a $3,000 reallocation of the Union budget,
and was met with less opposition. During the first proposal by Witt, Sen. Shefali
Mistry, College of the Arts, said she was adamantly opposed to cutting any
student media. However, Mistry left before Toderoff proposed the second Union
cut.
Toderoff asserted it was only a matter of priorities on why the Union was a
target for cuts. He was searching through the budget for $3,000 to be reallocated
to the Beach Team, or ASI “pledges” as he called them.
Sen.-at-Large Guido D’Onofrio expressed his discomfort with toying with
the Union’s budget without its staff present, considering they left under
the impression their budget would remain intact.
He then hastily left the chambers to go tell the Union what was under discussion.
As soon as four Union members returned to the chambers, Toderoff explained
it was nothing personal and was only looking for places to reallocate funds.
Haller then recommended placing the financial burden of Beach Team on the business
branch of ASI, saying they will generate $3,000 more in revenue, and they can
reallocate the funds from them.
Though Toderoff said it was not personal, Witt was more emotional.
“
Their paper degrades organizations on campus, it doesn’t really do anything.
It doesn’t promote anything on campus,” Witt said. “This
is a paper that I pay into, that the student body pays into with no say…my
money has to go to them with no say…I don’t feel ASI should support
a paper like that.”
|
