Letter to the Editor

Concerning the article written last week about SGA, it seems like most of the campus believes that they are doing a good job. But the article concerning budget cuts wasn’t accurately portrayed. I was an outside party watching the meeting and this is what I saw. Yes several organization reps were upset with the budget cuts and reallocations – but the anger directed at the SGA cabinet was unwarranted. SGA was told by Student Development that they had to cut and reallocate the organization budgets, so that’s what they did. SGA had no control over the money cut happening. Every organization had a budget cut, including SGA… a 22 percent cut to be exact. They made the reallocations so the organizations could get to actually using their money.

One concern was that the organizations wished they would have known about this. It was stated during the meeting that ALL faculty advisors were notified of this cut. It was also clearly stated that all organizations could reallocate their funds as they so wished. This topic didn’t even need to be brought up to the organizations, but the Cabinet felt it was important to inform the reps at a meeting that everyone’s budget was cut. There really shouldn’t have even been a debate at the meeting considering the Cabinet didn’t want this to happen, they were told by administration above them that this was happening. The organizations receiving money from Student Development is a privilege – not a right. It is in the Student Organization Handbook that membership fees can be charged and fundraisers can be held, but how many organizations do that? If organizations do not do anything to earn the money they spend, why are they complaining about the money they do get?

It was also stated in the article that “to all but one of the senators their voices didn’t matter.” I can’t believe that to be true. Why would they dedicate so much time if the main objective of their job didn’t matter to them? I believe that the majority of the senators understood what the Cabinet was saying and knew that a vote needed to be held. Half of the organizational reps even made it known that they wanted the budget to pass so they could get to reorganizing their budget and get to work. Another important point to remember is that the organizations and senators were told that if the vote didn’t pass that week, it would take an additional four weeks for the organizations to be able to spend money. I’d rather have less money to spend than no money at all.

And the breadstick comment was made as a nice piece of comic relief, nothing more. My piece of advice is this, for those of you who are concerned, come sit in on a meeting or two and see what actually takes place.

Consider these Related Articles:

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 at 8:00 AM and is filed under Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.