Stony Brook’s Undergraduate Student Government (USG) convened on Thursday, March 6 to address a dispute involving the African Students Union (ASU). The conversation centered around ASU’s request for customized apparel, which USG was unable to approve due to ASU’s apparel budget cap. However, the situation escalated into a debate about a potential budget penalty, ethical guidelines and the fairness of USG’s financial practices.

The meeting began with a presentation from four of ASU’s e-board members, including President Luqman Subair, who argued against a financial penalty proposed in a previous USG meeting.

On Feb. 20, USG Treasurer Bonnie Wong presented a request from ASU to purchase 12 customized sweatshirts with e-board positions and names. However, Wong explained that the request couldn’t be approved due to ASU reaching its spending cap for apparel. 

ASU attended the meeting via Zoom while Wong presented email exchanges where Subair explained that the sweatshirts were meant to be categorized as supplies — not apparel — to be worn at the end of their fashion show.

Wong responded that supplies are meant to be kept in storage and have to be reused, which Subair assured was possible since he and other e-board members knew of a way to remove the names on the sweatshirts.

On Feb. 20, Wong proposed a 15% to 20% penalty to ASU’s budget, which many senators found harsh. In the same meeting, Executive Vice President Ray Chen postponed the conversation to a time when ASU could attend in person. 

ASU’s presentation included a photo of Wong’s presentation titled: “Presentation: I hate to do this … but I’m mad.” The slide also stated that the title of the presentation was unethical and that the USG Treasury failed to communicate with ASU about the severity of the situation. 

“[The presentation title] is highly unprofessional and demonstrates clear bias against ASU,” Subair said. “A USG representative should remain neutral and handle financial matters objectively.”

He continued, “At no point were we informed by the Treasury that these concerns were escalating to this level. Instead of working with us to resolve any issues transparently, this approach created an unnecessary public spectacle.” 

The presentation then included a photo with an excerpt from the Financial Bylaws and emphasized that no financial bylaws were broken. During this meeting, Wong also made it clear that no bylaws were broken, but that ASU was allegedly trying to misuse their money. 

Underneath the photo, the slide read: “ASU has followed ethical guidelines and there is no clear violation that warrants a financial penalty. The bylaws do not prohibit our actions, as even the USG treasurer has confirmed.”

Wong also stated at the meeting that another reason for such a large penalty is due to ASU spending only 72% of its budget the past year. She justified the penalty as a way to also reduce their budget line since it was not fully spent.

Subair explained that while ASU usually books a musical artist for each fashion show, they hadn’t done so last year, therefore reducing spending. He also noted that ASU holds larger events in the spring, and Wong’s proposed penalty could impact future ones.

The slide titled “ASU’s Accountability” stated that ASU recognized its mistake in initially categorizing the sweatshirts as apparel rather than another category, such as performance wear or supplies. The slide also said that ASU will try to have a better understanding of the financial bylaws to avoid future issues similar to this. After their presentation, senators then asked questions. 

At-large Senator Christian Jean-Pierre asked a series of questions regarding the use of the customized merch and if the apparel used last year also had customized names of previous e-board members. 

“They’re specified to each e-board member; they didn’t have names,” Subair said. 

Jean-Pierre then asked Subair how they intend to reuse it and if the same e-board members receiving the merch will be returning the following academic year.  

“It does seem like a stretch,” Subair reassured. “But we do have those connections outside of school so we can get [the names removed] easily.”

After questioning ASU, the Senate discussed for over an hour on how to handle the merch and a potential penalty. Wong clarified that despite ASU’s request and unpaid invoice, the vendor had already mailed the customized apparel, leaving the USG to decide how to proceed.

“[ASU] ordered it themselves and sent us a link after the [merch] came in for us to pay,” Wong said. “Clubs are supposed to put an [invoice request] and then [we] order the items for them, but this club decided to order the items and then put in the [invoice request].”

Vice President of Communications Lamia Rathi gave her input for the Senate to keep in mind during their decisions.

“I do think they should be penalized for the amount of money that they used for the [merch] and [that] they should be held liable for that,” Rathi said. 

At–large Senator Taher Motiwala countered Rathi’s comment. 

“I don’t think we should penalize them right now, but if there was a way we could put them [on our radar so] that if this offense was repeated, they would be severely penalized,” Motiwala said. 

Jean-Pierre highlighted a communication error with Subair, who was last year’s USG Executive Council and ASU’s previous Treasurer, but emphasized Subair should have caught the mistake.

“I think one of the main issues is the miscommunication from how they did their [finances] last year [compared] to this year because I think last year’s Executive Council approved them getting the merch under supplies, even though that’s not how [it’s correctly categorized],” he said. “[Subair] should have been aware … [of] how you’re supposed to classify things.”

At-large Senator Emelio Harris raised a concern about two merch items featuring flags. He expressed uncertainty about how a future e-board member might feel using merch with the flag of a country they may not be from.

Jean-Pierre then suggested potentially making the ASU e-board pay for the merch out of their own pockets. 

Director of Student Engagement and Activities Christine Marullo stated that USG does not have the authority to force ASU to pay with their personal money, but that it can be an alternative option. 

“At least give them the option [to pay themselves], but that’s an extremely high financial burden to put on a group of students,” Marullo said.

Ultimately, there were a few motions proposed to penalize ASU. USG President Nishta Boghra proposed a motion to deduct $957.24 from ASU’s budget to cover the merch, plus an additional $957.24 penalty, totaling $1,914.48.

Another motion from Harris was to enforce a 5% penalty on their entire line budget, which would be estimated to total $1,527.90, and the merch would be covered under that deduction. Motiwala also motioned to impose no penalty, to pay for the merch and to monitor ASU. 

After a lengthy discussion, the majority of the Senators approved a proposal giving ASU two options: deduct $957.24 from their budget for the merch or have the e-board members split the cost. Regardless of the choice, USG agreed to impose a 2% penalty on their budget.

ASU asked if they were able to decide at a later date, to which USG gave them until Monday, March 10 at 11 a.m. to make a final decision.