Stony Brook’s Undergraduate Student Government (USG) convened on Thursday, May 8 to discuss potential amendments and legislations to add to USG’s Financial Bylaws. 

The meeting opened with USG Treasurer Bonnie Wong proposing legislation to amend a bylaw in section III.2. that currently reads, “USG summer budgets shall be those created during the summer sessions.” 

Wong’s proposed legislation would change this bylaw to have recognized student organizations (RSOs) summer budgets reviewed and approved by the Senate before the end of the spring semester. 

This legislation would also revise section III.2.b, which currently reads, “Summer budgets are subject to approval by the Summer Senate.” 

The “Summer Senate” refers to the incoming Senate for the following academic year. Wong argued that since many incoming senators are in training, the original legislation results in a delay in budget approval. Wong’s amendment would remove the word “summer” to ensure that the Senate during the academic year would decide on the club’s summer budget.

“It takes a while for [incoming USG members] to be trained and then for the summer Senate [meetings] to be scheduled. Then, I’ll have to wait for [budgets] to be signed off [on]. Only then can the summer budget be utilized,” she explained. 

Due to complaints from clubs, Wong believes that the amendment would serve as a better compromise, since budgets would be prepared in advance.

“A lot of [RSOs] have been complaining and having trouble [planning and being able to go on] their summer trips or having their summer events, just because that timeline is really late,” Wong said. 

Executive Vice President Ray Chen clarified that this legislation would ensure budgets are approved before the end of the spring semester since some summer approvals can happen as late as July.

“[The legislation] is to approve the budget so that [RSOs] can use it earlier,” Chen said. “Senators have to get trained [during the summer] on top of everything else. If you throw a fresh Senate at a new budget, they won’t understand what’s happening, which is a bigger issue.” 

The Senate voted unanimously to pass this legislation and then moved on to discuss another potential amendment.

At-large Senator Lauren Fanter proposed an amendment to establish a line budget probation policy, which would be added under section XII as part of Line Budget Penalties.

The proposed addition would create Section XII.5, titled “Line Budget Probation,” which states that an RSO may be placed on probation if it repeatedly misuses its budget, provides false information to the Office of Treasury or consistently violates USG’s financial policies. This action would be taken upon the recommendation of the RSO’s assigned treasurer and the USG Treasurer.

The amendment would provide a list of rules RSOs would have to follow, including requiring all purchases be presented and approved by the Senate, ensuring purchases match the information provided in approved budgets and mandating that RSOs remain on probation for the remainder of the academic year. 

“Treasury has been having some issues with clubs continuously breaking bylaws,” Fanter said. “The only thing we can really do about that is [by] propos[ing] a penalty on the club.” 

Fanter emphasized that the RSOs would still have access to their budgets and would not receive any sort of financial penalty, but rather be monitored on how they spend their budget by the Treasury and Probationary Budget Committee (PBC). 

“It’s more of an oversight into how they’re spending their money and where the money is going, [and] making sure what they have allocated is what they are allowed to spend it on,” she said. 

At-large Senator and incoming Vice President of Clubs and Organizations Taher Motiwala asked for clarification on whether PBC would oversee the budgets of the RSOs that were on probation.

Fanter responded that it would only be overseen by the Senate since RSOs are more likely to appeal to the Senate when placed on probation. 

Following Fanter’s explanation, at-large Senator Sophia Dimont asked whether the Senate or Treasurer decides what RSOs will be put on probation. Fanter clarified that the decision will be at the discretion of the USG Treasurer and the RSO’s treasurer. 

“It seems like there’s a possibility for corruption there,” Dimont responded. “If the USG Treasurer and the club’s treasurer don’t like that club, then they could just be put on probation without justification.”

In response, Fanter suggested adding a clause that would allow the Senate to decide on whether or not the RSOs are put on probation. 

Dimont further explained that if the decision was solely based on both treasurers, it could technically be done so with no evidence.

“Then you would hold the [treasurers] accountable,” President Nistha Boghra replied. “If that person gets caught, they could get impeached for that.”

Motiwala then proposed adding a clause that would provide RSOs the opportunity to receive two official warnings through email before being put on probation.

Later on during the debate, Boghra pointed out that probations shouldn’t have to be approved by the Senate. Instead, she recommended the treasurers decide and if RSOs would like to appeal it, they can do so with the Senate. 

She argued that in the past, there have been RSOs that have chosen not to appeal penalties because they admitted their mistakes and took responsibility for wrongdoings. 

After an extensive debate, it was ultimately decided to uphold the original proposal. The line budget probation will be determined by the RSO’s assigned treasurer and the USG Treasurer. RSOs wishing to appeal their probation may present their case to the Senate to have the decision appealed.

Following the passing of this legislation, another legislation was proposed to decrease the cap per gifts, awards and prizes purchased through USG budget. 

The budget for prizes was originally $50, but Wong proposed to decrease it to $30. 

At-large Senator Eesha Uddin clarified that Wong had previously mentioned a concern that certain RSOs use their gifting budget from USG to purchase items for themselves. Uddin asked Fanter for confirmation on if this situation transpired with a club or if it was purely speculation.

Fanter was unable to answer Uddin’s question.

Later on in the conversation, Wong mentioned that $50 seemed excessive for one recipient as a prize, and that if prizes were needed, RSOs could potentially fundraise instead.

Boghra also noted this cap was changed from $30 to $50 in the previous academic year, but she also mentioned that the purpose of the money is for RSOs to use prizes or gifts as incentives to increase participation within their clubs. 

Motiwala argued that decreasing the amount would not solve the problem of RSOs misusing it, but rather just decrease its scale.

“That still doesn’t solve the issue of people or e-board[s] keeping [the purchases] for themselves,” he said. “Prizes drive a lot of engagement.”

At-large Senator Emelio Harris agreed with Motiwala, and recommended additional oversight on seeing what gifts are distributed by RSOs rather than lowering the budget for prizes.

Ultimately, the Senate voted against Wong’s legislation.