The Senate was presented with a budget update during their last meeting of this spring semester. The budget committee, represented by Senator Al-Shareefi came before the Senate to announce that an extra $40,000 had been added to the budget, leaving a $40,000 deficit that would have to be accounted for.
The budget committee being came up with three solutions to fill the $40,000 gap: (1) Review a dozen clubs with a 200% increase in budget and cut a relatively substantial amount of funding, (2) take about 10% to 12% of budget allocated to any club with an increase in budget, and (3) take a flat cut from all clubs which will be uniform lower percentage.
Senators voiced their support for, mainly, the second and third options. Supporters for the second option stated that cutting funds for clubs that already have budget increases won’t cripple the club since they have managed with lower funds in previous years.
Senator Wisnowski pointed out, “Whatever we cut from the clubs they will probably get back anyway. They just need enough to survive the first couple of months before we allocate funds from next years surplus.” Senator Peluso said, “The clubs will still be getting roughly a 90% increase. We shouldn’t burden clubs that have no increases or even clubs with decreases – that will affect the club’s ability to survive.” However, club leaders and members of the gallery asserted that a 10%-12% cut from the expected increase will prevent the clubs to plan ahead of time for their events next semester.
Advocates of the third option supported a flat cut that will reduce the funding for all clubs by approximately 5%. “A lower, uniform cut for all clubs is unbiased and raises no questions,” said Sharon Weiss, a gallery member, as she agreed with other supports of the third option. Senator Robert Romano urged his fellow senators to see that the flat cut is, “the fairest thing and selectivity is wrong.”
Senator Caroline Ortiz, who is also a member of the budget committee, was frustrated by the debate and explained that she felt the Senate was making an uninformed decision, saying, “You guys have no idea which clubs were cut and why. I don’t understand why we’re making this decision if we don’t have to.” The Senate has no actual jurisdiction in the approach to filling the deficit, but the options were presented before the Senate so that one will be fully supported by the unity of the Senate. With Senator Wisnowski endorsing of the second option, the Senate voted and the motion failed, causing a problematic division on the last possible day of voting.
In a seperate matter, Senator Romano came before the Senate to propose the Safety and Security Act. The act calls for an agency that will promote safety programs, inform the Senate on safety issues biweekly, and will be expected to organize safety programs, as well as publicize safety issues and incidents that affect the safety of the University’s campus. Although a number of senators agreed with the priorities of the act, some Senators did not see the need to form an agency, but rather thought it would be more productive to make already existing programs be more efficient in promoting the safety of the Stony Brook campus.
Senator Wisnowski questions the need for “another well-funded organization when we should just make sure that the organizations do their jobs and stop failing.” In response to the concerns of Students Against Administrative Silence, the act will urge for a stronger proactive stance. However, after the debate, the issue will still have to be resolved next semester.
