Saturday was Leadership Reconnect and, thankfully, other members of The Stute e-board attended so I didn’t have to suffer through the long day without copious amounts of coffee. I attended Leadership Reconnect last year — the first year they required treasurers to attend — and it was spicy. Afterward, I wrote an article that discussed the changes they announced. These policy changes, at least for receipts, were ultimately not strongly enforced. I didn’t expect more policy changes to drop in between semesters — and new SGA presidents — but I was wrong.
University Events imposed a strict $80 surcharge on clubs ordering hot food. Clubs could no longer buy food at ShopRite. These policies were announced, and they were not up for debate. The policies were created without consultation of students, and some of the policy changes were not even announced to every student attending the event. Every club’s functions would have to change dramatically. University Events would be making over $13,000 with this one small change — directly from students’ pockets. The Spring 2020 SGA budget was not created with this charge in mind. Additionally, students are used to working with preferred vendors for events. Catering has not proven that they can accommodate every event — why make students jump through more hurdles?
Students were getting mad. Students were questioning and challenging. Leo Pedraza sent an email to student leaders a few days after Leadership Reconnect providing documentation on the policy changes — as well as chastising individuals who expressed “rudeness and contempt” and for student organizations putting too much focus on food at events. The administration puts restrictions on spending our SAF.
Fundamentally, the Student Activity Fee is a tax for being an undergraduate student at Stevens. The student body elects senators to determine how to spend this tax. The decisions about how to spend the SAF should remain in the hands of students without direct control or influence from non-students.
In recent years, one of the biggest movements at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), a peer school, was their administration’s takeover of the Student Union. RPI’s administration decided to sidestep student input and limit their freedom to run their student center and budget for organizations, as well as prevent representation on the Board of Trustees. Students do not have control of their budget and a large part of their student life at RPI.
I remember reading in Pedraza’s email that food has replaced substance at events, indirectly criticizing student organizations’ events at Stevens. As referenced in the email, I am one of the several SGA representatives that have expressed concern about the amount of food spending on events. The solution? When I rewrote the budgeting policy, I implemented limits on the amount spent on snacks at each GBM ($50) as well as limiting the cost per person for food ($15). Spending a large portion of money on food affects students, and it’s a problem for students to solve. Food can be essential to some events, such as the Chinese Student Association’s Dim Sum Night, or the American Chemical Society’s Bonding with Food. Food isn’t the sole part of any successful event — and most clubs just treat it as a small component of their event. Events also need proper advertising, good content — among other features. Most clubs have successful events; there isn’t a huge need for clubs to improve their events — and clubs should not face unjust criticism to defend the school’s un-student-centric policy changes.
I can continue to go through Leadership Reconnect and the clarifying email, but it boils down to one thing — the student body needs to not be afraid to get loud and raise their concerns. Otherwise, these policy changes will keep happening. If students didn’t get loud, would University Events have agreed to station tables for free in classrooms on Lower Campus? As the student body is typically apathetic, the administration has difficulty responding when students get riled up. The administration is forced to react. When Eric S. Londres wrote his letter to the editor on priority scheduling, the school had to react.
It’s our school. Purely student-centric decisions should be made by students or at least with the input of students. Let’s make sure to keep it that way.
Be First to Comment