Group executive accountability bill passed with continuing debate over SAFB accountability

And for the third straight week, debate ensued over the group executive accountability bill. Where once the original bill showed divisions between Executive Vice President Matt Bogusz and members of his executive committee, the revised bill showed divisions between the Senate, including the executive committee, and the Student Activities Finance Board. This has been a contentious topic making its way through three Associated Student Government Senate meetings thus far. Though the body passed a bill to mandate student group reviews of group executives, it will likely reappear on the Senate floor, revised to increase accountability of SAFB's group account executives.

At the end of the night, the original bill presented to Senate — only to create group executive accountability — was passed. Another vote was taken in order to permanently write the bill's protocol into ASG guidelines instead of having the bill take effect for only two years, as all ASG bills do. A two-thirds majority is needed to change ASG guidelines.

A proposed legislative order by Will Upton to require SAFB to similar accountability rules failed to meet a two-thirds majority, with only 58 percent of Senate for the order. Upton suggested SAFB use the same bill, revised in ways to fit the board, such as changing the questions student group leaders would answer.

SAFB members debated vehemently against such a move. The order to require the financial vice president draft something similar to what the executive committee has presented made the board defensive. Members see the idea of improving accountability important, but thought it was unfair to make SAFB do something it hasn't discussed yet whereas the executive committee has had several weeks to create and revise its bill before presenting to Senate.

"I think it's unfair to ask us to take the same bill and change the questions and not have us discuss it within the committee," board member Cassie Witten said.

Weinberg freshman Jonathan Green, one of the group executive accountability bill's authors, said there was enough flexibility for SAFB by altering the questionnaire that would be used to gather feedback from student group leaders. Before the legislative order was presented, Witten argued against using the same form, but said she would like to see the questions changed to include other aspects, such as professionalism of account executives.

ASG President Jon Webber said that when he was talking to more than 20 A-status group leaders, accountability was a big theme that emerged from discussions to improve or change the way SAFB and A-status funding cycle work.

Furthermore, the board did not like the idea of making such information public because of fear of backlash from student groups who resented not get the amount of money requested from the board during the spring funding cycle.

"I think it's limiting," Financial Vice President Seva Rodnyansky said of the legislative order. "Those comments (from student group leaders) would be colored by money and funding."

There is also information about SAFB that members argued to stay within the closed committee. Bogusz argued that presenting the SAFB accountability information to Senate was important.

"The question is whether or not this information should come to you (senators)," he said. "That's assuming the groups we're dealing with are stupid, uninformed and don't deserved to be listened to. We're not here to protect people in our committees. You should all have the information for every committee for which you authorize."

The legislative order to apply the bill's theme to SAFB has failed, but senators hinted that a similar bill might reappear, perhaps for the fourth week in a row.


—ALICE TRUONG

New senator SAFB member

Weinberg junior Michael Hsu was appointed by Associated Student Government Financial Vice President Seva Rodnyansky, and the Senate confirmed him unanimously.

The event was not nearly as elaborate as when Rodnyansky was confirmed when Speaker of the Senate Jesse Garfinkel swore him in over a B-status funding guide earlier this month.


—ALICE TRUONG

Still confused about SAFB?

As one of Aneesa Arshad's — now accomplished — goals, the Student Activities Finance Board has its Web site up and running.  In its frequently asked questions section, among other sections, it explains the intricate processes of SAFB.

The Web site can be found linked from the Associated Student Government Web site.  Its URL is http://groups.northwestern.edu/safb/.

—ALICE TRUONG

The arm of ASG some hope to change

Aneesa Arshad held one of the most – if not the most – powerful student positions on campus.

As the former Associated Student Government financial vice president, the SESP senior oversaw a board that doled out about $1.2 million to student groups last spring.

Last Wednesday, her reign came to an end.

“I’ve learned a lot,” she said to the Senate as the outgoing financial vice president. “It’s sad to go, but change is good.”

Yet questions loom as to what change will come in Arshad’s place.

The change starts with her successor, Weinberg junior Seva Rodnyansky who is making sure the Student Activities Finance Board will be ready for spring funding. 

Right now, Rodnyansky is working on transitioning to the position. Despite having been part of the board since Fall Quarter during his freshman year, he said “there’s always more to learn because it’s a constantly evolving process.”

And if ASG President Jon Webber has his way, the funding process could change more than anyone in SAFB would expect.

Weeks before B-status group funding took place Feb. 13, the Weinberg senior was already thinking of ways to change spring funding for A-status groups which in a time-honored tradition has kept tired senators and student group leaders in a cramped Norris room for many hours.

The board oversees funding for A-status groups, on-campus groups that are typically more established and require more funding. It prepares for the largest event of the year with a set of recommendations in a 60-hour auditing and interviewing process. During the process and throughout the year, the board follows a strict protocol of monthly audits, weekly petition and numerous applications. Some see this process as too rigid, but SAFB members say this is crucial for student group accountability. The board is responsible for the $44 student activities fee every student pays each quarter.

“At the end of the day, this is students’ money,” Arshad said. “And if there weren’t so many rules and procedures, I think people would feel nervous that every cent isn’t being held accountable.”

Webber has yet to announce the funding changes, pending further discussion with Rodnyansky, who has held the office of financial vice president for less than a week now. Webber has talked to over 20 A-status groups’ leaders and compiled pages upon pages of notes in a Word document. He said there are emerging themes from these complaints and suggestions that could potentially alter, or even encourage a major overhaul of, the process, the protocol and the institution. 

With an arm of ASG that is potentially more powerful than the body itself, compiled of six senators and six non-senators, there is a sense of division and friction. Members of the board go into Senate meetings, dressed like career-oriented men and women, occupying a corner of the room and focused on their laptops. But the greatest tension stems from who has the final say at the end of funding.

Senators, who act as a check to the board by debating the funding recommendations, have an amendment pool of about $20,000 during spring funding that they can allocate to the student groups. But most the time, senators pass almost all of the recommendations.

“This is one of the most important things that Senate does,” Arshad said. “And there’s a little bit of tension because (funding) is something that’s supposed to be  ultimately up to the senators, but because we put so much time and have so much knowledge (having audited these groups), we actually – I think a lot of people would agree – have more power in the process.”

Even within the board, with members who might be friends, debates are heated.

“At committee, we go at each other 10 times more than people go at each other in Senate,” Arshad said. “We tear each other apart.”

But there are no hard feelings – such debate is crucial to the board’s effectiveness, Arshad said.

“If we’re not debating, and we don’t really disagree, then we’re not doing our job,” she said.

This is all before they make their recommendations. These internal divisions don't make a difference when recommendations are finalized. When the board presents the funding recommendations, it presents them as one board.

Relations between the board and student groups most obviously become strained during the funding process because “there’s never enough money to go around,” Arshad said.

Unhappy groups can mobilize and bring a number of members to the Senate meeting to debate funding. While a group might try to get the largest slice from the senate’s discretionary pie, Arshad said outsiders’ presence sometimes signals student group disapproval of the board.

As the newest financial vice president, Rodnyansky is face of SAFB. Even though he has his own set of goals to bring in change, he, like Arshad did, will face difficulties – not from outsiders, but from the position itself. It’s a difficulty that Webber, in his quest to change the board, will have to deal with as well.

“Each financial vice president has goals … But it’s just so overwhelming the things you have to do day to day,” Arshad said. “There are things I wanted to do that I couldn’t.”

—ALICE TRUONG

Financial misconducts for FMO, College Feminists

The Student Activities Finance Board found For Members Only and College Feminists guilty of financial misconduct. According to SAFB, all events, programs and publications funded by the board have to take place or be distributed before and during the reading period. FMO's publication, Blackboard, and College Feminists' publication, Juice, were distributed after the reading period. Blackboard was released during finals last quarter, and Juice was released this quarter.

As a result of the financial misconduct, SAFB have released a set of guidelines for both of the publications, including automatic removal of Blackboard's spring funding if the winter issue is released past the reading period. College Feminists is not subjected to the same recommendation because it does not have a spring issue.

"Them not appealing shows they understand and agree with the recommendations," Financial Vice President Aneesa Arshad, a SESP junior.

This is the first time College Feminists has been investigated for financial misconducts, according to Arshad. FMO, however, has have had other financial misconducts in the past.


—ALICE TRUONG