By-Law Change Would Give Senators Elected Mid-Semester $100 Stipend Increase
By Michael Walsh
Citing a possible conflict of interest, the Student Government Association voted to bring a motion that would increase the stipends of senators elected mid-semester by $100 to a student referendum vote.
The amendment, which passed with 23 yes votes to 1 no vote, means that students will be able to vote on the proposed stipend increase, likely during the yearly elections held in the spring 2011 semester.
Currently, SGA senators receive a $400 stipend per semester. Senators elected mid-semester receive $200. Senators elected during the semester would receive $300 under Senator Eric Bergenn’s proposed by-law change.
Bergenn’s proposed change takes into account the fact that full-term senators are currently receiving $25 a week for their 32 weeks of service over two semesters. Senators elected in the fall only serve for 26 of those 32 weeks.
“The numbers in place were for an outdated system. The constitution changed last year that set election dates and times, therefore setting the amount of time served by midterm elected senators,” said Bergenn in an e-mail. “Because of that change, these new senators are now required to serve approximately 81 percent of the time that full term senators serve. They were still set up to be stipend only 50 percent of the money that other senators are receiving. They are now receiving 75 percent.”
Senator Nicholas Alaimo’s amendment to the original motion was to bring Bergenn’s proposed by-law change to referendum under the reasoning that SGA approving this motion themselves was a conflict of interest.
“I find it to be a conflict of interest for us to vote to increase the stipend amount. I feel that it should go to the students, it’s the students decision since we don’t have checks and balances,” said Alaimo. “Who are we to say that we should increase an amount? If we pass something I think the students should have the chance to vote on if we should get an increase.”
While some senators disagreed with Alaimo’s point of view because none of the current voting senators will be newly elected senators when the new by-law is put into motion, the majority seemed to agree with Alaimo, as indicated in the vote to pass the amendment.
“I’m for such amendment. I believe that if we’re going to pay ourselves more money that the student body should agree to pay us more money because we’re using their money to pay ourselves,” said Senator Brian McKeown.
Bergenn himself didn’t have a referendum vote in mind, but understands why students might want to have a say.
“I don’t necessarily agree with [the amendment],” said Bergenn. “I certainly do think that students should have the right to know and have an effect on where there money is going, but I see this as similar to sending club budgets to referendum. I know this money is for people and not clubs, but it’s for people to represent the school.”
The only no vote on the amendment came from Senator Anthony Dalia.
“I feel as if the student body as a whole may not know the full extent of our work and what we do for the clubs,” said Senator Anthony Dalia. “That vote goes out to everyone and they’re obviously going to want to spend less money because it can’t come back to them. They may not really know, basically, the work that we do for them.”
Alaimo, who directly disagreed with Dalia, went on to say that “the students have the right to be here, some students have an opinion on us, if the students want the minutes they can take a look. They are well-informed….I think that students do know what we’re doing and I think the students should decide whether they want an increase or not.”
After Alaimo’s amendment was approved, Bergenn’s original motion passed with 22 yes votes to 4 no votes.
“[I] have absolutely no intent or desire to make money from the position,” said Bergenn. “I only want to do the best I can while serving to help the student body, and that’s the attitude all senators should have. I do however think that whatever is in place should be fair.”
SGA Proposes New Meeting Time For Next Semester
Another issue brought up at last Wednesday’s SGA meeting was the possibility of changing the meeting time for next semester. To happen, SGA would need to change its by-laws to accommodate the new times.
Senator Elizabeth Braun felt that because of the new block scheduling going into effect in the spring 2011 semester that SGA’s meeting time should be moved up a half hour to 3 p.m. The current 3:30 start time sits on top of scheduled classes, rendering those classes impossible for senators to take.
Debate was strong on the subject and lasted for more than an hour with no ultimate conclusion. Vice President Chris Kyle was strongly opposed to the matter, and favored a day and time change that would put meetings during the school’s new university hour on Tuesday at 3 p.m. The university hour is designed to be a time where no classes are scheduled on campus.
Senator Shelby Dattilo moved for a recess in order to poll every senator on what their preferred day and time would be. The number one result, according to Dattilo, was to have the meetings at the same time they are now, from 3:30 to 5 p.m. on Wednesdays. Second was to have the meetings on Fridays when most students didn’t have class. Third was Braun’s proposed change of 3 p.m. on a Wednesday and fourth was Kyle’s favored university hour proposal.
Braun’s motion failed with 13 yes votes, 16 no votes and 3 abstentions.VP Kyle then made a motion to change meeting time to 3 p.m. on Tuesdays during next semester’s university hour.
“The majority of students shouldn’t have classes,” said Kyle. “It shows support of the block schedule.”
SGA lost quorum, or the minimum amount of officers to conduct valid and official business, and no vote on the motion was made.
