The ASSU Undergraduate Senate on Tuesday passed a widely-debated bill to reduce growth in special fees spending, resulting in an extensive dispute over the nature of the vote that took place, which many senators claimed was riddled with problems and parliamentary misconduct. Concerns were also raised about student group input into the bill.

Also last night, leaders expressed a need to drastically increase the undergraduate fundraising campaign for Haiti earthquake relief. According to ASSU Vice President Andy Parker ’11, although about $30,000 has been raised, only five to 10 percent of the undergraduate population has donated, putting Stanford $40,000 behind Dartmouth, who was initially encouraged by Stanford student government leaders to start fundraising.

Special Fees Bill ‘Approved’

Senator Alex Katz ’12, who authored a bill that would make it more difficult for student groups to receive funding increases in each spring’s special fees election, said it “will make groups think a lot harder about what they really need to make their groups successful.”

The goal, he said, was to reduce growth in special fees funding; he cited the Stanford Film Society’s budget increasing last year by more than $50,000 as an example. Two reasons for such increases are the petitioning period being extended last year, allowing more time for the groups to obtain money, and the recurring problem, as Katz sees it, of students approving too many increased budgets.

“The fact that no one says ‘no’ is also a part of the problem,” Katz said. “I can’t promise that this bill is going to save the system, but this is a step in the right direction.”

He pointed out that the bill would give the student body an additional level of control. If special fees groups really need more money, he said, they would have to go to the student body and ask for it.

“At some point, the student body deserves the power to look over these budgets and determine if this increase is justified,” Katz said.

Some senators, including Adam Creasman ’11 and Zachary Warma ’11, noted that the tendency of the student body to approve budgets posed a significant problem for the special fees process that the bill did not address.

“The undergraduate body has not voted down a single budget we give them,” said Warma, also columns editor for The Daily.

Both noted, however, that the issue was not necessarily a reason not to support the bill.

No student group representatives spoke during the meeting’s public comment period. A round of approximately 1,600 e-mails to student group leaders informing them of the proposed change garnered about 20 positive responses, said Senator Anton Zietsman ’12.

Deputy Chair Kelsei Wharton ’12 and other senators raised concerns, both before and after the vote, about the level of input student groups had into the bill, as well as their awareness of the fact that the bill had — at the time they received Zietsman’s e-mail — not yet been passed.

“First, 30 [responses] is not half-bad. Second, not a lot of people responding is a good sign,” Katz said. “We’ve given people multiple chances to come in and say, ‘This would really hurt us.’”

“The fact that people aren’t screeching down our throats is pretty darn good,” added Warma.

When the bill was finally called to question, the result was nine votes in favor, four opposed and two abstentions. Although the vote had technically passed, widespread confusion and dispute erupted when several senators realized that they had misunderstood the voting process.

One senator did not realize that abstaining his vote meant that it would not be counted in the senate quorum, therefore potentially altering the number of votes needed to pass.

For his part, Senate Chair Varun Sivaram ’11 did not realize that he could table the bill prior to voting, which would postpone calling it to a vote and allowing for more time for discussion.

“No disrespect — you’ve done your work, but I feel uneasy [about voting],” Sivaram said to Katz, who conducted an unofficial straw poll, determining that seven senators desired seeing concrete numbers about funding trends.

Sivaram conducted the straw poll after voting for the bill.

Senators voiced the need for a vote to “re-vote” on the bill next meeting once more data had been shared, allowing for a more educated vote. Although this sentiment was widely expressed, the bill was technically still passed.

“I’d just like to say that a vote was taken; a vote was passed,” Warma said. “If there had been — at the beginning of this, when we knew there was going to be a…vote — a motion to table should have been provided before the question was called.”

Other Business

Two subsequent funding bills for Chinese Students and Scholars at Stanford and Los Saleros de Stanford were unanimously passed.

Parker also introduced Alisha Blackford, a graduate student in education, as a candidate for the position of Executive Director of the Student Service Division, a position that oversees the ASSU Shuttle, Wellness Room and Green Store. Parker currently serves in that role. Her appointment is set to come up for approval by the Senate and Graduate Student Council next week.