Allocations debate splits SGB

A heated debate and tense discussion led to a tie-breaking vote and one student organization… A heated debate and tense discussion led to a tie-breaking vote and one student organization walking away with three-quarters of a million dollars at last week’s Student Government Board meeting.

The board met Thursday night to decide the fate of five Student Life organizations’ budgets.

The organizations – the Pitt Program Council, Telefact, WPTS, Student Volunteer Outreach and Panther Prints – formerly had their allocated money based on a percentage of the total Student Activities Fee.

Two years ago, then Vice Provost and Dean of Students Jack Daniel gave SGB the authority to recommend specific amounts of money for these groups.

According to Michelle Turbanic, current allocations committee chair, last years’ board made the decision that these groups do not have to submit line item budgets like other student organizations.

Board members voiced their concern over the current system Thursday.

“I don’t have a problem with $740,000 for PPC. I have a problem when I don’t know what I’m approving it for,” board member Jennifer Anukem said. She went on to state that because SGB allocates the funds, they should be the ones holding the Student Life organizations accountable.

“PPC is different, so its budget needs to be different, but when someone else holds them accountable when I approve their budget, that’s a little bit too different,” Anukem said.

SGB president Joe Pasqualichio began to voice his opinions on the matter when board member Anukem cited the rules of order, forcing Pasqualichio to pass his gavel to Alli Winn before continuing his statement.

“In fact we do hold PPC accountable by our money allocation,” Pasqualichio said.

Board member Will Powers echoed Pasqualichio’s sentiments.

“SGB exists to allocate budgets. That is our job,” Powers said. “It’s my job to make sure the money is spent correctly.”

Board member Aimee Kleer said, “I just ask that they fill out a request like everyone else.”

Concerns were voiced about the volume of paperwork the allocations committee would have to deal with, to which board member Erica Lillquist responded, “We should not be concerned with the amount of paperwork.”

“I think we need to look into making suggestions to Student Life,” she added.

Board member Sheila Isong made an effort to summarize the comments of board members Kleer, Lillquist and Anukem.

“This is not an attack on PPC’s program,” Isong said

“I see it as a problem with the system,” she continued. “I urge the board to postpone this vote. I have nothing in front of me. That’s a lot of money to be looking at nothing for.”

Anukem made the final remarks on the matter, stressing that her opinion was not an attack on PPC’s programming. She also said that the system was flawed and needed to be fixed before the money was allocated.

The motion by board member Joe Leinbach then went to a vote – board members Shady Henien, Powers, Leinbach and President Pasqualichio voted in favor of the motion to approve the allocations. Board members Kleer, Lillquist, Isong and Anukem voted against the motion.

Winn, who still held the gavel from the earlier rule infraction by Pasqualichio, cast the tie-breaking vote.

The decision awarded $740,000 to PPC; $85,000 to Telefact; $145,809.74 to WPTS; $65,140 to SVO and $34,000 to Panther Prints. Surplus funds at the end of every year are to be returned to the SGB activities fee fund, in accordance with the decision.

Following the vote, the meeting concluded with final remarks from board members.

“I think we showed faith in the PPC tonight,” Powers said. “I think the system needs to be reformed, just not tonight.”

Isong disagreed.

“We had a chance to do something today that would have shown our care, and we didn’t,” she said.