SGB funds USSA against Allocations’ recommendation

The Student Government Board granted $6,486.13 to the United States Student Association, a… The Student Government Board granted $6,486.13 to the United States Student Association, a student lobbying organization recently under attack for holding what some board members and students say are conspicuous ties to SGB.

USSA can apply for money from the student activity fund — even though it is not a recognized campus organization — because of a special affiliation it maintains with SGB.

The 5-3 decision to reject an Allocations Committee recommendation of zero dollars and to award the adjusted sum revealed a split within the board at its Thursday night meeting.

Proponents of the revised allocation said the trip for which the money will be used, the National Students Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C., is a nonpartisan event and, therefore, any principles of the USSA were inconsequential to the debate.

“It’s not USSA’s National Platform Day, National Leftist Day, National Yay-For-Abortion Day,” Board member Lauren Evette Williams said. “It’s a lobby day. We know what it is. We saw the speaking points that will be discussed.”

The movement’s opponents, however, viewed the allocation as a biased distribution to a liberal organization and misrepresentative of the student body.

“If this was another group that wanted the money to send people down there, I would love to give them the money,” Board member Joe Pasqualichio said. “[My problem] is that it’s SGB that’s giving this money.”

Board member Charis Jones argued that SGB has a responsibility to control trips such as the one discussed.

“No organization can speak for all the students, except for SGB,” Jones said. “As long as we keep it under SGB’s hands, we’re the ones picking the students who go.”

Matt Hutchinson turned out to be the board’s deciding vote, starting the night in opposition to the allocation and ending with a poll of support.

“It seems to me that USSA is a controversial issue on this campus, and it also seems logical that it is controversial because some students do not desire to be a member of said group,” Hutchinson read from a prepared statement. “Students have the right to choose whether they want to be a part of an organization or not.”

Hutchinson then recommended that USSA start its own student group at Pitt, separate from SGB.

Jones countered by saying that such a group could not be assembled in time for this year’s conference, which aims at educating students in the practice of lobbying and allowing them to lobby legislators on issues relating to students.

Board member Joe Salvatore added, “Regardless of the policy, platforms and whatever else they stand for, I think [they’ve proven] that’s not what they look to achieve on this day.”

“This is our best option for lobbying for what is in the best interest of the students.”

Not everyone on the board was convinced.

“It wouldn’t be proper to send people down there in the name of SGB,” Pasqualichio said.

Board member Todd Brandon Morris attempted to distinguish the conference from the organization that sponsors it.

“The argument right now isn’t ‘Should we be funding membership dues to USSA?'” Morris said, before defending the conference’s history.

“I’m going to have to wonder how other things are viewed that this board does,” he added. “If we can’t fund proven trips that we’ve made in the past, I’m going to have to question more things that we’re doing.”

The board skirted the larger controversy of Pitt’s membership in USSA by focusing a majority of their debate on the individual conference. The future of SGB’s relationship with USSA was left essentially unresolved.

Students who wish to know more about USSA, its platforms and its initiatives can visit the group’s Web site at www.usstudents.org.