The ASUO Executive on Monday line-item vetoed the Emerald’s budget allocation for 2004-05, but the ASUO Programs Finance Committee overrode the veto by a 5-1-1 vote and upheld the Emerald’s budget of $120,407.
The Executive veto was the only imposed on the more than 120 student-incidental-fee funded groups.
ASUO Vice President Eddy Morales said the Executive felt PFC acted irresponsibly by not using an Emerald readership survey in the budget calculation. He added that the Executive met with University marketing Associate Professor Marian Friestad, who said the readership survey provided a sufficient sample to be used in a budget-allocation formula.
PFC member Colin Andries argued that the readership survey was not intended as a vehicle for budget allocations, and that a survey specific to allocations should be used instead.
In a memo to PFC, the Executive also stated that it objected to the funding allocation because the Emerald distributes papers at off-campus locations.
“The Executive also feels that the PFC-allocated money that does not physically or culturally enhance the University campus, because student fees will be paying for the publication of papers that are distributed in areas where students are not the target audience,” the Executive stated in the memo.
But some PFC members found the Executive’s continuing opposition to the Emerald’s budget allocation a source of irritation.
Andries reprimanded the Executive for failing to inform the Emerald that it would be trying to veto the group’s budget. He said the Executive should have told the Emerald out of simple professional courtesy.
“That’s upsetting to me that you wouldn’t take that into account,” Andries said.
ASUO Finance Coordinator Mike Martell said the Executive did not contact the Emerald about the veto because it did not think the group’s presence was necessary unless a new hearing was called to discuss the budget further.
The Executive’s veto also appeared to irk PFC Chairman Adrian Gilmore, who said he didn’t understand why the Executive’s position on the Emerald’s budget was so “adversarial.” He added that even though the right to veto is at the discretion of the Executive, he felt it was inappropriate for it to specifically target the Emerald’s budget considering PFC opted to deviate from the Executive recommendation on a number of student-group budgets. PFC’s allocation for the Emerald was $14,004 more than the Executive recommendation.
“The (ASUO Executive) does not tell us what to do,” Gilmore said.
But Morales said the veto was necessary and that PFC could best serve students by incorporating the Emerald readership survey into the budget-allocation formula.
“I think it provides more than enough information for you to make a funding decision,” Morales said.
Gilmore said PFC acted responsibly by not incorporating the readership survey, and he appeared
irritated by the Executive’s continuing opposition to the committee’s decision. When Morales asked him to explain the funding formula again, Gilmore slowly and deliberately recited the numbers with a hint of exasperation in his voice.
PFC member Toby Piering said he didn’t like the Emerald’s allocation, but the committee needed to uphold its decision.
“All seven of us were there when we voted on the Emerald, and I think our decision as a committee needs to stand,” Piering said.
ASUO President Maddy Melton, the only individual who has power to veto a budget allocation, was not present at the meeting. Melton was scheduled to appear before the ASUO Constitution Court at 6:30 p.m.
The veto, which was issued by Morales and Martell, was ultimately overridden by the needed two-thirds PFC majority.
After confirming the Emerald’s budget, the committee approved its overall allocation of student-incidental-fee funds for 2004-05 at $4,889,672, a 1.2 percent increase, and $107,141 under benchmark.
“This has definitely been a very trying process and I think the committee did a very good job,” Gilmore said.
PFC will present its budget to the ASUO Student Senate on Feb. 25 for approval.