The group that uses incidental fees to buy athletic tickets for students received a larger budget increase for next year on Tuesday night after the ASUO Executive vetoed the group’s original allocation, forcing the Student Senate to revisit the decision.
The executive vetoed the funding benchmarks for the Athletic Department Finance Committee and the Programs Finance Committee, which the Senate set two weeks ago, to allow the Senate to reconsider what Finance Coordinator Mike Martell called a “disparity” in the manner in which the budgets were decided.
The Senate passed a 7 percent increase for the ADFC, up 1.7 percent from the group’s previous benchmark, and reaffirmed its original benchmark of 5.62 percent for the PFC.
The Senate passed the original benchmarks for the ADFC, PFC and EMU Board of Directors during a three-hour meeting on Nov. 17, giving the PFC and the EMU Board what they requested, but approving a lower amount for the ADFC.
Senator and ADFC member Kevin Day filed a grievance alleging that the PFC and ADFC were funded in inconsistent ways.
The Green Tape Notebook, which contains the administrative rules used to run student government, dictates that the Senate approves funding benchmarks for the groups each year, which serve as guidelines for the amount of student funds the programs can allocate to other groups. The rules give ASUO President Adam Petkun veto power over all allocations of the Student Senate.
The Green Tape Notebook dictates that the Senate must finalize benchmarks for the following year by Nov. 30.
After receiving the executive vetoes, the Senate had to either reaffirm its original benchmarks by a two-thirds vote of its filled seats, a larger majority than is normally required for a Senate decision, or set new benchmarks for the groups.
The Senate voted 9-4-2 to pass the executive’s recommendation of a 7 percent increase for the ADFC, which bargains with the Athletic Department to provide student tickets to games.
Previously, the Senate narrowly approved a 5.3 percent increase, an amount some senators feared would cause the ADFC not to fulfill its contractual obligations with the athletic department. The contract stipulates that students pay 50 percent of “fair market value” for tickets.
During the Nov. 17 meeting, Day said the ADFC currently funds about 48 percent and has never met the obligation. He said the 5.3 percent increase would meet the obligation if football ticket prices remained constant, but he said they will probably rise next year.
Day told the Emerald he filed the grievance because the 5.3 percent increase wouldn’t allow for the ADFC to maintain its current service level, whereas the PFC benchmark would allow for new growth.
Senators passed the new benchmark after they failed to override the veto, voting 7-4-3, less than the two-thirds majority of the full 16 members needed to supersede it.
ASUO Vice President Mena Ravassipour said the executive vetoed the budgets to allow more discussion about “the fact that these two (budgets) are conflicting.” Ravassipour said the initial 5.3 percent increase for the ADFC might cut the group below its current service level, while the 5.62 percent increase for the PFC would allow for new growth.
Yet some senators disagreed about the need for more funding and the validity of the executive veto.
Senator Austin Shaw-Phillips, who said he originally voted against the measure, said the Senate decided the benchmarks in inconsistent ways. Shaw-Phillips said he decided to support the 7 percent increase because the tickets provided by the ADFC are “one of the most popular services to students.”
“I think I disagree with myself,” Shaw-Phillips said. “I was negligent in not keeping that in mind last week.”
ADFC member Tobias Piering said the committee asked for a 7 percent increase so that it would be able to bargain with the athletic department. He said the ADFC would try to use only the 5.3 percent increase, but the committee is currently unsure whether the department will raise ticket prices.
Senator Sol Hart said although signs point to a ticket price increase, it was impossible to say for certain that an increase would occur. Hart said a 5.3 increase seemed like a “good-faith effort.”
Senator Emily Sousa criticized the executive veto, saying that the benchmarks should be decided independently.
“I’m a little bit disgruntled with the veto in general,” she said.
Senators narrowly approved the ADFC’s 5.3 percent benchmark increase two weeks ago after concerns that many tickets were going unused by students, wasting student money.
Senator Lisa Lam said the 7 percent benchmark should not be denied because of concerns about unused student tickets, saying that “if there was an easy answer to it, it would have been solved years ago.”
Senator Rodrigo Moreno-Villamar said some people were saying the amount of increase was not relevant because it was “just a benchmark,” but emphasized that the executive wouldn’t have vetoed the benchmarks if that was the case. He said the 5.3 percent increase was “not by a long shot not having good faith” in the contract.
He added that the senators should have more information from the athletic department before making their decision.
“How come we have to approve a solid number for a budget that has not provided solid numbers?” he asked.
Hart said the “doomsday scenarios” presented by some people who were in favor of the 7 percent increase were not accurate, saying that Athletic Director Bill Moos would not say students could not go to games due to lack of a good-faith effort.
Ravassipour defended the veto, saying the executive only wanted more discussion.
“It was by no means a force for you guys to approve another benchmark,” she said.
Yet Moreno-Villamar said a veto implies force because the Senate needs a “super majority” to override a veto, adding that a veto is “not just opening it up for discussion.”
The Senate also voted 11-3 to reaffirm the original benchmark of 5.62 percent for the PFC after it failed to override the veto 10-1-3.
Although it vetoed the original benchmark, the executive recommended the same benchmark on Tuesday, drawing criticism from some Senators.
Hart called the veto “ridiculous,” and said it violated the premise of reviewing the programs’ budgets on an individual basis.
“In my opinion, the executive has acted very improperly,” he said. “I’m frustrated that we have to vote at all. Basically, you vetoed it, but you support it.”

[email protected]