A Student Senate bill that would revamp oversight of the Student Recreation Center budget has been deemed unacceptable by the ASUO Constitution Court, but representatives who worked on the bill say the action outlined in it could happen anyway.
Student Senate Bill 28 would transfer oversight of the rec center budget to a reorganized Student Recreation Center Advisory Board and fund it out of a new institutional fee instead of the incidental fee; however, the bill was deemed illegal by the court because the Senate has no authority to order the advisory board to change its bylaws, the ruling states.
The plan outlined in the bill played heavily into Tuesday’s ASUO Executive debate, but candidates did not mention the court ruling.
Members of the Student Senate and the chairman of the advisory board say they expect the plan outlined in it only needs approval by the advisory board and can go ahead without court approval.
Senate Vice President Jonathan Rosenberg said the purpose of the bill was to create a dialogue and let the administration know students want something to be done about the problem with the rec center budget.
Rosenberg said members of the ASUO, along with representatives from the rec center, have been discussing the issue with the administration. He said the bill succeeded in informing the administration what students want.
“I think it’s a great step forward,” he said.
Student Senate President Sara Hamilton said the purpose of the bill was to build a consensus among members of the Senate about a solution for the rec center funding problem. She said the bill may be reintroduced to tie up loose ends, but she expects the changes to take place.
“We’re very, very confident it will finish by the end of this year,” she said. “We will fix this problem.”
What the court ruling does not mention is that members of the rec center advisory board were involved in drafting the bill and approved the proposed changes to its bylaws before the bill was submitted to the Senate.
Advisory board chairman Richard Pryor said every section of the bill concerning restructuring the board was signed off by board members before submission. On Tuesday night, the board unanimously approved the language of the bill as well.
“We did assist in the drafting of the language and from that standpoint there was probably a bit of miscommunication as to whether or not the Senate was going to mandate these changes or they were in cooperation,” Pryor said. “My personal assumption was that we were going to outline these changes and then it was going to be on the rec center advisory board to amend the bylaws in the meeting, which is what we wound up doing.”
Pryor said he had no idea the bill would be taken as a Senate mandate, and thus deemed illegal by the court. He said the board plans on going ahead with the changes to its bylaws regardless of whether the bill is ultimately approved, and he expects negotiations with the administration to continue.
“The advisory board, I’m hoping, will play an active role in that so we can make sure nothing’s being decided without us,” Pryor said. “We’re really the main body of students being affected by this.”
Representatives from the Senate, Executive, and rec center met with Interim Director of Student Affairs Mike Eyster earlier this week, Pryor said. He said those at the meeting were under the impression that the constitution court had a problem with the language of the bill – that it mandated changes to the advisory board – but not the actual content.
“We feel the content of the bill was useful even though some of the language was problematic for some people,” Pryor said. “Even if the entire action doesn’t happen and the rec center remains under the incidental fee, these amendments to the bylaws are still going to benefit the rec center.”
Contact the campus and federal politics reporter at [email protected]