Budgets and appropriations

One of the more nuanced items in ASUN is the difference between a budget and appropriations. The ASUN Constitution states that the Senate has the power "[t]o set a budget for the ASUN, but no money shall be spent from the treasury without appropriations made by law." ASUN Const. art. II, sec. 3(a)(2). This clause clearly indicates there is a difference between a "budget" and "appropriations made by law."

It may help to have some definitions. Black's Law Dictionary defines budget as "[a] statement of an organization's estimated revenues and expenses for a specified period, usu. a year." An appropriation is defined as "[a] legislative body's act of setting aside a sum of money for a public purpose." An appropriations bill is "[a] bill that authorizes governmental expenditures." And a budget bill is "[a] bill designating how money will be allocated for the following fiscal year."

Applying these definitions to ASUN, in its simplest form, a budget bill is one that sets an estimate of the amount of money coming into ASUN (revenues) and the amount going out (expenditures). A budget does nothing more than that. It does not authorize spending. That is what an appropriations bill (or several) is for. This distinction is important because the fiscal year 2009 budget was invalidated in Judicial Council Case No. AN-006 in part because proper appropriations were never made. That brings us to tonight.

The Senate is going to take up a bill setting the budget, which reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated students,[*]
That the budget of the Associated Students for Fiscal Year 2011 is hereby made effective as set out in Schedule A of this law.

[*] Could someone seriously fix the bill template to capitalize "students," as it is supposed to be?

So if this is all the Senate passes, ASUN cannot legally spend any money in the next fiscal year because no appropriations have been made by law. So what does a proper appropriation look like? I'll give a current example. Below is a properly drafted appropriations bill using figures in the proposed budget for next fiscal year.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Associated Students, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Senate for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, namely:

SENATE

Compensation, Officers and Employees

For compensation of officers, employees, and others as authorized by law, $72,573.70, which shall be paid from this appropriation without regard to the following limitations:

office of the secretary

For the Office of the Secretary, $15,810.00.

fringe benefits

For fringe benefits expenses, $2,155.70.

Expenses of the Senate

For expenses of the Senate and its officers and employees, $6,000.00.

Travel

For travel expenses as authorized by Senate resolution or law, $6,000.00.

Hosting

For hosting expenses, $1,500.00, of which $500.00 is for summer training and $1,000.00 is for the outreach efforts of the Senate.

This Act may be cited as the "Senate Appropriations Act, 2011".

That is a proper appropriations bill for just the Senate. Repeat for each department, office, account, or other unit of ASUN. The appropriations process is one way by which the Senate can exert control over the executive on how to spend money.

If the reader needs more evidence that this is the proper appropriations process, look up appropriations bills from the 75th Senate Session here. One note, ASUN Public Law 75-2 is a special case because the budget and spending authorizations for that fiscal year were adopted under the previous constitution. That law was intended simply to make effective under the new constitution the prior authorizations. It was not meant as a model of a proper appropriations act for subsequent fiscal years.

N.B.: Changes to appropriations were not made by striking dollar amounts in the budget and inserting new ones (as has become the practice since the 75th Session), but were made by enacting new appropriations bills. See, e.g., ASUN Public Laws 75-23, 75-24, and 75-30. For an example of a rescission, see ASUN Public Law 75-31. For an example of capital spending, see ASUN Public Law 75-43. (I'd link to the individual files on the ASUN website, but they've been needlessly scrubbed.)

Now that's a press release

Corinna Cohn is taking her cases to the court of public opinion. Maybe the Ostrich Times will decide this is worth covering now. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

STUDENT GOVERNMENT AT UNR SPENT $1.6 MILLION ILLEGALLY

A bill authorizing spending for the Associated Students of the University of Nevada (“ASUN”) during the 2008-2009 fiscal year was one of nineteen bills the ASUN Judicial Council has ruled was illegally enacted. The ruling means that the Association never approved its $1.6M budget in accordance with its constitutional requirement. Board of Regents bylaws require expenditures be approved by the student association in order to guarantee financial accountability.

The rulings follow from a series of complaints filed in March 2009 by Corinna Cohn, a 2009 UNR graduate, who charged ASUN officers with violating provisions related to the Nevada Open Meeting Law after the ASUN Senate established a pattern of not publishing accurate meeting agendas and minutes, and for not following the Association’s own procedures for legally enacting legislation. The Council released its opinions this week after ASUN officers wrote letters admitting their errors and after the Council found gross errors in essential processes.

Cohn filed the complaints after UNR administrators informed her that they would not interfere with what is essentially a student affair until the Association’s Judicial Council made a ruling on whether any ASUN laws had been broken. However, Regents policies require administrators to serve as a check on the student government to ensure ASUN conducts its business according to both state law and association rules.

The ruling means that any expenses paid by ASUN during the 2008-2009 fiscal year were done so without legal authorization. Examples include contracts for goods and services, operating expenses for the student newspaper, grants to school clubs, and salaries paid to student workers and professional administrators.

The University recently announced plans to reduce its budget by $11 million to meet requirements set by the Nevada legislature during its March special session.

ASUN spending of $1.6M illegal, Council finds

Last night and early this morning, the ASUN Judicial Council released its orders in three remaining cases challenging the legal sufficiency of several acts of the Senate during its 76th Session, including bills authorizing spending for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. (Last discused here.)

In unanimous opinions, the Council declared the 2009 fiscal year budget was not legally passed and thus all money ASUN spent was without legal authorization. The Council also invalidated most of the 76th Senate's actions because of gross violations of the Open Meeting Law and because the Senate's secretary fraudulently certified the passage of legislation.

The opinions effectively wipe the 76th Session from the books, finding that the Senate and other ASUN officers did not fulfill their legal and constitutional requirements during the course of enacting legislation.

The Council excoriated the Senate, its Speaker, and ASUN President Eli Reilly for not following the proper, legal processes. These rulings come after the defending parties in the cases admitted liability but plead the Council look past the errors since they were not committed with malicious intent.

With these rulings, experts in ASUN process agree that they could serve as valuable precedents to overturn much of what the 77th Session did, including the budget for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30.

These rulings come on the heals of 78th Session convening last night. The Council also ordered the opinions to be read to the new senators in an open meeting so they can be apprised of the seriousness of the situation they now find themselves in.

We expect to have a fuller analysis in the near future.

Updated to clarify that Geremia was not held personally responsible. The office was sued, and she was in the office at the time these rulings were signed.

WTF is up with club funding

When I was an ASUN Senator--my first time around, nearly four years ago--the UNR Rugby club was just starting to become something exceptional. They were gaining national recognition, had managed to get a very good coach and were looking for opportunities to improve their name recognition. They came to ASUN for money to augment their travel fund. Their budget request was heard at the same meeting as a request from the Apple Boppers (a club dedicated to destroying apples in the pursuit of Nirvana or some such BS).

I made the argument that support of a club like the Rugby Club, because of the recognition it could garner for the school, is probably more valuable than support for a club like the Apple Boppers (especially in an environment of scarce resources).

Sandy disagreed. All clubs are created equal. Who are mere senators to create distinctions, she argued. A reasonable ideological distinction to be sure. It was not some form of the philosophy I argued at that meeting that became the dominant one in the execution or drafting of club funding policies over the next few years. It was Sandy's.

I believe this is a fundamental flaw in ASUN. Not all ideas are created equal. Not all pursuits are equally valid. Not all clubs are equally beneficial. A club like the Pack Patriot or UNR-SFL or RHA or AASA does much more for the campus culture and the students directly involved than clubs like the Apple Boppers or Club 1457, but the funding procedures don't recognize that. They don't even hope to attain a level of awareness that would allow intelligently directed "investment" in the campus' future.

This is unfortunate given the high demand for funds in the face of the limited supply. The ASUN should seek to achieve a funding structure that supports campus community, education and development.

BREAKING: Judicial Council rules against Senate, Speaker, President

The ASUN Judicial Council today announced it would issue summary judgment in favor of Corinna Cohn in her remaining cases pending against the ASUN Senate, Speaker of the Senate, ASUN President, and other ASUN officers, including a case to have ASUN's spending during fiscal year 2009 declared illegal.

In the statement filed today, the Council canceled Friday's scheduled hearing on the cases and said that, in light of the admissions of liability from ASUN Senate Speaker Gracie Geremia and ASUN President Eli Reilly, it would issue summary judgment in Cohn's favor. (Disclosure: Cohn is a contributor to this blog.) The Council said it would meet Friday to discuss the summary judgment orders and release them in a timely manner.

Two of the pending cases alleged the ASUN Senate violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) by not keeping and timely producing written minutes of its meetings and violated ASUN law by not properly preparing bills for presidential consideration. The third case challenged the validity of ASUN's budget for fiscal year 2009 on multiple grounds, including several OML violations.

These three cases and three cases decided last month could have far reaching consequences. With respect to the budget, the Council's forthcoming ruling will declare that the ASUN illegally spent around $1.5 million last year. The cases regarding OML violations could have the effect of invalidating much of what the Senate has done in the past couple of years.

The rulings could also open Geremia and other senators to individual liability under the university's code of conduct. Any violation of the OML found under the code of conduct can result in automatic removal from office, as well as other disciplinary sanctions.

Check back later for analysis and commentary.

Wasteful Spending

President Reilly recently sent a proposal (warning: .doc file) to Senator Hostmeyer, Chair of the Committee on Budget and Finance. He is asking for $5,000 for the purchase of WAC Basketball Tournament tickets and nearly $8,200 so ASUN can pay for the replacement suits for Alphie and Wofie.

I'll address my concerns regarding purchasing new mascot outfits. In 2009, Athletics was to receive $7 million from the state, with $2 million going to athletic scholarships.¹ The department ended up with around $5.85 million.² The department also expected to generate $17 million in self supporting revenue.³ The figure to date is $15.1 million.⁴

What's my point? ASUN has a budget that sits at a little over 10% of the athletic budget. Yet ASUN can afford an expenditure of $8,200 but athletics can't? I'm dubious. But, let's accept the premise. Then, we can conclude ASUN has more money than it knows what to do with, if 9 months into a term it has that much money lying around. This is just one example of many of why ASUN does not need more money. Note, this money is not coming out of the contingency fund, but the nearly $30,000 that still remains uncommitted. Thirty-thousand dollars out of a discretionary fund of somewhere around $600,000.

I would personally like to see the top coaches and department heads, all of whom make make very nice six-figure salaries sacrifice a little for the respect of Nevada. How very populist of me.⁵

I won't say much on the $5,000 for WAC tournament tickets other than that I paid for my own tickets back in 2006, and I'm pretty sure there was not an inadequate supply of similar minded fans. This is, in my mind, just another example of wasteful, unnecessary, hard to justify spending. But, when you have more money than you know what to do with, it's easy to throw it at things. Like the geniuses over at SFL.

---

References

¹ Parker and Shively, "University Budgets: A Guide for the Perplexed", 2009.

² 2009-2010 State Appropriated Budgets.

³ Parker and Shively, 2009.

⁴ 2009-2010 Self-Supporting Budgets. (warning: .xls (Excel) file)

⁵ Executive Salary Schedule.

Overappropriation of funds or overtaxation? Take your pick.

Just a quick note about some figures that Shane put together (here). The total balance forward of all accounts in ASUN realized this fiscal year was $204,801.56 (I'll call this $205,000). The balance forward is basically any money left in an account at the end of the previous fiscal year.

Last fiscal year, ASUN collected about $1,326,000 in student fees (taxes). About 15.5 percent of what was collected was unspent. The table Shane put together demonstrates the balance forward as a percent of this fiscal year's allocations. I don't know what an appropriate figure is under governmental accounting theory, but the idea of government spending is to go from all of the money (all that is taken) and to go to none of the money; basically, be good stewards of the public's money and to not overtax and hoard the public's money. Now, since ASUN is not allowed to run a deficit, some underspending is natural, but 15 percent seemed awfully high to me. Turns out, it probably is.

According to the Nevada Governor's Executive Budget, for this biennium the balance forward statewide was 5.7 percent. The Washoe County School District's balance forward was 3.7 percent of revenues. The University of Nevada, Reno's balance forward last biennium was 0.2 percent--infinitesimally small in comparison to ASUN. Given these three examples that use the same accounting principles that ASUN does, fund accounting, 15 percent is a very large number.

Even when making a more relevant direct comparison to the student governments in the state, 15 percent is high. In FY08, the largest was 24 percent at Nevada State College; however, that is explained by the fact they were created in 2007 and were still building a reserve. TMCC was next at 17 percent. Most, however, were below 10 percent. Some governments overspent their fee revenues: UNR GSA, at 14 percent overspending, was the largest. ASUN's reported figure in that fiscal year was 5 percent. CSUN's figure (UNLV's undergrads) was 13 percent. The average for the NSHE as a whole was 6 percent.

Given the ideas behind governmental accounting, an increase from 4 to 15 percent is alarming.

[Updated historical figures to apply to only student fee revenues.]

Budget Hearings, Round 1

Today the Senate's Budget and Finance Committee begins hearings on President Reilly's budget proposal. Before the Committee spends too much valuable time considering the budget, we believe they should be working from a budget that actually complies with the law. The Committee members should also become familiar with what the law provides before they waste their time considering a noncompliant budget.

ASUN Public Law 75-52, commonly known as the Association Budget and Finance Act of 2008, contains provisions which govern what the President must include in his budget proposal. Primarily, those provisions are in section 205 of that law. That section is excerpted below (warning, it's a long section).

SEC. 205. BUDGET CONTENTS AND SUBMISSION TO SENATE.
  (a) On or after the date of the convening of a regular session of the Senate but not later than the first Wednesday thereafter of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the Associated Students Government for the following fiscal year. Each budget shall include a budget message and summary and supporting information. The President shall include in each budget the following:
    (1) Information on activities and functions of the Government.
    (2) When practicable, information on costs and achievements of Government programs.
    (3) Other desirable classifications of information.
    (4) A reconciliation of the summary information on expenditures with proposed appropriations.
    (5) Except as provided in subsection (b), estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations the President decides are necessary to support the Government in the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and the 2 fiscal years after that year.
    (6) Estimated receipts of the Government in the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and the 2 fiscal years after that year under—
      (A) laws in effect when the budget is submitted; and
      (B) proposals in the budget to increase revenues.
    (7) Appropriations, expenditures, and receipts of the Government in the prior fiscal year.
    (8) Estimated expenditures and receipts, and appropriations and proposed appropriations, of the Government for the current fiscal year.
    (9) Balanced statements of the—
      (A) condition of the Treasury at the end of the prior fiscal year;
      (B) estimated condition of the Treasury at the end of the current fiscal year; and
      (C) estimated condition of the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted if financial proposals in the budget are adopted.
    (10) Essential information about the debt of the Government, if any.
    (11) Other financial information the President decides is desirable to explain in practicable detail the financial condition of the Government.
    (12) For each proposal in the budget for legislation that would establish or expand a Government activity or function, a table showing—
      (A) the amount proposed in the budget for appropriation and for expenditure because of the proposal in the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted; and
      (B) the estimated appropriation required because of the proposal for each of the 2 fiscal years after that year that the proposal will be in effect.
    (13) An allowance for additional estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted.
    (14) An allowance for unanticipated uncontrollable expenditures for that year.
    (15) Information on estimates of appropriations for the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted for grants, contracts, and other payments under each program for which there is an authorization of appropriations for that following fiscal year when the appropriations are authorized to be included in an appropriation law for the fiscal year before the fiscal year in which the appropriation is to be available for obligation.
    (16) A comparison of the total amount of budget outlays for the prior fiscal year, estimated in the budget submitted for that year, for each major program having relatively uncontrollable outlays with the total amount of outlays for that program in that year.
    (17) A comparison of the total amount of receipts for the prior fiscal year, estimated in the budget submitted for that year, with receipts received in that year, and for each major source of receipts, a comparison of the amount of receipts estimated in that budget with the amount of receipts from that source in that year.
    (18) An analysis and explanation of the differences between each amount compared under paragraphs (16) and (17).
    (19) A statement of budget authority, proposed budget authority, budget outlays, and proposed budget outlays, and descriptive information in terms of—
      (A) a detailed structure of needs that refers to the missions and programs of departments; and
      (B) the missions and basic programs.
  (b) Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the legislative branch and the judicial branch to be included in each budget under subsection (a)(5) of this section shall be submitted to the President before March 15 of each year and included in the budget by the President without change.
  (c) The President shall recommend in the budget appropriate action to meet an estimated deficiency when the estimated receipts for the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted (under laws in effect when the budget is submitted) and the estimated amounts in the Treasury at the end of the current fiscal year available for expenditure in the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted, are less than the estimated expenditures for that year. The President shall make recommendations required by the public interest when the estimated receipts and estimated amounts in the Treasury are more than the estimated expenditures.
  (d) When the President submits a budget or supporting information about a budget, the President shall include a statement on all changes about the current fiscal year that were made before the budget or information was submitted.

Mr. President Reilly's budget, hardly surprisingly, does not come close to complying with the law. Breaking down just section 205 into its component parts and requirements, 55 categories of information (by our count, which could be argued) must be supplied in a proper budget. These are not the exclusive items that must be in a budget, but it does constitute the vast bulk of what must appear. By our review of the budget, 9 categories have been submitted.

In short, the chairman of the committee, Sean Hostmeyer, should have a short meeting this afternoon: no budget consideration until it is presented in a manner that substantially complies with the law.

This is a Student Government? Part 2.5

My, what a difference two years can make.

Below is a chart showing ASUN's spending by category from Fiscal Year 2008 (2007-2008). The data is from the Student Government Association Financial Reports for Fiscal Year 2008, available here. These data are publicly available but it does take a little digging and some time distilling into usable and interesting information.


About half of ASUN's spending in FY08 went to paying people. The next chart shows the how much of that salary chuck of the pie went to students vs. faculty.

This chart excludes fringe from the wage total because it is accounted for all together and not separately for students and faculty. In FY08, 44 percent of ASUN's wage spending went to faculty and staff (i.e. not students). As a reminder, in Fiscal Year 2010 (next year), the spending will basically flip-flop.

Faculty spending will increase by 12 percentage points at the expense of student wage spending.

How Does ASUN Compare to UNLV
One would expect the two university's undergraduate student governments to be roughly equivalent in terms of wage spending. Using FY08 data, below is CSUN's (UNLV's undergraduate student government) spending by category.

Immediately apparent is how CSUN spends much less on wages. Let's see where the difference lies: in student wage spending or in faculty spending.


Ouchie! CSUN spent $147,766 less on professional staff than ASUN did.

In FY08, UNLV had nearly 22,000 undergraduates (link); UNR had 12,660 (link). How is it that UNR, with nearly 10,000 fewer undergraduates, needs to spend 1.7 times what UNLV does on adminstratative staff?

An anonymous commenter on our last post stated "the university will not allow ASUN to exist without what they deem as proper advisement and some form of university oversight." So, answer me this: why does UNR's undergrad student government need practically triple the staff UNLV's undergrad student government does (considering UNR has 10,000 fewer students)?

I see a few possibilities:

• CSUN is grossly understaffed with professionals
• ASUN has become grossly bloated with professional staff
• CSUN is much more efficient with its staff than ASUN is

Two of those possibilities don't look so good for ASUN.

This is a Student Government? Part Two

In our first part on the FY 2010 ASUN Budget proposed by President Eli Reilly, we just published some numbers taken from the budget. We now present the pretty charts. The source of our figures is the President's proposed FY 2010 budget (link).

First a note on the figures: the figures are derived by adding the base pay (wage) to the associated fringe benefit cost (fringe) to get a total wage figure. The two figures are inseparable so we count them together for the purposes of our analysis. Finally, wage spending accounts for nearly 57 percent of ASUN's total spending.

First up is a simple one: student versus administrative pay.



When looking only at wage figures, administrative faculty, classified staff, and graduate assistants make 58 percent of all the wages in ASUN. In the next fiscal year, nine people will make nearly $6 of every $10 in wages paid.

This next chart provides detail in the student wage category (click on chart for larger version).



The single largest chunk of student wages goes to not executive pay or Senate pay but to student administrative pay (secretaries, accounting clerks, etc.). If you do the math, ASUN Officer pay compared with all other student compensation is only 31 percent (for 55 officers).

The Sagebrush is not included among the wages for students because it is entirely self-supporting and does not receive a (direct) subsidy in the way that the three other publications do.

The last chart shows proportions of officer pay.



In both Charts 2 and 3 above, Senior Executive includes the President, Vice President, Directors of Departments (Clubs and Organizations, Programming, Homecoming), Public Relations Assistant, Attorney General, Chief of Staff, Archivist, and fringe for those positions.

The Senate figure includes the Speaker of the Senate. As far as pay disparity is concerned, 22 officials (or 40 percent of the officers) make 21 percent of the wages for officers.

Draw whatever conclusions you will from these data, but the one point you should take away from this is this: at what point does a student government stop becoming a student government, as far as wages are concerned? Professional vs. student at 58-42 percent seems way messed up to me. 25-75 might be more reasonable.

This is a Student Government?

We wanted to get this out there and worry about making it look pretty later. The charts really make the point better than plain text does. Expect updates.

ASUN Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 (proposed):

Student wages, excluding publications and Campus Escort: $272,783.50
...including Campus Escort: $351,533.50
...including publications (except Sagebrush): $392,723.50

Administrative, classified, and graduate assistant wages: $550,736

Total of all wages paid by ASUN: $937,533.50

Wage figures include the actual wage and the required associated fringe benefits expense.

Sagebrush is excluded because it is off the ASUN budget and does not receive a subsidy from ASUN.

This is a student government, right?

That's quite "the package"

In today's Sagebrush there is an article about "the first ever ASUN stimulus package." It's a program presented by President Reilly to help students cope with the cuts to the University.

When the University got notice that it faced a huge budget cut in the coming year, the first thing they did was lay off about 40 of the staff, who for differing reasons were "unnecessary" or "a luxury" in this economy. But what wasn't widely discussed was that on top of the 40 people who lost their jobs almost a year ago (most of these people will be out of a job starting July 1) is that an even greater number of students were also shown the door. Departments were told they couldn't hire any new students and many students were not renewed.

Add that with an increase in tuition (possibly even bigger after the Legislature has ironed out the budget) and lack of student loan accessibility due to the rest of the economy, you have a perfect storm for lower enrollment.

I applaud President Reilly for his forward-thinking on this devastating blow to students. But I have one question: is this new program, Undergraduate Student Employment Stimulus Package (USESP), going to be introduced as a separate bill? Will the program's specifics be voted on by the Senate, and will there be an ASUN law dictating how the money is to be given out? Simply including the money in the budget is unacceptable. You cannot create a program and then provide no foundation upon which it will be run. I have no problem with it being included in the budget. I think the program is a great idea and could directly help students. But if the program is never authorized by the Senate in law first, it cannot be funded.

Newly elected Senators, I encourage one of you (maybe one of the newbies, but how about one of the other 2 people who ran for speaker) to draft at least a basic bill to create this program. I would also encourage the newly elected chair of the Budget and Finance committee, Sean Hostmeyer, to lead his committee by not just rubber stamping this budget.

For the newbies, here is a sample of things that should be in law for this program:

• Who administers it, who the coordinator is between ASUN and the Financial Aid office. Even if this is just Sandy or Yvonne, it needs to be written down?
• Who decides which department gets the money for the student, how they apply, the selection process (if it is done by committee, the committee needs to be created, just like the scholarship committees are created in PL75-52), and what qualifies a department as "in need?"
• Do the departments have to turn over their budget for ASUN to determine if they meet the requirements?
• Is the money the department's for the entire year?
• I know this is being compared to the ASUN General Scholarships that the Financial Aid office administers, but again that program is in Law (yes, it is).
• Do students have to meet the requirement that all other ASUN employees have to: a 2.75 GPA? If they are living on ASUN money, why should they be any different than an Inkblot employee.
• When does the program begin and end? Without an explicit sunset clause in law this could be a permanent allocation of $100,000 out of ASUN's budget. The way money works in government and especially in higher ed, is that once you've created something, it is almost impossible to get rid of (unless you're Gube Gibbons).
• And finally, there should be an open and public debate about the role of ASUN in this whole budget crisis. The previous two sessions really couldn't decide what ASUN's role was. Is it to take over where the University gets cut? Is it to just provide pizza and soda and parties? Is it to just issue resolutions condemning the budget cuts? That's a fundamental debate/discussion that needs to take place. While the START kids didn't get elected, there still needs to be somebody at the table asking, "Is this ASUN's role?"

Again,

Without a bill that creates USESP, IT DOES NOT EXIST, and cannot be funded.

See, the President Can Ignore the Rules, Too!

President Reilly has submitted a proposed budget for ASUN for the next fiscal year, 2010. Not wanting anyone to get the wrong impression that it's only the Senate that ignores the laws, Reilly seems to be neglecting giving the laws due attention as well.

The Senate, a whopping one year ago, enacted a law governing budget and finance matters, the Association Budget and Finance Act of 2008 (ASUN Pub. L. 75-52). A couple of things are of particular note.

First, section 104 creates a reserve account and requires that 5 percent of the fee revenues anticipated for the fiscal year be set aside. This is ASUN law. It cannot be ignored. It turns out President Reilly disagrees. In his proposed budget, he has determined that it only needs to be 2.5 percent, after consulting with the University budget office. This unilateral change saves $30,100 but also violates the law.

Reilly is probably right that 5 percent of the fee revenues--or about $65,000 next fiscal year--is excessive, considering that more than $100,000 is unspent from the prior fiscal year and ASUN has never had to dip into its contingency reserve for as long as anyone can remember. Unfortunately, it is this budgetary sleight of hand that probably allowed Reilly to "save" Insight Magazine from the chopping block and keep his new initiatives on the table.

Second, subtitle A of Title II, of the same Act, particularly section 205, governs what must be in the budget. This budget is far and away from complying with the law. But these laws aren't actually binding or anything, right? Not like an oath was taken to uphold them, right?*

*Note: The President's oath of office reads as follows: "I, [Eli Reilly], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve and protect the Constitution of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada." The President has a constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution and to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Don't believe us, look it up: ASUN Constitution. The laws the Senate enacts are an inherent part of the constitutional process.

If Senator Sean Hostmeyer, who is the newly-elected chairman of the Senate Budget and Finance Committee, has any balls and respect for the law and process, he'll send the Budget back and refuse to hold hearings on it until it complies with the law.