Vote to fund parties at frats may contradict UA constitution

Student government leaders are now questioning the constitutionality of a plan to fund parties sponsored by various Greek organizations and the Social Planning and Events Committee. At its budget meeting last Sunday, the UA voted to allocate SPEC $10,080 to fund open "Bring Your Own Beer" parties at fraternities and Houston Hall next fall. But a clause in the current UA constitution indicates that the UA should follow the "funding procedures" of the Student Activities Council. And some have equated this phrase with the SAC Funding Guidelines -- which prevent the funding of "social programs, parties or refreshments for meetings." "I think it's outrageous that they ignore parts of the constitution that pertain to funding," said SAC Finance Chairperson David Shapiro, a College sophomore. And UA Chairperson and Wharton junior Dan Debicella admitted the UA does not follow certain sections of its constitution. "That's an anachronistic part of the constitution," he said. "People become much too anal about all the constitutional crap -- it's not the U.S. Constitution or something." Debicella added that if the clause was true, the UA could not fund many of SPEC's other events, including Spring Fling. The complications involved in the clause lead to various interpretations, SAC Chairperson Richard Chow said. "Fling is a tradition so it's different," the Wharton senior added. "But it's difficult for me to have the UA setting this new precedent." But Director of Student Life Activities and Facilities Fran Walker said she interprets the constitution differently. "I would not interpret it as 'guidelines,' " she said, adding that "procedures" could simply mean how the budget process takes place. And SPEC President Lissette Monge, a College senior, said the clause is not problematic because most money does not go toward food or drink at SPEC events. "We have thrown parties that don't involve food or drinks," she said, adding that the parties' individual cost of up to $700 would pay for music and decorations. According to Chow, the budgetary decision should be reconsidered for reasons other than the constitution. Students have not been consulted, he said, and may not want their tuition money going towards open fraternity parties. Debicella, however, argued that the body made a decision to benefit the student body -- which superceded the constitution's specific clauses. "We do things that are right for students," he said. "The thing that people shouldn't do is run around pointing out anachronistic clauses in the constitution that have never been followed for 23 years." Shapiro said UA members may have had motives beyond making basic funding decisions when voting to pay for the parties. "I just think it's interesting that the constitutional reformers and Dan Schorr get over $10,000 for the fraternities and the fraternities endorse their proposals," he added. Schorr has denied that he made any such deal with the InterFraternity Council, which later endorsed a plan for constitutional reform he helped author. Chow said the UA's decision is an example of a continuous internal disregard for its constitutional policies. According to the UA constitution, for instance, the UA Steering Committee must give a copy of its budget to the SAC Finance Committee by February 1 of each year so SAC can make recommendations to the UA. But Chow said this process "is not really followed." Debicella said students who do not approve of the decision should approach the new UA with their concerns, or gather enough signatures to form a referendum to overturn the UA decision.