Last week’s Student Association funding referendum for the New York State Public Research Group saw NYPIRG and SA officials leveling charges of bias and misinformation against each other.

Although both groups escaped the battle without being charged with violations of SA’s election codes, a first in recent elections and referenda, some SA officials still have concerns about NYPIRG’s complex, state-spanning funding structure.

The controversy that surrounded the referendum occurred because NYPIRG members felt SA had presented a biased and unfair ballot and information to the student body.

Members of SA, however, felt that NYPIRG had been partisan and misled students about its funding.

Stephen Newler, a freshman in The College of Arts and Sciences, and a SA representative, expressed his concerns about where the funds are being spent.

‘They collect $6 from every student and they can take that money and be paying someone’s salary in Albany. I see a lack of accountability,’ Newler said.

Theresa Cassiack, a volunteer from Albany who was on campus all week promoting the referendum, said this wasn’t the case.

‘All the money we get from this campus goes back into this campus for productive work,’ she said.

But a NYPIRG representative from the New Paltz chapter said otherwise.

‘All the money is put into one fund then allocated out into each chapter,’ said Rhonda Belluso, from the New Paltz chapter.

Some students were concerned with NYPIRG’s use of their money. When asked to submit a budget to the SA, NYPIRG handed them a vague one-page budget with no real answers to where and how the money is being spent, said SA President Drew Lederman.

Members of SA were not satisfied with the budget, so NYPIRG officials gave them a copy of an independent audit report. Instead of focusing on the Syracuse University chapter, however, the audit included information about the entire state. Lederman commented that this did not assist SA in determining whether NYPIRG is being accountable to students.

When asked whether NYPIRG receives all of its funding from SA fees or if some comes from government grants and fund-raisers, Sean Vormwald, NYPIRG project coordinator for SU, said that no grants are used.

‘The idea is students pulling their money together,’ Vormwald said. ‘We don’t receive any funding from government grants. It is a student-funded organization.’

A copy of a tax form, which non-profit corporations are required to complete, revealed otherwise.

NYPIRG’s status as a non-profit corporation requires it complete tax forms which are available for public review. Examination of those forms revealed that during the fiscal year ending Aug. 31, 2002 the total revenue was $4,484,456, with $193,020 coming from government grants.

When later asked to clarify his statement, Vormwald said that the organization does receive grants but they are for specific programs, such as a research project they are conducting to tell people to not start smoking.

NYPIRG’s contributions for the fiscal year ending Aug. 31, 2002 were listed as $3,363,784 on the report. The audit given to the SA said that student activity fees for that same year equaled only $1,314,527.

This discrepancy was explained by Rebecca Weber, deputy director of NYPIRG.

‘Like many non-profits we have set up two corporations, one for other citizens, non-students, to contribute to the organization,’ Weber said.

She added that the money donated by non-students is used for community work and not on campuses. However, many chapters also work in the community.

NYPIRG, SA and SU have a contractual agreement that required a referendum be held ever four years to determine whether NYPIRG should receive direct funding from students.

‘Thirty years ago campus life was very different place because of Vietnam and protests,’ Lederman said. ‘That type of mentality no longer exists in college society.’

This policy began when NYPIRG was founded at SU and Queens College in 1973, and has occurred since. All NYPIRG chapters use the referendum to receive funds, but NYPIRG is the only organization that receives funding this way at SU, according to Vormwald.

‘Referendum funding is the most fair, democratic and accountable way because you are asking the whole student body to vote,’ Vormwald said.

Published on February 19, 2004 at 12:00 pm