Opinion | Editorial
Slashing Hypocrisies From the Budget
November 2, 2009 - 2:31amAs the Student Assembly upheld a 22-percent cut in byline funding for Cornell Cinema last week, a number of issues surfaced that must not go overlooked. Aside from the cultural misfortunes that this budget slash would bring, we take issue with the manner in which the cuts were implemented, and what this decision will mean for the future of student funding at Cornell.
Conflicting Interests
What is most worrisome about the recent Cinema funding debacle is a blatant disregard for integrity, which is ingrained in the S.A.’s infrastructure. That the S.A. permits its members to hold leadership positions on other byline-funded committees is appalling. Chris Basil ’10, for one, is the S.A.’s vice president for finance and chair of the appropriations committee. Basil is also a member of the Convocation Committee, which in September advocated for an increase in funding to pay for top-tier honorarium speakers. How is it allowed that Basil can support Cinema budget cuts, while also supporting an increase in funding for a group on which he sits? Yet Basil is not alone — there are other decision makers on the S.A. who participate in byline funded groups. We call on the S.A. to reflect on this most recent conflict and develop stringent guidelines to prevent this from happening again.
What Community Clause?
Students turned out en masse on Thursday to show support for the Cinema. The picket signs and vocal protest made for one of the more colorful displays of student interest in S.A. affairs in recent years. The S.A., however, turned a blind eye. Despite their earlier efforts to engage members of the community — namely, by passing the Community Clause in mid-October — it became apparent last week that the act was merely a publicity stunt. The most consequential decisions made by the S.A. — those relating to the budget — will continue to be made by those in charge, with no consideration for the student voice.
The Pot Calling the Kettle Black
One of the S.A.’s main objections to funding the Cinema was that the allocated budget is used to finance the salaries of its employees. But just as the Convocation Committee requires funds to pay hefty honorariums, the Cinema relies on a budget that will sustain staff positions. The S.A. fails to accept this, denying the need to fund students’ salaries with funds provided by other students. We find this reasoning hard to accept, however, given that the S.A. is the only other student group that uses byline funding to pay the salary of its very own student clerk.
Re: What Community Clause?
As I recall being at the SA meeting, SA President Rammy Salem said that the resolution for the Community Clause did pass the SA and was sent to President Skorton for approval. The SA is still awaiting approval, hence the SA could not take a community vote. To say that the SA just did this as a publicity stunt is untrue.
In rebuttal to all the sections
"Conflicting Interests"
"That the S.A. permits its members to hold leadership positions on other byline-funded committees is appalling. Chris Basil ’10, for one, is the S.A.’s vice president for finance and chair of the appropriations committee."
This aspect has been happening for year, it is not a CoI, because that is how the system has been setup. It is just the Vice President of the US, who chairs the Senate. The claims are unfounded.
"Basil is also a member of the Convocation Committee, which in September advocated for an increase in funding to pay for top-tier honorarium speakers. How is it allowed that Basil can support Cinema budget cuts, while also supporting an increase in funding for a group on which he sits? "
Though it appears of a CoI, there is not. The funding is for the next two years and Basil is part of a group that already is funded based on decisions made in the prior two years. As being on the committee, he would be best to provide a view on the future of the committee. It is actually in the BEST INTEREST for his vote and opinion regarding a funding increase
"Students turned out en masse on Thursday to show support for the Cinema. The picket signs and vocal protest made for one of the more colorful displays of student interest in S.A. affairs in recent years. The S.A., however, turned a blind eye."
They did not turn a blind eye, look at the votes, 10 to 10. The number of students at the meeting only represents a minority of the total 13k undergraduates at Cornell. If there were 200 at the meeting that is only 1.6% of the total population. How is that a representative sample? Were they elected? NO.
"One of the S.A.’s main objections to funding the Cinema was that the allocated budget is used to finance the salaries of its employees. But just as the Convocation Committee requires funds to pay hefty honorariums, the Cinema relies on a budget that will sustain staff positions. The S.A. fails to accept this, denying the need to fund students’ salaries with funds provided by other students."
The cinema continues on their every two year bases to not set aside their own funding to support their staff. This argument has been discussed year after year. It is THEIR own fault for not taking into consideration the same warnings from past year SA groups.
All in all, invalid arguments throughout this piece.
So basically, you argue that
So basically, you argue that because Basil is graduating and won't be around next year, he won't have ANY motivation to fund a student group he was heavily invested in, run by people he knows and has worked with extensively, over one he just doesn't care about?
AND you argue that the 200 individuals who actually found time in their schedules to attend one of the farcical excuses for student government that are Cornell SA meetings are the ONLY people who support the full funding of Cornell Cinema?
...So I have this friend in Nigeria, he's a prince, and he's willing to pay you $1,000,000 U.S. if you can just send him your SS# and all of your financial information.
The Plebeians Strike Again
How fondly I remember this exact same drama being played out way back in '01. The SA was led by penny-pinching, future investment banker of america who simply could not fathom why the Cinema didn't just show the latest blockbuster and sell ridiculously high-priced popcorn while several lowly SA members were far too cowardly to speak out.
It seems Cornell is again reaping the rewards of allowing its most ill-educated and power-drunk students to sit on the SA and make mess of everything. What really stings, though, is the other commenter who would like you to believe that the 200 protesters were the *only* students on campus who would prefer full funding for the cinema. I'm sure there's a sweet job in Palin's PR corps with his name on it.
Face it, if you care about film, culture, or art, you are outnumbered at Cornell.