---

BY MATT BLEIMAN

In print | February 28, 2008

A controversy recently emerged between the Student Council and the Student Budget Committee over SBC’s process of appealing decisions regarding receipts. Student Council is considering an amendment to their constitution to change the way such issues are handled, though they recently tabled the issue.

Members of Student Council were concerned that cases have been brought up in which students were rejected reimbursement of large receipts because they bought small-cost personal items, such as coffee or a sandwich, on the same receipt that they bought materials refundable by SBC.

According to the current regulations, SBC can either accept the appeal for repayment as stated or reject it. Student Council wants to change the language of the laws so that there could be partial receipt refunds for purchases if a student accidentally bought personal items on the same receipt.

The right to an appeal is already an explicit part of the SBC bylaws, and those seeking reimbursement from SBC are reminded of that right. If an individual seeking reimbursement is unhappy with a decision made by any of the focus funding groups he or she can appeal to SBC and after that to Student Council.

There are certain receipt issues that are unlikely to be successfully appealed to SBC, however. For example, if one disobeys the rules of the Social Affairs Committee, then SBC is obligated to refuse reimbursement of funds.

Paul Apollo ‘09, who serves on Student Council as Student Groups Advisor and also on SBC, said that there is a rule against crossing items off a receipt before handing it in. "People do that occasionally, not very often, and SBC says you can’t have your money so they appeal that to Student Council," he said.

According to the Student Council’s constitution, Student Council can either reimburse all of the money or none of it when they hear an appeal.

This becomes a problem when Student Council mandates that SBC gives back all of the money to one person and then sets a precedent that others will see and may try to exploit. Apollo said that in the past students sometimes manipulated receipts to buy alcohol with SAC money.

Student Council wants to be able to give back a portion of the money but not all of it in cases where personal items are on the same receipt as refundable ones, potentially to find a work-around for the problem of precedent. Council members recently discussed a system where students would be reimbursed for a portion of their receipt and be levied a fine, but not lose all the money for a simple mistake.

“Student Council would be able to change the amount on any funding decision that SBC made because it would have given Student Council discretionary power over how much money to give anyone [under the proposed ammendment],” Apollo said. According to Apollo, individuals seeking reimbursement would then be able to ask Student Council for more money if they were not happy with how much they received from SBC.

The tenor of Student Council’s current appeal-granting power suggests that this function is to ensure that any egregious mistakes by SBC, such as large breaks from precedent and SBC bylaws, can be corrected.

However, SBC wanted to know that Student Council trusted them to make the right decisions. “We on SBC felt that we were better stewards and it was our job to make that kind of decision,” Apollo said.

Student Council President Peter Gardner ’08 said that he agreed with SBC, as SBC exists specifically to deal with the money issues and it would be “redundant” if Student Council also served this function.

“From Student Council’s point of view, the reason we didn’t go ahead with [the ammendment] is because … SBC made very compelling arguments … [and] we don’t necessarily want to take on that. There is a reason that we delegated that responsibility,” Gardner said.

Furthermore, Gardner worried that this would increase the time Student Council would have to spend overall on appeals.

In addition to Council’s worries about having too much power over SAC money, they also heard SBC’s concerns.

SBC sent an open letter to Student Council addressing their objections to the amendment, which indicated that the amendment undermined the purpose of SBC. The letter claimed that SBC is more knowledgeable of the budget and bylaws and better equipped to render fair judgments.

In the concluding statement, the letter reads, “not only act as a ‘checks and balances’ system for student government, but also ensure that each specific decision is made with the utmost knowledge and objective judgment so that a diverse Swarthmore student life may flourish.” In the letter, SBC encouraged further dialogue with Student Council.

SBC Manager Giannina Esquivel and other SBC members did not reply to e-mail requests for comment on these issues.

Student Council Vice President Sven Udekwu ’09 said, “The SBC wisely brought up the issue that they are tied by institutional rules and policies that set them to be very fair. We would end up where future councils would be able to overturn SBC decisions right and left … It would remove another check.”

Apollo explained that SBC is set up to ensure that they treat everyone equally, in that they must follow precedents according to their by-laws. He said that the ability of Student Council to look at other factors than fairness when making their decision would not necessarily be as fair.

Instead of going through with an amendment, Student Council decided to take a different path. They will be meeting with SBC and SAC to discuss the best way to address the issue.

One of the issues left to deal with is handing in receipts late. “We can’t really give much ground on [crossing things off receipts] but since the two-week line is pretty much an arbitrary line as to when to turn in receipts because we need to pick some time … we’ve decided to move to a system whereby you’ll be fined a certain percentage of the receipt for every week you’re late,” Apollo said.

The change is slated to take effect pending SAC and Student Council approval. SBC hopes that the revised policy will encourage students to submit receipts in a timely manner, as students who fail to meet the deadline risk forfeiting their reimbursements.

“is worth talking about because it’s not dead forever and all of the issues surrounding the amendment are still around,” Apollo said. “Nothing has really been solved, we’ve just decided to go about the problem in a different way.”

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »