18 SA Members Vote to Decrease Emergency Financial Aid Fund, Possibly Increase Fees

By a vote of 18-4-1 the Student Assembly (SA) adopted Resolution 65, which calls for the creation for a student-run grocery store to address concerns regarding food insecurity on campus.

That is, a majority of SA members voted to decrease emergency financial aid, possibly decrease students’ normal financial aid packages, and possibly implement new student fees. Their names are: Matthew Stefanko ’16, Emma Johnston ’16, Juliana Batista ’16, Matthew Henderson ’16, Lindsay Wershaw ’16, Lisa Liu ’15, Blake Brown ’17, Yamini Bhandari ’17, Gabe Kaufman ’18, Ben Bacharach ’18, Erinn Liu ’18, Maria Chak ’18, Phillip Titcomb ’17, David Vakili ’16, Lauren Goldman ’17, Franklin Yang ’17, and Alex Zhou ’17. (In the haste of the roll-call vote, one name was not taken.)

Those who voted against the resolution were Mark LaPointe ’16 (a member of The Cornell Review), Marc Masson ’17, Justin Selig ’17, and Syed Ali Khan ’15. Shivang Tayal ’16 abstained. Other SA members, including Joseph Fridman ’17, Diana Li ’17, and Denzale Reese ’15, were not present for the vote.

The Review has published two articles explaining major problems with Resolution 65 (first, second). Since then, a whole host of new issues, problems, and inadequacies have come to light–many only just revealed during today’s SA meeting– further proving that the resolution should have been voted down.

Resolution 65 calls for taking $360,000 from an emergency financial aid fund called Students Helping Students (SHS) to spend on the grocery store’s start-up costs, including $250,000 on infrastructure and renovation of the store’s site in Anabel Taylor Hall, and for the seed funding of a $75,000 “food scholarship” fund. This scholarship fund will most likely go towards subsidizing the store to make up for the subsidies it offers to food-insecure students. In order to qualify for the subsidies–there will be 50%, 25%, and 10% subsidy brackets–students will self-report financial figures, as the store is legally forbidden from accessing data from the University’s financil aid office.

Not only does Resolution 65 decrease the principal of an emergency financial aid fund, it was only just revealed in the course of today’s debate that students receiving the highest level of subsidies might have their financial aid packages from Cornell reduced. Gretchen Ryan, a member of Cornell’s Financial Aid Office, said this might happen because it is University policy to reduce financial aid when students receive free or subsidized housing. Supporters of Resolution 65 shot back saying that the University would have no way of knowing who receives these subsidies and therefore would not reduce students’ aid. However, students would most likely have to report this subsidy on their financial aid forms, and as it stands the repercussions of this are unknown.

Still, the most startling revelation from the debate was resolution co-sponsor Stefanko’s admission that in 4-6 years there might be a need to introduce a new student fee to re-fund SHS as a result of the reduction in its principal to create the grocery store.

Despite the fact that this semester the student body erupted in protests against the $350 student health fee, and the fact that most SA members ran re-election campaigns promising to fight back against the fee, 18 today were very eager to vote on a resolution that would likely–upon the admission of the resolution’s own sponsors–require the introduction of new fees in the near-future.

Another striking revelation from today’s debate was the admission from the resolution’s sponsors that the business plan for this multi-hundred thousand dollar venture was drafted in only four days, a fact which Batista in a positive light called “absolutely amazing.” Since the business plan was published only two days ago, this most likely means that the resolution co-sponors, Stefanko and Johnston, only thought to draft a business plan a week before today’s meeting.

When a community member asked why alternative funding measures were not being implemented, one SA member shot back saying the community member should have started a Go Fund Me account to raise funds rather than criticize the resolution. In fact, throughout the debate many of the resolution’s proponents rebuked dissenting SA and community members for criticizing the resolution at today’s debate, saying they should have brought their concerns to the resolution’s co-sponsors last semester when the grocery store was first conceived. Stefanko also said dissenters of Resolution 65 were raising concerns and opposing arguments simply “for fun” and “just to debate.”

The resolution co-sponsors did go on to admit that the $75,000 taken from SHS to for food scholarship fund was not enough and that up to 2-3 times more was required. This fundraising, according to the co-sponsors, could be achieved over the summer.

Resolution 65’s proponents also argued that because President Skorton and other administrators must ultimately sign off on the resolution before money is committed, the SA should just go ahead and pass the resolution. This eagerness to subject to administrative paternalism, as one dissenter put it, was very odd coming from some of those who were most vocal in denouncing the administrators during the health fee debacle. The absurd justification also lends itself to absurd conclusions: should the SA simply pass any resolution that on the surface appears good and let administrators decide if it is appropriate and well-reasoned?

From the onset of the debate, it was clear that the burden of proof was on the shoulders of dissenters rather than proponents. It was also clearly evident in the subtext of the rhetoric used by many of the resolution’s proponents that today’s dissenters were cold-hearted and anti-poor rather than what they truly were: financially responsible, pragmatic, and concerned about preserving financial aid.

Eight of those who voted to adopt Resolution 65 will be returning to the SA next year. It should be an interesting year.