After the Big Five budget had its first of two readings at the July 18 UF Student Government Senate meeting, an amendment reallocating funds from SG agencies passed despite a majority of Senate disapproval. It will undergo its second reading July 25.
The Budget and Appropriations Committee of the Senate holds hearings for each of the Big Five entities during the Summer to ensure funding continues furthering the best interest of the students.
The Big Five entities include Recreational Sports, J. Wayne Reitz Union, Student Activities and Involvement, Sorority and Fraternity Affairs, and Student Government. The hearings will ultimately determine the Big Five budget for the next fiscal year.
After the final Big Five hearings took place July 10, UF SG Budget and Appropriations Committee Chairman Blake Cox (Gator-District A) presented his committee report showcasing the budget for the next fiscal year.
The 0% budget increase proposal is if the Activities and Service Fee is not increased and the 5% budget increase proposal represents if the fee is increased by 5%. The current fee for the 2022-2023 academic year is $19.06 for most students.
The 0% budget increase proposal would make the budget $22,925,970. The total 5% budget increase proposal would make the budget $24,054,701. The budget is authored by Cox and sponsored by the Budget and Appropriations Committee, which is composed of Senators of both parties.
Sen. Raj Mia (Change-CALS) authored the first amendment to the budget, seeking to reallocate funding from ACCENT Speakers Bureau and Student Government Productions, which was passed. Amendment 1 funds would be reallocated to increase funding for potential Senate-led projects and initiatives.
Part of the amendment’s allocations restructuring would increase election funding to allow for an additional polling location in the future.
The budget aimed to be as bipartisan as possible, Mia said. While he is grateful it passed, he is disappointed many Gator Senators opposed it.
A majority of Senators voted against Amendment 1 due to how funds were allocated, Cox said, which should have failed to pass the amendment. However, Santiago Perez ruled that the motion had passed, despite the will of a majority of present Senators, he said.
“Myself and many of my colleagues immediately attempted to contest this decision, an action well within our rights and duties as Senators,” Cox wrote. “However, in yet another subversion of procedure, we were shut down and issued warnings based on ‘disruptive conduct’.”
Mia affirms the passage of Amendment 1 is a testament to the commitment of the Change Caucus, which ran on the platform of supporting student organizations and increasing funding for student organizations, he wrote.
The second amendment, authored by Sen. Wavid Bowman (Change-District C), proposed further funding cuts for ACCENT and SGP to increase funding for student organizations, SG Projects and elections line funding.
Bowman is disappointed the Senate didn’t approve their budget amendment, but is happy it approved Mia’s amendment, they wrote.
“If, as [Gator claims], the majority of Senators present did not want to amend the budget bill with amendment 1,” Bowman wrote. “They would have moved to reconsider the matter then voted it down — both requiring majority votes.”
The third amendment, authored by Sen. Bryan Garcia-Ramos (Change-Engineering), proposed creating a provision for a new graduate assistant tasked with spending $25,000 out of a brand new line item, titled Graduate Outreach.
Gator Senators agreed with the sentiment of graduate outreach on the floor, but they cautioned the plan may need further consideration.
Garcia-Ramos believes Gator has disregarded the UF graduate community, he said.
The final amendment, proposed by Senator Antonio Hendricks (Change-Graduate) would have cut $15,000 from SGP to increase the elections funding. The amendment failed.
“I expected the bill to pass unanimously, for every Senator to vote in support of this amendment, wholly nonpartisan, but that is exactly not what we saw,” Hendricks wrote. “I am disappointed but I am not giving up.”
Hendricks will be resubmitting Amendment 4 for consideration during the second reading of the budget.
Minority Party Leader Bronson Allemand (Gator-District A) said from the beginning of the night, he noticed Mia had run around with a copy of his budget, lobbying Senators.
During the debate period, Gator members of the Budget Committee and other Senators opposed Amendment 1, Allemand said. Allemand believes there was a clear suppression of voices during the voting period and a blatant disregard to the decision of the Senate, Allemand said.
The budget and its amendments went through several rounds of debate. These rounds brought up several concerns about graduate students and funding cuts.
The main debate sparked over the allocation of funds proposed in the amendments and Santiago Perez’s ruling on certain motions, which were deemed an abuse of power.
“This was a disgusting show against democracy,” Allemand said. “Santiago Perez took it upon [themselves] to decide how to vote, which is a blatant abuse of power and very undemocratic to vote purely on political lines.”
The chair is given discretion per Rule VII, Section 1(b) to determine all outcomes of votes, Santiago Perez said, and per a motion made in the meeting, a standing uncounted vote was permissible as well as a voice vote.
While the parliamentary procedure can be frustrating, the rules are "intended" to ensure the orderly process of the Senate to continue, they wrote.
The Gator Party had control of the legislature for multiple years, and the Rules and Procedures today are its creation, Santiago Perez said.
Allemand documented 32 Gator-affiliated Senators who voted against the amendment, not including the two Change Senators who voted no as well.
Allemand contends Santiago Perez decided to pass the amendment despite the fact there were more Senators voting in the negative, he said.
Allemand affirms given 64 Senators established quorum, the vote against the amendments had a clear majority.
Cox thanked Senators who submitted amendments and avoided personal attacks. He gave further clarifications on why Senators were voting against amendments.
“Voting no on an amendment to the budget is not a no on the sentiments,” Cox said. “It’s a no to the numbers.”
Contact Vivienne at vserret@alligator.org. Follow her on Twitter @vivienneserret.
Vivienne Serret is a UF journalism and criminology senior, reporting for The Alligator's university desk as the student government reporter and managing editor for The Florida Political Review. She loves debating, lifting at the gym and singing.
