"We say, let the students vote on it,” says Editor in Chief Stephanie Sciandra, deferring the responsibility of some $36,000 of undergraduate funds to the very body of people it was drawn from. Considering both ethics and necessity, she firmly stands behind her decision to fight.

Breaking ties with a 23-year transactional history, The Spectrum editor has plenty to fight for. When a routine annual contract with the Student Association turned up on her desk slightly different, Sciandra knew something was amiss. A subsidy considered to be nothing more than a neutral exchange of funds was now politicized. The foreign document called for increased representation on the newspaper’s editorial board on behalf of a government entity previously kept separate from her editorial jurisdiction. Amidst a turbulent economy and declining market for newsprint, losing a tab for $36,000 could endanger the current and future stability of undergraduate reporting.

For SA President Peter Grollitsch and Treasurer John Martin, the danger lies in the unchecked consumption of student funds. At a dollar per student, the subsidy gathers itself among the undergraduate population to become a substantial amount. $36,000 is a price tag well worth biting for the fiscal security of the university’s newspaper. A price tag, however, that should keep the best interests of the student body at heart. As two officials elected to work for the students and by the students, Grollitsch and Martin won’t let such a paycheck be handed over without an accompanying accountability.

In 1985, The Spectrum was facing dire fiscal times. At risk of having to close its doors, the newspaper sought help from its local student government. SA provided a subsidy that would allow the newspaper to avoid bankruptcy. For the next 23 years, a subscription fee would be drawn from every mandatory undergraduate activity fee. Although first instituted when the newspaper faced foreclosure, the fee would be utilized in both financially sound and unsound times. In order to ensure student compliance with the allocation of these funds, a referendum dependent on polling students was established. The ballot would question each student’s approval of distributing $1.00 per semester, per student from the annual activity fee to The Spectrum.

Fall 2008 saw the introduction of a subscription fee contract slightly different from those that had preceded it. Signed on an annual basis at the beginning of the new academic year, the contract approves the referendum and acts as a final checkstop before SA distributes the aforementioned funds to The Spectrum. After sending the contract to SA offices, however, Sciandra faced a hesitant administration. “It wasn’t signed immediately, which we knew was trouble. Peter told us that he wanted some time to have SA’s lawyer look at it.” After a period of deliberation a new contract was produced and given to Sciandra. The document stated that SA would hand over activity funds in return for an additional seat on the newspaper’s board of directors for SA representatives, or a decrease of one representative from The Spectrum. The contract also called for a revision on the newspaper’s masthead, changing “The Spectrum is supported by a subscription fee through the Undergraduate Student Association” to the paper being “subsidized by a fee provided by the Undergraduate Student Association.” However, this request was later conceded by the Student Association.

The newspaper’s board of directors consists of four seats devoted to Spectrum staff members and three to SA representatives. Grollitsch and Martin’s amended contract would increase SA’s power on the board to 50 percent. By having representative power equal to that of The Spectrum’s, SA would hold enough votes to block propositions as well as have a greater chance of passing legislation that might otherwise be strongly opposed. “We said ‘Well, what would happen if we had four seats and you had four seats?’ And they said nothing. It would become tabled. Well whenever we want to spend money we can’t just table it. And it would result in permanent tabling,” said Sciandra. If SA board members were to come to an agreement on the most radical of propositions they would need only to convince one board member from The Spectrum to have it passed. Even without the consent of anyone on The Spectrum’s half of the board, equal voting power would allow SA representatives to leave immediate financial concerns at a standstill. Proposals to spend more money on printing services in order to meet market demands might be left in a filibuster limbo. A more SA-involved board could very well mean a new direction for the newspaper for the better or for the worse.

According to Martin, the amended contract is a step in the right direction for student oversight. As SA treasurer for the past two years, he has worked full time to oversee the handling of student money. “I wouldn’t be doing my job if I signed a 37 thousand dollar contract away in three hours without A, having somebody look it over who understands contracts better than I, and B, further reviewing it.” After discussing the relationship between SA and The Spectrum with Grollitsch over the summer, it was decided that changes should be made to give the undergraduate body more say in the direction of its dollar. “We’re not asking for SA oversight or SA control. We’re asking for student oversight.” Martin believes that SA’s request is, in fact, more benevolent than normal business practices.

“The students of the University of Buffalo, which SA is elected to represent, provide The Spectrum with their equity capital. Boards of directors are normally decided on equity capital and on most boards of directors, it’s considered improper practice to have people that are on the payroll of the business for their roles in the business to be on the board of directors.” After the subscription fee has bailed out the newspaper on a few occasions in the past two decades, Martin sees no problem with having equal say in the activities of the board. “What I kind of find really funny is the fact that their main point is that we’re holding their money from them. If it was really their money, there wouldn’t be a contract to be signed. There would be no negotiation. If there’s a contract, that means that it’s our money that we’re signing over for them.”

Although Martin insists that purpose for an extra seat has remained to garner greater student representation, conflict surrounding Martin’s former position as treasurer of the newspaper has undoubtedly augmented the process. It is the responsibility of The Spectrum’s treasurer to sign expenditures on the newspaper’s behalf. When it was announced in the last board meeting of the spring 2008 semester that stipends for The Spectrum’s employees would increase from three per semester to four, Martin was absent and had a proxy acting on his behalf. Although Sciandra claims Martin to have been fine with it until a September 26 article criticized him for failing to clarifying a gray area surrounding the recent activity fee vote, the treasurer asserts that the manner in which the pay increases were obtained was against their bylaws. “If you go look at their authorizations, the signatures that will be on there are Stephanie’s, Chris’, and I think maybe, Debbie Smith, the business manager, down there and nobody from the board of directors other than Stephanie.” An appointment authorization form for Sciandra’s monthly stipend submitted to on August 27 verifies the absence of Martin’s signature, the authorization being signed only by Smith and Managing Editor Chris Ryndak.

On August 28, a board meeting was held which included Smith reviewing the financial state of the newspaper and her conclusion of it to be in good standing. Martin was in attendance, however, meeting minutes do not reveal any contestation concerning the increase in stipend agreed upon at the previous board meeting. Whether or not he was aware of the increase at the time of the August meeting is uncertain.

As tensions rose, a conflict, which up to that point had been kept private, quickly became publicized through the efforts of both institutions. Starting this spring semester, The Spectrum began publishing a front-page column in each issue entitled “Call to Action.” Boasting that Martin and Grollitsch were holding student money back, the column proposed that students email the SA figureheads in protest. Grollitsch’s and Martin’s university email addresses were both listed. Along with the columns came the creation of a petition to rally against SA’s malfeasances. Representing ten percent of the undergraduate body, the petition called for the same conditions of the original subscription fee contract, and thus, a rejection of SA’s demands.

The Spectrum’s response to SA’s incursion on their funds has been received with heavy criticism. The claims presented in the “Call to Action,” which ran through February, have been labeled as unfounded by Martin. “It’s pretty unprofessional and not the way that things should be done.” Martin admits to being personally troubled by the accusations that he has violated the first amendment rights of students. The public scuffle between the two organizations has even led to bickering over Martin’s one-time activity on a social-networking website. Listed in the “Call to Action” is an attack on Martin for having joined a “Facebook group dedicated to The Spectrum’s cause,” claiming that Martin believes the spending of student money to defend censorship is a joke. Amidst the struggle to gain the support of the greater undergraduate community, both sides have resorted to attacking the integrity of the opposing institution.

A letter from Grollitsch, published in the February 23 issue of Visions, described the community supporting SA’s request for greater oversight as being “fed up with The Spectrum’s rapidly declining quality and ethical standards.” The article encourages students to email both SA officials with any concerns they have.

Despite the newspaper’s accusations personally attacking Grollitsch and Martin, The Spectrum believes that they have in fact been more forgiving than some would have. “Our advisor has actually told us that sometimes the coverage has been too fair,” said Ryndak. According to Sciandra, “We haven’t gone as extreme as we could. We’ve asked both our advisor and people at The Buffalo News who had a similar situation with the Buffalo Police in covering an issue about themselves, and we’ve been assured that we are not in violation of any journalism ethics.” The editor in chief asserts that the problem is indeed a first amendment issue.

Although both parties have since met to come to agreeable terms, little ground has been gained. Proposals from The Spectrum to have the subscription fee sent directly to their printing services in order to bypass any supposed inappropriate spending were refused. Robert Pape, SA communications director and former Spectrum editor in chief, acted as a third party in hopes of facilitating mediations. Ideas were suggested which reviewed printing costs and even suggested a tie-breaker clause in the event that a piece of legislation was tabled. Pape suggested providing more oversight to the treasurer in their bylaws. If spending was thought to be inappropriate, the treasurer would be able to challenge fiscal decisions with the support of a third party arbitrator. Despite the presence of a neutral mediator, no agreement was reached. “Every time we’ve reached out and sat down with The Spectrum, it’s been followed with an angry opinion letter that’s been laced with false accusations and obviously opinion, because it’s been on the opinion page,” said Martin.

The 23-year-old fulcrum balancing the fiscal relationship between The Spectrum, and SA has not gone on without previous resistance. As the subscription fee was born out of necessity, it has been challenged when the newspaper was deemed fit to continue operations without it. In 1993, SA representatives believed The Spectrum was out of the crisis which brought about the subscription fee in the first place. When SA officials attempted to avoid signing the contract, The Spectrum appealed to the Student Wide Judiciary Commitee (SWJC) which subsequently ruled in favor of the newspaper.

The most recent advance by SA to refute the need for a fee came in 2004 when figureheads deemed that the newspaper could not only survive by its own means, but that the subscription itself was inherently unprincipled. An inquiry into the ordeal by SA Senator Dan Smith cites autonomy between various metropolitan areas and their respective periodicals, such as New York City and The New York Times, as an example of the unethical nature that arises when reporter beds with reportee. “A newspaper that is to be a check on a government should be independent of relationships with that government. Whichever way you define the monetary relationship between SA and The Spectrum, it is not a relationship that should exist purely based on ethics.” According Sciandra, the meeting held to vote on the matter was absent of any representation from the periodical. “No one bothered to ask The Spectrum before they voted to take the subscription fee away whether we were turning it down.” The SA legislature successfully voted to remove the 2004-2005 subscription fee of $34,400.

The actions of the legislature were swiftly followed by a grievance filed to The SWJC on The Spectrum’s behalf. Citing the pre-established referendum that polled students regarding their approval of the fee allocation “until the next fee referendum when it will be voted on again,” The Spectrum claimed that the actions of the legislature were illegal. A ballot held on November 13, 14, and 15, 2000 contained such a fee allocation clause. Since no referendum was voted on following that date, The Spectrum challenged the nature of SA’s removal of the fee. In response, SA questioned the validity of the 2000 referendum itself.

In an article highlighting reasons for withdrawal of The Spectrum subscription fee, Senate Chairperson Lorenzo Guzman asserts that the appearance of the clause on the ballot doesn’t equate it with being a referendum. “Because there is no record of the Assembly or Senate action to place the question on the poll, nor is there any petition from ten percent of the membership of the Student Association, the question could not and should not be considered a referendum.” According to the Senate the question was a non-binding opinion poll having legally taken place under the rights of SA.

Further inquiry into the matter conducted by the SWJC concluded that the Senate did not intend the November 2000 referendum to be an opinion poll. The “opinion” poll contained the same wording and presentation as a 1996 question which was a binding referendum. The SWJC further asserts that by also sharing the same title, “Mandatory Fee Referendum,” the 2000 question was in fact a binding referendum. As such, the actions of the Senate to remove The Spectrum subscription fee were deemed invalid.

As editorial and governmental administrations begin preparations for the completion of their annual terms, the future of the subscription fee will once again hang in the balance of newly appointed officials. Having already spoken with newly elected SA President-elect Hassan Farah and cabinet members, editor in chief-elect Stephen Marth hopes to bring an amicable solution to the ongoing dilemma. “I just want to make sure that everything is on the table and that we can come up with some resolution that will work out both best for SA and best for Spectrum. We’re going to find that middle ground. I don’t want something that will make The Spectrum get 100 percent of the benefits, and I don’t want SA to get 100 percent. I want it to be as equal as possible just so we can go forward with a good relationship with SA in the future.” The barrier of fixed positions that Marth and fellow editors have faced in talks with Grollitsch and Martin has locked the issue for the remainder of the academic year. Farah declined to offer commentary until May 1.

Unless SA representatives choose to reformat the referendum and strike the stipulation of an extra seat on the board of directors, a quick fix is unlikely. Current and future Spectrum administrators have firmly stated that the by-laws of the newspaper’s charter will not allow for SA’s demands. According to Martin, “The ending to this story is going to not involve me, Peter, or Stephanie. It really isn’t…Hopefully the next group of leaders from SA and the next group of leaders from The Spectrum can come to an agreeable situation.”