On Wednesday February 28, members of the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) came before the Student Association (SA) Assembly with a request. . After petitioning 700 students, NYPIRG representatives composed a proposal that asked the Student Association Assembly to include the following question as a referendum in the upcoming Student Association (elections: CARLOS: INSERT THEIR QUESTION HERE, PLEASE!

If the assembly voted in favor of the proposal, the question would need to be placed on the ballots exactly as it appeared before the assembly. To the uninformed voter, the proposed question makes it seem like $3 a semester is not such a large price to pay for adding a great organization like NYPIRG to the campus. However, when assembly member

Chris Angier and NYPIRG representative Michelle Stern brought that particular question before the assembly, they were unable to defend NYPIRG's grand promise to serve UB students.

Many people came into the assembly meetingwith an unclear idea of what NYPIRG was, and not many left with a clearer picture. NYPIRG is not just a college-based organization; although there are 19 chapters on college campuses statewide. They are a non-partisan lobbying group, founded by Ralph Nader, whose listed issues include: higher education, environmental protection, campaign to end sweatshops, voter registration, homeless and hunger prevention and consumer protection. Stern did not seem very familiar with any of the actual issues with which NYPIRG deals. Her justifications for NYPIRG's presence on campus varied between vague and weak; never actually highlighting one concrete example of how NYPIRG would affect UB.

One of the the primary issues in the minds of the assembly members was the raising

of the student fee by $3 per semester. As one assembly member pointed out, despite the fact that the question would be asking to raise funds for NYPIRG, it is still being asked of the students by SA, amd will still result in an increase of the mandatory student activity fee. This would put SA in the uncomfortable position of renegging on last semester's promise not to raise the fee for another four years. Many assembly members were hesitant to put that question before the student body before NYPIRG's proponents could justify the need for their organization at UB.

According to Stern, the $90,000 collected by NYPIRG at UB would all be spent entirely on UB. Two full-time, professional NYPIRG staffers would reside at the campus, each bringing in a yearly salary of $20,000. The primary functions of these people would be to educate students about organizing and leading groups. The other funds collected would be used to fund a, "statewide network of professionals" dedicated to the furtherment of NYPIRG's agenda. According to Stern, tthis would work as an advantage for UB students becayuse they would be able to access resources statewide that would not have been accessible to them before.

Many assembly members took issue with this, including SA Communications Director Josh Korman, who seemed livid about the fact that that much money would be taken away from UB without the students having any tangible control over how or where it is spent, thus allowing NYPIRG to fund its pet projects at the home offices in Albany on UB's dime. In fact, 68% of NYPIRG's total budget in 1999 came from college campuses, yet Stern had no idea how much of its funding was spent on higher education issues. According to their 1999 budget rundown, NYPIRG made $1,175,587 out of its total $1,512,809 from student fees. After paying $1,494,470 worth of salaries and covering the budget deficiencies from the previous year, NYPIRG again ended up $285,551 in the red.

Other than indicating that NYPIRG concentrates on three main issues-higher education, consumer rights and environmental protection-Stern offered no concrete knowledge of specific policies or goals of NYPIRG. In the realm of higher education, Stern said that NYPIRG has much greater lobbying clout than the New York State Student Assembly (NYSSA) due to the fact that NYPIRG expands beyond SUNY. The few other examples she could provide, such as internship opportunities and legal advice, were all services that are already offered at UB. Other than that, according to Stern, NYPIRG could be whatever UB students made it. If a chapter was established here, UB would have been given 2 seats on a 45 person board. This board then decides what NYPIRG's statewide agenda will be. Two seats is far from a majority, however, and many assembly members were unsatisfied that UB students would have any actual control concerning NYPIRG's agenda .

Stern stated that if UB students' agenda was in line with NYPIRG's, then they would have the full support of NYPIRG's statewide resources. UB students would be giving NYPIRG money becvause they would then have a statewide support network. But that's only if the students agree with NYPIRG's agenda. Feasibly, NYPIRG could have $90,000 of UB student's money and not be serving them one damned bit.

Another issue that concerned the assembly was a statement issued by the SA Executive Board, urging the assembly to, "reject NYPIRG's request to hold a referendum to increase the student mandatory activity fee," citing the fact that NYPIRG not only has a poor reputation on other campuses statewide, but also because NYPIRG was removed from the UB campus in 1982 because of budgetary concerns. The letter read: "We could not get a single recommendation from the student government officers that we spoke to about bringing NYPIRG onto our campus." This statement underscored the feeling that NYPIRG simply would not be coming to UB to serve the best interest of the students here.

Stern responded to this by stating that NYPIRG did not just pick UB at random and invite itself here, instead NYPIRG was invited there by a group of interested students. This group of interested students started with one UB student who was involved with NYPIRG over the summer and drummed up the interest of ten other students. These ten then actively campaigned to gain the 700 signatures necessary to place the proposal before the SA Assembly. Assembly members felt that with the question worded like it was, anyone will jot down a signature. They believed that the question was leading and could not be put to the student body as it stood. The resolution was defeated by a vote of 22 to 8, with two voters abstaining.

According to Angier, NYPIRG will not continue its attempt to establish a chapter on the campus. "We'd be going against the student government. That's not what we're about."