After much debate within the Student Government Association (SGA), the SGA Finance Board, which oversees the Student Activity Fund that all undergrads pay into, ruled in March to remove the stipends from SGA’s 2012-2013 operating budget. As The News reported this week, SGA officials appealed the board’s ruling and Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Laura Wankel reinstated stipends for SGA executive board members.

The Finance Board is a democratic institution, administered by the democratic rules of the SGA, and should be respected as such. The rules of the Finance Board state an appeal can only be made if a decision is arbitrary, if the Finance Board didn’t follow procedure or if too strict a punishment was handed down. Barring a serious practical or factual error, the administration should respect the rules and decisions of the Finance Board.

In her decision letter, Wankel raised some legitimate concerns regarding the Finance Board’s decision, but none of them justify her undermining its sovereignty. Of the six objections Wankel raised to justify her action, three of them – that only two of 12 board members voted, that the Senate already passed the budget and that the rules allowing for the Finance Board to review the budget are new and “highly unusual” – are in direct opposition to the rules that govern the SGA and Finance Board. One objection – that there was no “adequate review” of the issue – is a matter of her opinion. Another – that SGA members may refuse the stipend – is not an objection so much as it is a proposed solution.

The News tried unsuccessfully since June 21 to arrange an interview with Wankel through the university’s communications office. Director of Communications Renata Nyul said Wankel was “extremely booked.”

Wankel’s only concern that highlights an actual oversight by the Finance Board is that some SGA executive board members may have run on the promise of a stipend. While this concern is legitimate, it does not amount to a factual or practical error on the part of the Finance Board, at best it’s bad judgment. It certainly isn’t an arbitrary decision, procedure was followed (even if Wankel didn’t agree with said procedure) and there was no punishment to speak of. Sometimes democratic bodies make poor decisions. If this turns out to be a poor decision, Wankel should let the SGA and Finance Board members learn that lesson for themselves, it’ll only make them better leaders in the end.

While it’s true Northeastern is not a democracy, the Student Activity Fund (SAF) is one of the few things that has been run by the students for the students. The students that comprise Finance Board are selected by other peers to allocate the funds. This matter should have remained within the undergrad population.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of dollars each undergraduate pays to Northeastern, the SAF is the only money reserved for the students to decide how to spend. The administration should respect the democratic process and let the Finance Board do its job.