Your points are well taken. I too have reservations about considering them all together. However, I am prepared to argue that the action of raising the stipend is not only unprofessional but a violation of the spirit of the stipend clause of the financial policies and an abuse of discretion of behalf of the treasurer. While financial policies makes no mention of raises in the stipend, the legislation which allows the stipends did set an amount, and that amount was inappropriately adjusted by 66% for VP and Treasurer and by 33% for the President. Also, it is reasonable to expect treasurer Holmes to request the permission of the Senate because the amount now being spent is not budgeted for. The treasurer frequently makes that argument that a club may not spend a penny unless it is budgeted for. Therefore, the treasurer is either guilty of unapproved spending and/or abuse of his discretion if he is drawing the funds from another account, take retained earning for example, is clearly not for the living stipend.
Further, as we discussed, the argument Andrew made in his memo about Pat Brown giving raises. The stipend is not a salary, this is a stipend to allow the execs to be able to afford to work in the office. Merely by his use of the Pat Brown analogy, the treasurer demonstrates his lack of understanding of both the spirit and definition of the stipend. Also, he stated that he thought the SGA should not but Binh told him not to. It is reasonable to assume that his instinct to tell us was because he actually believed it was a matter for the Senate, however, he refrained from telling, if I understand him correctly, against his will because Binh asked him to. While Binh was wrong for doing so, it was Andrews duty to talk to Senate.
I agree that the Presidents things are worse. But I want the inward battle to end this semester and therefore tomorrow night. As most of the accusations are coming from the treasurer I would not be comfortable allowing his indiscretions go by while censuring Binh. Make no mistake about, I not only have these substantive complaints against the raise, I also feel it was underhanded and despicable to give themselves huge raises while telling everybody that the Senate and the Exec's had done a poor job so far.
In hopes of ending this battle before break, (for obvious reasons), I intend to move forward with the censure of all three. If you think dividing them to be voted seperately would help with the problem you have, let me know and I will try to accommodate that. Thanks for the input.