Treasurer Holmes,
I very much appreciate your responses to my concerns.  The points you made are very well taken.  I, however, still differ from you on several points.  Rather than list them here I will only say that by having the expectation that you will consult the senate body on financial decisions, especially ones as major as this, somehow makes you job obsolete is an argument I can not agree defends your decision not to ask senate.  Let me not confuse my arguments here, you are the supervisor of the funds and supervise the day to day operations of the finance office, but to say that your job is useless if you are required to consult senate before making decisions just will never hold water in my glass.   Note, that I may not understand the point your making, but from what I understand of you argument, it doesn't persuade me.  
        I will, not for arguments sake but for clarity point out some things that appear contradictory to me in your response.   On the one hand you make the argument that financial decisions are yours, and that consultation of Senate would make your job null, then you say that Blanka is allowed to make decisions about non-traditional spending without your oversight, then you say Binh as SGA president is allowed to create a policy about raises in stipends.  It seems that Binh and Blanka roles here, by your logic, could also render your job incomplete.  	
        Your points about the budgeting of the money are well taken.  I do agree that if we find the money somewhere that it can be spent on items that were not budgeted for.  But I do believe that the organization should have that decision as to how the extra money is spent.  If VIA's directors were frugal with the pets helping people budget, would you allow them to increase their own stipends, without consulting event there club members.  I have doubts as to whether you would.  
        Most importantly, will I believe your intrepretation and knowledge of the consitution are fair, let me offer my opinion.  The US constitution states that any right not given by the document is the reserved right of the states.  I will call that the reserved right case.  Our constitution does not, however, have a reserved rights clause which states that any policies that are not listed are at the discretion of the President, or Treasurer to create and administrate as they see fit.  I truly hope that when a situation arises that the SGA has not faced that you seek to create a systematic way of dealing with the situation, rather than create an off the books policy that will die when you leave.  Whether you are required to or not, I am frightened (and knowing you, very shocked) to think that when some as apparently improprietous as this comes to your desk, that you deem the senate (the student's representatives) an unworthy body to consult.  And instead consider it yours or Binhs perogative to determine how it will be dealt with and never publish your decision or the process leading to it.  This is jumbled, but I hope you see what I am trying to say.
        Finally, the financial office is yours to supervise.  In my expectation, an effective supervisor consults the appropriate sources, yields authority when necessary, and is ultimately reponsible for the office.  Therefore, both Blanka's unapproved spending and Binh's question of raising of the stipend should have been stopped by you, the person responsible for the protection of the student's money.  The responsibility is yours, and a key portion of that responsibility is to consult the people who's money it is( in this case the representatives of those people), when it comes time to exercise that responsibility.  
Thank you for your time,
LMIII