Student Union budget finally approved, services resume

After a long disagreement between the Student Union (SU) and the Stu­dent Senate on the SU budget, an agreement was finally reached last week.

The Senate refused to approve the SU budget because it was submitted about a month late.

The SU also submitted a budget proposal for the whole academic year when it should have focused on the current semester only.

According to the Constitution of the Student Body of AUC, the SU should submit its budget proposal “in the third Senate meeting of each semester” which took place this se­mester on September 19.

However, the SU submitted its pro­posal on October 14, following a two-week strike and campus closure.

The Constitution states that, “The Senate shall hold regular weekly meetings in accordance with the Stu­dent Senate By-Laws.”

And this is where the disagreement arises: Some consider the first two meetings – the first Senate meeting was held on September 10 and the second September 12 – as one since they were held during the same week.

The fourth Senate meeting took place on October 4. When the SU submitted its proposal in mid-Oc­tober it was initially rejected by the Senate.

The budget was voted on three times by the Senate, as there has to be a two-thirds majority endorsing the suggested budget before it was officially approved on November 5.

Taher El Moataz Bellah, SU presi­dent, admitted it was the SU’s fault initially as it sent the budget proposal late.

“We are fully responsible for what happened,” he said.

“The reason why we were not able to operate normally was because our focus was on the strike when the se­mester started,” Mahmoud Abou El Fetouh, SU Chair of Services, said.

However, with only about a month left till the end of this semester, the lack of liquidity in the funds has halt­ed many of the SU’s usual activities and services.

El Moataz Bellah said the SU will ensure its services will resume as soon as possible.

But Amr Mostafa, the Senate Speaker, referred to the structure of the budget proposed as one of the main reasons behind the late approv­al.

“At first, the budget was submitted for the whole year even though the constitution states that it’s per se­mester,” he said.

“That’s a major thing to submit a budget for over a million pounds, when you don’t have this money [while you have the money for] a budget of half this amount,” he said.

He added that it was not logical and “cannot be tolerated when you talk about budgeting and financial matters, especially when the Senate has to approve.”

However, El Moataz Bellah justi­fied submitting an SU budget of over a million pounds the first time say­ing he was presenting the budget as a whole.

“Right now we are working on proj­ects which will be implemented next semester. Therefore I must withdraw [funds] from now,” he added.

Further complications had also arisen between October 14 and No­vember 5 while negotiations were taking place on the budget proposal; the SU was given permission to with­draw funds twice to resume critical activities.

The SU said that it had always sought the advice of the Student Court on the issue.

“The Student Court was updat­ed on this issue from the start,” El Moataz Bellah said.

“So the Court said that the Senate must re-vote on the approval of the budget and state their reasons. Until then, we can withdraw money with the approval of the monitoring com­mittee.”

Ibrahim El Sayed, chair of the monitoring committee in the Sen­ate, explained that he was given this exception by the Student Court be­cause it falls under his committee’s powers.

“It’s my job,” he said, “We monitor and review the finances, plans, activ­ities and performance of the SU.”

El Sayed said that the Monitoring Committee voted on allowing the SU to withdraw a certain sum of money for a booth, and two of its commit­tees.

This happened the first time when the Senate voted on October 15-16. After the vote, the money was with­drawn by the SU with the Monitoring Committee’s approval on behalf of the Student Senate.

However, on the second instance, the SU treasurer sent the chair of the Monitoring Committee an e-mail requesting the withdrawal of about EGP 30,000 on October 22.

A few days later, the SU was given permission to withdraw this amount of money.

“This one was with the Monitor­ing Committee chair’s direct approv­al, without a vote being conduct­ed in the Student Senate,” Mariam Mohsen, the senate secretary, said.

Mostafa also said that he was not consulted on this decision.

“I did not receive any official com­munication from anyone on this,” he said.

He added that he was called to the OSD where he met with SU repre­sentatives and was informed of the decision.

This created internal conflict be­tween the SU and the Senate, which prolonged discussions until the Sen­ate finally approved the SU budget fully on November 5 and the SU re­sumed its operations.