While the recent staff editorial and Kimberly Sanfeliz’s article may lead readers to believe that the SGA chose snacks over the memory of Victoria Snelgrove, it could not be further from the truth.

As an SGA member, I feel it is my duty to clarify how the SGA operates.,Dear Editor,

While the recent staff editorial and Kimberly Sanfeliz’s article may lead readers to believe that the SGA chose snacks over the memory of Victoria Snelgrove, it could not be further from the truth.

As an SGA member, I feel it is my duty to clarify how the SGA operates. When an organization or student seeks additional funding, they must speak with the SGA president and treasurer, submit an appeal proposal, and explain how the funding will be used.

When the donation of $150 to the Snelgrove scholarship fund was presented, it did not follow that procedure. In fact, the journalism senator, who is new to SGA, suggested an arbitrary amount to give to this fund. Thus, we did not so much vote against the donation, but asked him to further investigate the details.

Also, the “snack priority” insinuated in your recent issue was grossly misinformed. The SGA operates two separate accounts: the pool account which sponsors student activities, and the operations account which is SGA’s personal money for the organization. And because it is our personal account, The Berkeley Beacon has no right to criticize our spending just as we have no right to comment on The Beacon’s expenses.

In closing, “our own student leaders” followed proper procedure. If we didn’t take our responsibilities seriously, organizations like The Beacon, could lose funding. I wish that your staff would take this same mindset.

-Michael Lucey

President, Class of 2007