The first claim the author makes is that SAB (which I ran the day-to-day operations of) struggled to control spending. This is patently false, as the entire leadership of the organization knew full well that SAB would wind up spending over-budget. In fact, it was tacitly encouraged (and openly acknowledged) by its leading figures. Of course, the author made no attempt to contact the previous regime (including myself), instead sticking to an individual who was, for the most part, out of the loop when it came to the executive branch of the organization. I suppose when the journalist himself has the desire to paint a very specific picture, it is inconvenient to contact individuals who may supply contradictory evidence.

The author continues on to make a very specific claim, about the Upright Citizens Brigade. My response to this claim is, what are your sources? The author points to the figure of $10,000. Such a fact would be alarming if it were true. I advise the author to actually investigate before he reports. The author continues on to make claims about food t-shirts. On food, I simply say, when planning events that have attendance in the thousands, it is better to over-estimate than under-estimate. And since the food was non-perishable, it was used after the event (which thereby led to savings since it was bought in bulk) On the t-shirts point, my response is that they were bought exactly for the purpose of giving away at a convenient time, and whats a more convenient time then when thousands of people are waiting in line?

The author continues to get numbers wrong about how much things cost, (and shockingly they are overestimated). The article makes the accusation that “SAB began pushing checks through the USG accounting office, circumnavigating around the built-in checks meant to catch reckless spending by USG clubs and agencies.” What an absurd statement. How is it the case that an agency can “push checks through”  an independent fiscal agent?  Circumnavigating built-in checks? Even if this were true, which it is not, it would be a serious accusation about legitimacy of the independent fiscal agent. And what proof does the author provide for this claim? You guessed it, absolutely none.

Harking back to an early point I made, the author interviewed the wrong individuals. In a quote by the current Treasurer, not the Treasurer at the time (who doesn’t quite seem to know how the organization works), Mr. Kirnbauer states that normally expenditures would require Senate approval. This again is completely wrong, only appropriations require Senate approval.

To sum up, the author did very little work to investigate his claims or statements. To make matters worse, he did even less work in terms of attempting to understand what exactly happened, as that would have actually required a bit of real journalism. The fact of the matter is, I was hired on the first day of classes to plan a years worth of events and given a very specific charge (which I happen to agree with) to plan large events for the student body. I made it very clear to everyone who asked that the agency would require more money. It is therefore not a coincidence that very little money was spent in the ’10 Fall Revisions, and that SAB wound up in the red. The indications and warnings were there for everyone who cared, and they were either purposely overlooked or inadvertently overlooked.