The first part of the motion states that it shall “be the policy of the Rensselaer Union not to fund or subsidize organizations that are political or religious in nature nor to fund or subsidize organizations that endorse a particular political or religious viewpoint.”

The next section of the bill attempts to define what would be considered an endorsement of political or religious viewpoints, enumerating five descriptions of each.

The first item identified in the motion as endorsing a political viewpoint is, “The active support and endorsement of any particular legislation at any level of government.”

After exempting the Senate itself from the motion and the organizations covered by the Media Statement, the bill goes on to talk about the Executive Board’s role in classifying an organization as political or religious. The motion states that the matter shall be left to the E-Board as called for by the Union Constitution, but in following paragraphs allows for the Student Senate to overrule the E-Board on certain decisions relating to funding of political and religious organizations or activities.

One paragraph outlines a procedure in which a group that is political or religious can seek funding for an event that is nonpolitical and nonreligious or, inversely, a group that is nonpolitical and nonreligious can seek funding for a political or religious activity. It gives the E-Board the authority to grant “preliminary approval for a subsidy of a specific activity based on its regular budgeting guidelines, with the Student Senate giving the final approval of whether or not the political or religious nature of the activity or organization overshadows the benefit that the student body would receive from the activity.”

The motion’s last paragraph says that in the case where any “activity fee paying member of the Union” is dissatisfied with a ruling of the E-Board as to the political or religious nature of an activity, that person can “file an official request for the activity to be re-evaluated by the Executive Board.” The motion continues by saying that if the member is still dissatisfied that “a vote by a majority of the total voting membership of the Senate may overturn the Executive Board’s classification of the activity.”

President of the Union Peter Baldwin, whose duty it is to lead the E-Board, said that the motion “may cause more problems than it will fix.” He pointed out that under the bill, “The Senate has the potential to become the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches with respect to political and religious organizations.”

Last week, the E-Board was asked to decide if the UPAC Cinema showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 was political and hence unable to be subsidized by the Union. Baldwin stated that in his opinion, “Under the current budgeting policy … it was dealt with in the manner outlined in the [Union] Constitution,” and that this was his main objection to the motion.

The vice chair of the E-Board, Hansel Baez, also had objections to the motion. “Senate is setting itself up to argue with the Union E-Board on financial topics instead of focusing on the important issues at hand.”

Grand Marshal Mike Dillon said that he believes the motion “presses right up against the boundary,” of the Senate’s powers saying that it was, “as far as we can go.” He explained the clauses about final authority being given to the Senate in certain cases by saying, “Since we are setting the policy, we feel we should be the only body able to circumvent it.”