SA Senate Faces Questions of Election Fairness and Appropriations Bill Debate

By Lucienne Burns | November 10, 2025

Vice Chair Jonah Martinez chairing during last week’s meeting (11/5).  

           Photo Credit: Lucienne Burns | The ASP

The Student Association (SA) Senate met last Wednesday (11/5) for their weekly meeting, remaining in session until midnight following debate over an appropriations bill. In addition, another past issue presented itself within the Senate: potential bias and lack of transparency during the election process. 

Prior to these events, as seen in the last few meetings, club budgets were debated and passed now that the Appropriations Committee is fully up and running for the academic year. 

The New York Water Environment Association (NYWEA) along with the Forensic Science Club were approved for New and Unfunded Budget lines following Senate votes. 

The Chinese Student Association requested a supplemental budget of $3,000, in order to prepare for their main events held over the semester like the Lunar Banquet and China Night, a cultural event hosting over 300 attendees including other UAlbany clubs and performances, food, and cultural appreciation, typically hosted at the Egg at Empire State Plaza. The bill granting the club supplemental funding was passed 26-3-9. 

Chair of the Appropriations Committee Nazar Yevko clarified how much funding remains in each line following the bills that have been passed so far. 

“So, for New and Unfunded we have $8,0001.66 remaining out of $10,000,” Yevko said. “For the supplemental, we have 47,890.80 remaining out of $50,000.”

During the public comment section, a student spoke out about issues regarding transparency and bias during his experience as an associate justice candidate.

“My reason for speaking today is to express concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the nomination process,” said UAlbany sophomore Brandon Bermingham. 

Bermingham explained that during his interview with SA Vice President Allison Mitchell, he was informed that he would receive a decision within a week. Two weeks later, Bermingham received notice that he had been accepted, but then shortly after, this was rescinded. 

“I received another message stating that my acceptance had been rescinded due to complications,” he said. “I was then asked to re-interview, this time with the Student Association President.” 

Following the second interview, Bermingham instead received a rejection, incorrectly addressed to a “Bianca” instead of his name. 

During the prior week’s meeting (10/29) where two students were sworn in to the Associate Justice positions, President Trevor Pettit and Vice President Mitchell appeared to express different opinions over one of the nominees. 

“While I do love and respect our Chief Justice and President, I do have to disagree,” said Mitchell at last week’s meeting (10/29), in response to President Trevor Pettit’s reasons for choosing that candidate. 

Bermingham believes that there is a correlation between this executive disagreement and his initial acceptance and then a final rejection. 

“I became aware that the President and Vice President were experiencing internal conflict, which appeared to have coincided with the timing of my rescinded offer,” Bermingham said. “I believe that the candidate who was selected instead is known to be close friends with the President… I believe that this friendship may have influenced the outcome of the candidacy.” 

Last week during the debate, Senators voiced concerns regarding one of the nominees and their lack of experience pertaining to law. 

Bermingham listed that as a student on the pre-law track, he is involved with four pre-law organizations on campus and currently has an internship at the District Attorney's office; the candidate that the executive board was conflicted over, who has now been sworn into the court, did not have experience specific to law, but said that his experience as a camp counselor was proof of his strong conflict resolution skills. 

This is not the first time this year that similar concerns have been presented by a member of the public who ran for a position where there are executive-appointed nominees. 

Earlier this year, junior Zainab Gondal encountered a rejection from a position on the Board of Finance, with the reasoning being that her application had been written using AI, although Gondal insisted this was not the case. Gondal spoke about this during public comment at an earlier meeting this year. 

“I believe this matter is essential for the wider student body to be aware of, as it raises serious questions about fairness, transparency, and accountability within SA,” Gondal wrote in an email to the ASP on Sept. 16. 

Following the election conflict, an appropriations bill was debated, the bill stated that a roll call vote must be held to pass any legislation allocating funding, meaning that a vote by unanimous consent would not suffice for these types of bills. 

“Passing appropriations is a huge part of what we do,” said the sponsor of the bill, Senator Grace Augenstern. “It’s important that we do it properly, and ethically, and legally.”

Senators expressed concerns regarding the bill, questioning its necessity and the extra time that a roll call vote would embody. 

“It almost feels to me like [a roll call vote] is just going to slow us down,” said Senator Abdul Kablaoui. “It is extending our meeting times in the long run, and I just feel like it is kind of unnecessary.” 

Augenstern stressed the legal importance of passing the bill.

“We give out a lot of money. We have almost a $3 million dollar budget,” Augenstern said. “We deal with a lot of money, and having this as a safeguard for, heaven forbid, we get in legal trouble, this protects us.” 

The bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote and consequently failed.