KnightNews.com has spent several months conducting an investigation into SGA President Michael Kilbride and how the SGA, where he has served as both President and Chief of Operations, chooses which companies should get large T-shirt and other marketing contracts.


READ ORIGINAL STORY WE BROKE ON KILBRIDE’S SWEETHEART SHIRT DEAL HERE.


The process for gathering the information was not easy. Because UCF had cut off electronic access to Kilbride’s Knightmare financial database, we had to place a public records request for several months worth of SGA T-Shirt orders. We were initially told it would cost us $80.19 to get the information, but eventually the price was lowered after we asked for an invoice showing why it cost so much. After we went through such a hard time getting the information, we decided to publish much of it and highlight a timeline of the process, so UCF students could see it publicly.


We requested all the T-shirt orders from SGA for 2010, along with any evidence of quotes/bids from competing companies.
– Click here to read through all the orders and few instances of written bids/quotes we got back, spanning January 1, 2010 – November, 2010.
– Click here to see a December 2010, nearly $8,000 order for C-USA Championship T-Shirts SGA bought — without getting additional bids/quotes.


After getting the stack of records in late 2010, we counted 27 of 28 T-Shirt orders for that calendar year went to a company called Image Depot, and bids were solicited only a handful of times. Image Depot is the company that Kilbride now admits printed his campaign T-Shirts. Kilbride has produced invoices (#1 & #2) from the company showing the shirts cost $2 each, but has not produced any bank statements, cleared checks or credit card receipts showing that he actually ending up paying that invoiced amount. At no time could we find Image Depot offering SGA a shirt as cheap as $2, as the company did for Kilbride when it was his own money being spent on shirts — instead of the students’ money buying shirts.

Advertisement

After getting that initial stack of documents, KnightNews.com got a tip Kilbride’s SGA initiated a nearly $8,000 purchase for Conference USA Championship T-Shirts — without getting any bids/quotes.

The T-Shirt purchase orders and records KnightNews.com obtained and put a link to for almost all of the 2010 calendar year above does not include purchases made during 2011. Kilbride was Chief of Operations for the early part of 2010, and SGA President for all of 2011.


Below, you can find information we pulled electronically from Kilbride’s Knightmare — after coming to the verge of suing Kilbride in order to force its release in electronic format — which shows all the orders to Image Depot this Fiscal year (July 2010 to within just a few weeks ago in 2011). This will show orders from Image Depot, even if it they are not T-Shirts (such as the SGA Vuvuzelas).

11/5/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $1,016.40 Stadium Horn (Vuvuzela) with SGA logo

9/4/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $1,870.00 Freshmen Frennzy white t-shirts

12/6/2010 Mipark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $510.00 120 Cram 4 the Exam Finals Edition Shirts

10/11/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $3,913.00 700 SGA Days T-Shirts

10/25/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $1,050.00 300 T-shirts-Distracted Driving awareness week

12/8/2010 Mipark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $221.00 13 Street Team Shirts

1/28/2011 Mipark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $3,390.00 Magnets, Keychains, Black Shirts

2/11/2011 Mipark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $1,700.00 500 KnightLynx T-shirts

7/13/2010 Mipark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $1,056.00 32 SGA Polo-Shirts

11/4/2010 Mipark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $168.00 14 Judicial Polo embroidery

11/17/2010 Mipark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $40.00 Polo Embroidered w. SGA logo

6/11/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $757.50 150 SGA Staff/Students T-Shirts

6/11/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $3,188.00 Embroidery on 298 Polos

6/11/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $6,565.00 1300 SGA Orientation Shirts w Discharge printing

6/11/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $9,090.00 1800 SGA Fall Shirts w. Discharge printing

10/11/2010 Mipark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $683.00 400 Water Bottles w. SGA resources imprinted

10/25/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $535.00 500 Sunglasses & setup

11/30/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $7,998.52 Conference USA Game T-shirts

2/2/2011 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $6,467.50 Bags, Coffee Mug, MP3 Devise Holder, NoteBook,Sung

2/28/2011 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $620.00 Inv/Est#204

10/1/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $330.40 70 Gradtober Fest T-shirts

11/3/2010 MiPark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $449.00 100 White T-shirt front only, 3 color imprint

12/4/2010 Mipark Marketing Services Inc-Image Depot $956.25 Tshirts-Cram 4 the Exam Finals

GRAND TOTAL OF STUDENT DOLLARS FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR TO IMAGE DEPOT: $52,574.57

(Also, feel free to download Kilbride’s Knightmare database
in its entirety for this fiscal year in excel format, sorted by vendors. You’ll notice the company that was cheaper than Image Depot — Cubco — was only used once. Other than that, we couldn’t find any other shirt orders Kilbride got anywhere other than Image Depot, except for some fancy shirts SGA bought from UCF Athletics. One UCF Athletics shirt order alone, on line 289, cost $6,261.50 for “Polos for SGA officials during University events”)


Below you will find our public records request and some emails back and forth with Kilbride’s SGA showing just some of what we’ve gone through and some of the tremendous amount of time and work we’ve spent to gather all of this information, investigate whether all the rules were followed and put it into the public light for you to analyze and draw your own conclusions from:

From: KnightNews.com
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Subject: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: Grant Heston
Cc: jsciarri@mail.ucf.edu

Dear Grant,

Pursuant to Chapter 119 of Florida Statutes, I would like to make a formal public records request for the following:

1. Any purchase request forms submitted by SGA related to ordering t-shirts to promote UCF football around the time of the C-USA Championship Game.

2. Any and all records associated with this order, including, but not limited to, bids from competing companies, notes, emails, etc., SGA has sent or received discussing the order.

Sincerely,

Kevin Wolkenfeld
Editor-in-Chief
KnightNews.com

A week-and-a-half after making the request, UCF Vice President of News and Information Grant Heston responded to our public records request by providing the purchase request form — but without any evidence of competing bids or quotes.  KnightNews.com sent this email to follow up:

From: KnightNews.com <news@knightnews.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:58 AM
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@mail.ucf.edu>, SGA President <sga_pres@mail.ucf.edu>, jsciarri@mail.ucf.edu
Cc: Grant Heston <gheston@mail.ucf.edu>, Christa Coffey <ccoffey@mail.ucf.edu>’
Good morning:
We have received a response to our public records request, however, we have some follow up questions.
Why were there no bids from competing companies included with this order?
How much more were the shirts which were custom made for members of SGA, with their names on the back?

Kilbride’s Public Relations Specialist Kayla Torpey responded on Kilbride’s behalf.

From: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@mail.ucf.edu>
Date: Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: “KnightNews.com” <news@knightnews.com>

Kevin,

Once it was confirmed UCF was hosting the Conference USA Championship game, Student Government Association was excited to be able to create a custom t-shirt for students.

Image Depot is a consistent low cost vendor of t-shirts for the Orlando community. With limited time for production, Image Depot was able to produce over 2,000 shirts with a quick turn around to meet our deadline.

In addition, all university purchasing requirements were followed in regards to this purchase.

In regards to the customization of t-shirts for members of the Executive Cabinet, the customization was personally paid for by President Kilbride. No student dollars were used to pay for the individual customization.

Sincerely,

Kayla Torpey

Public Relations Specialist

Student Government Association

University of Central Florida

sga_pr@mail.ucf.edu

Based on the public records requests in the past, and SGA policies KnightNews.com had reviewed, we had more questions for Kayla Torpey.

From: KnightNews.com <news@knightnews.com>

Date: Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: Public Records Request – T-shirts

To: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@mail.ucf.edu>

Kayla,

Kevin is tied up with finals today, so I can help out with this at the moment.

Bill 42-71, the ASF Budget Bill which governs this year’s expenditures of ASF dollars, includes the following proviso language on line 68: “(q.) All SGA agencies much gather at least three (3) bids for all production expenses exceeding $5,000.”

The expenses associated with producing the champion ship shirt orders for SGA exceeded $5,000, yet three bids were not gathered. On another public records request, we noticed three bids were obtained in some cases where the shirt order cost exceeded $5,000. In light of that, please explain why you have stated, “all university purchasing requirements were followed in regards to this purchase.”

I have included a link to this bill for your convenience: http://www.asf.ucf.edu/financial/budgets/10-11/ASF10-11Budget.pdf

Sincerely,

Cliff Jett
News Director and Content Manager
KnightNews.com

Back in December, Kilbride’s SGA did not dispute that SGA agencies initiating a T-shirt order requiring production expenses exceeding $5,000; instead, Kilbride’s SGA disputed that it was an SGA agency.

From: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@mail.ucf.edu>
Date: Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: “KnightNews.com” <news@knightnews.com>

The proviso language you are referring to applied to SGA Agengies in regards to production expenses. Below is a link to Title 13: Student Government Association Agencies. There are 8 defined Agencies on the last page.

http://www.ucfsga.com/files/statutes/title-xiii_student-government-association-agencies.pdf

All university purchasing requirements were followed in regards to this purchase. I have attached the University Bid & Quote Limit document that outlines these limits.

Sincerely, Kayla

Kayla Torpey
Public Relations Specialist
Student Government Association
University of Central Florida
sga_pr@mail.ucf.edu

The University Bid & Quote Limit Torpey attached can be found here. The document sets the bare minimum guidelines UCF entities must follow regarding purchasing. The document states that for orders $10,000 and below: ” Additional quotes are not required.  Competition is encouraged. Quotes from minority businesses are encouraged.” SGA and the Activity and Service Fee Business Office maintain policies which are even stricter, possibly because students are making spending decisions with $15 million in public money.  We pressed Kayla Torpey on her position that SGA Exec didn’t have to follow the additional spending safeguards all the other SGA agencies had to follow.

From: KnightNews.com <news@knightnews.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@mail.ucf.edu>
Cc: SGA Attorney General <sga_ag@mail.ucf.edu>, SGA President <sga_pres@mail.ucf.edu>

Kayla,

Are you saying that the SGA Executive Branch is not considered to be among “All SGA agencies” required by the proviso language to “gather at least three (3) bids for all production expenses exceeding $5,000”?

If so, please let us know who is construing the statues and proviso language in this way. For example, is it your Attorney General, Mr. Kilbride or the General Counsel doing so? Further, can you please let us know if ever in the past this opinion has differed? In other words, has the SGA Executive Branch or SGA as a whole, ever been construed to be an SGA agency? Has anyone who shapes SGA policy or advises how SGA policy is shaped believed in the past that the branches of SGA itself are SGA agencies, subject to following similar safeguards put in place for other SGA agencies, such as CAB, Homecoming, Knightcast, MSC, which you have suggested are the agencies to which the proviso language refers.

Also, to clarify, what is the interpretation of the bid rule outlined in proviso language for Student Government Association Affiliated Agencies and Departments falling under 1307.1? (A. Activity and Service Fee Business Office; B. Office of Student Involvement (OSI); C. Recreation and Wellness Center; D. Student Legal Services; E. Student Union)

The proviso language does refer to “All SGA agencies,” and as you pointed out, they all are included under Title 13: Student Government Association Agencies. Is it SGA’s belief that these agencies are bound by the proviso language as well?

Finally, if it is your belief that SGA’s Executive Branch is not an SGA agency subject to the proviso language, could you please give us a statement explaining why SGA would impose spending safeguards on other agencies that it refuses to abide by itself?

Sincerely,

Cliff Jett
News Director and Content Manager
KnightNews.com

Torpey’s boss, UCF SGA Director of Communications Kristin “Shay” Harris responded on behalf of Kilbride’s SGA.

From: SGA Director of Communications <sga_comm@mail.ucf.edu>
Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: news@knightnews.com
Cc: Grant Heston <gheston@mail.ucf.edu>

Hi Cliff,

Kayla is gone for winter break so I’ll be handling all public relations inquiries for the next week.

Once again, we would like to reiterate our response.

Once it was confirmed UCF was hosting the Conference USA Championship game, Student Government Association was excited to be able to create a custom t-shirt for students.

Image Depot is a consistent low cost vendor of t-shirts for the Orlando community. With limited time for production, Image Depot was able to produce over 2,000 shirtswith a quick turn around to meet our deadline.

And again, all university purchasing requirements were followed in regards to this purchase.

In regards to the customization of t-shirts for members of the Executive Cabinet, the customization was personally paid for by President Kilbride. No student dollars were used to pay for the individual customization.

The proviso language you are referring to in the 2010-2011 Budget applies to SGA Agencies in regards to production expenses. Title 13: Student Government Association Agencies defines 8 Agencies on the last page.

Student Government continues to stand for fiscal responsibilities in all levels and areas of the Activity & Service Fee family.

Sincerely,

Kristin Harris
Director of Communications
Student Government Association

With Winter Break in full swing and multiple people out of the office, KnightNews.com decided to continue investigating the matter when more people in SGA would be available to discuss it. With elections back in swing it reminded us we never got to the bottom of this issue, so we followed up the  week before elections started, copying candidates so they’d have the chance to weigh in if they wanted.

From: KnightNews.com <news@knightnews.com>

Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Subject: Public Records Request – T-shirts

To: SGA Director of Communications <sga_comm@mail.ucf.edu>

Cc: “news@knightnews.com” <news@knightnews.com>, Grant Heston <gheston@mail.ucf.edu>, SGA Attorney General <sga_ag@mail.ucf.edu>, Christa Coffey <ccoffey@mail.ucf.edu>, SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@mail.ucf.edu>, “nicholas.s.gurney” <nicholas.s.gurney@gmail.com>, mattmmccann@gmail.com

Hello,

We got bogged down with other stories and are just now getting back to this issue we were dealing with you on over winter break. We want to follow up one final time to make sure your position has not changed and give you a final chance to explain yourself further.

Please advise whether you are declining to address the questions regarding whose interpretation it is that the 3 bid rule for $5,000+ purchases applies to SGA agencies but not SGA itself? We’ve talked to senators who share a different interpretation than the one suggested by your response.

We still have not heard back regarding whether the SGA AG, UCF General Counsel, or any SGA advisers or professional staff share your interpretation, and whether this interpretation is long standing, or new, such as was the case with campus media and election advertising in fall. It’s unclear to us whether any, or all of these individuals, were consulted before the response was sent.

We also plan to note in our story how SGA is referred to as an “agency” (not a department) in its own constitution and its exec branch fills out the same form (for agencies) to request ASF money as the entities to which you refer in Title 13; and how that title refers never to “SGA agencies” as stated in the proviso language, but instead to “SGA affiliated agencies”. Clearly, someone has exercised an interpretation as the language is not exact.

Because the proviso language refers to something that we cannot find explicitly existing in statutes, I hope you can understand why it is so critical we know who is making the interpretation upon which you appear to be relying to justify not getting 3 bids on that $8,000 or so purchase.

Feel free to update your response to address any of these issues. If you are going to decline to address these issues, please let us know so we can move forward without further delay.

Regards,

___
Cliff

Kayla Torpey issued a response:

From: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@ucf.edu>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: “KnightNews.com” <news@knightnews.com>

Cliff,

I am looking into your request further and will get back to you in a

timely manner.

Sincerely,

Kayla Torpey
Public Relations Coordinator
Student Government Association
University of Central Florida
sga_pr@ucf.edu

We still hadn’t heard back from Torpey on Sunday — the day before the elections would begin.  We gave one final attempt for comment before we intended to publish the story Sunday night.

From: KnightNews.com <news@knightnews.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Subject: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@ucf.edu>, SGA President <sga_pres@mail.ucf.edu>
Cc: Grant Heston <Grant.Heston@ucf.edu>, Chad Binette <Chad.Binette@ucf.edu>

Our deadline for further comment on this story is 6 p.m. today.

We also need to know what Mr. Kilbride’s response is to the perception of awarding about $50,000 in contracts to Image/Depot MiPark Marketing, when that was the business that donated shirts to his presidential campaign. (Editorial note added after this email was sent: We asked this question after getting very credible tips to that effect,  but Kilbride has denied Image Depot donated the shirts to him. Kilbride produced invoices showing the company sold him shirts at $2 a piece. This price is lower than any other price we can find Image Depot charging SGA since then.)

Sincerely,

___
Cliff Jett
News Director & Content Manager
KnightNews.com

We didn’t get a response until Monday, but due to major news breaking with armed robbers targeting students on campus, we held off until Monday. That’s when this response came in — which was much different than the excuse for not getting the bids we had seen earlier. In the response below, SGA changed its position, and instead of claiming SGA wasn’t an SGA agency, they asserted — for the first time — production expenses referred only to concerts, even though the proviso language doesn’t mention anything about concerts.

From: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@ucf.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: “KnightNews.com” <news@knightnews.com>

Cliff,

In reference to your request on the interpretation of the three (3) bid rule for $5,000+ purchases I would like to clarify the following:

First, the three (3) bid rule you are referring to was published in Bill 42-71 (The 2010-2011 Activity and Service Fee Budget Bill); line 68, Section (Q). This was passed before another bill; Bill 42-66 (Creation of the Board of Student Directors and the Agency and Department Strategic Planning Board) was passed. Bill 42-66 changed the definition of ³agencies,² thus making some language in Bill 42-71 outdated.

The intent behind the language, ³All SGA Agencies must gather at least three (3) bids for all production expenses exceeding $5,000² in Bill 42-71 (The 2010-2011 Activity and Service Fee Budget Bill); line 68, Section (Q) was to ensure that affiliated agencies and departments (using the language changed by Bill 42-66), such as CAB and Homecoming, were to obtain proper bids for production (i.e., staging and lighting) on large scale events, such as concerts and comedy shows in the UCF Arena. According to several members and advisors of the 2009-2010 A&SF Budget Committee, this was the intent when they added ³production² expenses to the proviso language that year (via Bill 41-84). The 2010-2011 Budget Committee retained that wording and intent in Bill 42-71.

In regards to this portion of your email:

“We also plan to note in our story how SGA is referred to as an “agency” (not a department) in its own constitution and its exec branch fills out the same form (for agencies) to request ASF money as the entities to which you refer in Title 13; and how that title refers never to “SGA agencies” as stated in the proviso language, but instead to “SGA affiliated agencies”. Clearly, someone has exercised an interpretation, as the language is not exact.”

Again, I believe you are looking at proviso language that contains outdated wording as a result of Bill 42-66. That is why proviso language uses the term ³SGA agencies² while Title 13 uses the terms ³SGA affiliated agencies² and ³SGA affiliated departments.²

You make an interesting point about whether the proviso language regarding production expenses applies to SGA. That hasn¹t come up as a possibility this year because SGA has not put on a large concert or comedy show that would require production of that magnitude. This inquiry has been duly noted and I will pass on the suggestion to the 2011-2012 A&SF Budget Committee Chair, for the committee to discuss the possibility of clarifying that language and whether that clause should apply to SGA should it desire to plan an event that would require production.

I would like to note that I will be out of the office until Thursday of this week. Have a great week.

Sincerely,

Kayla Torpey
Public Relations Coordinator
Student Government Association
University of Central Florida
sga_pr@ucf.edu

Surprised that Kayla Torpey didn’t seem to bother explaining why she changed her position from December, KnightNews.com responded to this new assertion.

From: KnightNews.com <news@knightnews.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@ucf.edu>, SGA President <sga_pres@mail.ucf.edu>, Grant Heston <Grant.Heston@ucf.edu>, Chad Binette <Chad.Binette@ucf.edu>
Cc: Scott Cole <scole@mail.ucf.edu>, Youndy Cook <ycook@mail.ucf.edu>, Christa Coffey <ccoffey@mail.ucf.edu>, jsciarri@mail.ucf.edu

Kayla,

It appears you are using an unusual definition of production. Who is interpreting the language requiring bids to refer to concert stage production instead of production in this sense as defined in businessdictionary.com and merrian webster’s online dictionary:
“The processes and methods employed to transform tangible inputs (raw materials, semifinished goods, or subassemblies) and intangible inputs (ideas, information,knowledge) into goods or services.”
2 a : the act or process of producing
b : the creation of utility; especially : the making of goods available for use

By the conventional definition of production, raw materials and semifinished goods, such as blank t-shirts or vuvuzelas needing the SGA logo printed on them before they are a finished good available for use, would qualify as a production expense, as called for in (Q).

Additionally, when you look up “production expense” in the Princeton dictionary, you’ll find the synonym “production cost” which also refers to producing “goods” (such as a t-shirt). Please find the definition below:
“production cost – combined costs of raw material and labor incurred in producing goods”

Thank you for responding to us on this. It is disappointing you did not respond to the point about Mr. Kilbride awarding $50,000 in contracts to the company that several people have confirmed to us gave him free campaign shirts last year. (Editorial note added after: Kilbride has denied he got free shirts, and provided an invoice showing the shirts cost him $2 each. That is a lower price than any other Image Depot order charged to SGA in the records we obtained. Kilbride also denied donating to either campaign, after we asked about it in the next sentence.) We also have received tips Mr. Kilbride has contributed up to $3,000 for this election by buying Wackadoos for the Brock/McCann campaign. Please note that we will point out to our readers that during a time when students are choosing who will be their leader in SGA, the public relations specialist will be out of the office until after the election is over — leaving important questions unanswered during one of the most crucial times students need it.

At this point, we will direct our questions to UCF’s News and Information Department for a proper response. Grant, we would like to know if UCF has any concern about possible pay to play scenarios, with SGA politicians receiving large donations from companies they will be doing business with using a multi million dollar budget of public funds. Mr. Kilbride rarely got multiple bids. Even if SGA and UCF regulations could be interpreted in a way not to require bids on $8,000 t-shirt orders, would the university administration encourage bids anyway to eliminate the perception of the obvious conflict of interest or pay to play scenarios?
We have also copied the UCF General Counsel to try and get an answer to our question as to who is making this interpretation — SGA or the University itself. This question has been outstanding for quite some time.
Sincerely,
___
Cliff Jett
News Director & Content Manager
KnightNews.com

KnightNews.com hasn’t received a response from Grant Heston regarding the question about whether UCF has any concern about possible pay to play scenarios, with SGA politicians receiving large donations from companies they will be doing business with using a multi million dollar budget of public funds. He also did not address the question regarding even if SGA and UCF regulations could be interpreted in a way not to require bids on $8,000 T-shirt orders, would the university administration encourage bids anyway to eliminate the perception of the obvious conflict of interest or pay to play scenarios? After months of asking whose interpretation it was that it would be OK not get several bids, we did get a response.

From: Joseph Sciarrino <Joseph.Sciarrino@ucf.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: “KnightNews.com” <news@knightnews.com>, SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@ucf.edu>, SGA President <sga_pres@ucf.edu>, Grant Heston <Grant.Heston@ucf.edu>, Chad Binette <Chad.Binette@ucf.edu>
Cc: Scott Cole <Scott.Cole@ucf.edu>, Youndy Cook <Youndy.Cook@ucf.edu>, Christa Coffey <ccoffey@ucf.edu>, David Pavlonnis <David.Pavlonnis@ucf.edu>, Edward Rolnick <Edward.Rolnick@ucf.edu>

Please note that the intent of section (q) in the Proviso was specifically for concert production expenses such as sound, lights and stage.  It was added to Proviso starting in fiscal year 2009-2010 during a discussion of and targeting Homecoming concert expenses.  This is how it is interpreted and applied by the A&SF Business Office.  Any definition of the word “production” other than the above would not agree with the A&SF Committee’s intent.  Joe.

Joseph F. Sciarrino

Director

Activity & Service Fee Business Office

University of Central Florida

P.O. Box 163230

Orlando, FL 32816-3230

(407) 823-2304

(407) 823-6356 FAX

Growing increasingly suspicious of the situation, KnightNews.com then replied all to ask this follow up question:  “If someone could please provide a portion of that audio from that meeting to clarify, it would help. We understand some senators, who have ultimate authority and statutory responsibility to vote on that budget bill and proviso language, share a different interpretation.” SGA adviser Christa Coffey responded.

From: Christa Coffey <ccoffey@ucf.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: Joseph Sciarrino <Joseph.Sciarrino@ucf.edu>, “KnightNews.com” <news@knightnews.com>, SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@ucf.edu>, SGA President <sga_pres@ucf.edu>, Grant Heston <Grant.Heston@ucf.edu>, Chad Binette <Chad.Binette@ucf.edu>
Cc: Joseph Sciarrino <Joseph.Sciarrino@ucf.edu>

Cliff

My memory is the same as Joe’s. As a staff advisor for the 2009-2010 A&SF Budget Committee, I was present when this issue was first discussed, and the intent was to cover event (specifically, comedy and concert) production only. In OSI’s work with the entertainment business, production was understood to be sound and lighting, as well as staging in this instance. If you still need someone else to verify, you could ask the CAB and Homecoming advisors, as they, working with the two agencies most likely to have production costs, were made aware of the intent when it was added in a few years ago.

Regardless, I understand the question and if the 2011-2012 A&SF Budget Committee decides to maintain that wording for next fiscal year, I will encourage them to clarify by adding “concert” prior to “production.”

Thanks,

Christa

KnightNews.com replied explaining why some of our readers may be skeptical, given all of the circumstances and the delay in UCF bringing this definition of production up until months after we first inquired about it, and we again asked for audio evidence to support the new assertion.

From: KnightNews.com <news@knightnews.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: Christa Coffey <ccoffey@ucf.edu>
Cc: Joseph Sciarrino <Joseph.Sciarrino@ucf.edu>, SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@ucf.edu>, SGA President <sga_pres@ucf.edu>, Grant Heston <Grant.Heston@ucf.edu>, Chad Binette <Chad.Binette@ucf.edu>

Christa,

Thank you for the note. I am still confused about why this would would have been written in such a broad way, if the intent was so narrowly tailored. I understand these budget bills are scrutinized by several levels (the committee, Senate, administration, etc.) and I have to wonder if the Senate’s reading and intent when approving the bill was for it to apply in a broader way. Take for example the list of agencies in Title XIII:
1307.2  The Student Government Association Affiliated Agencies are as follows:
A. Campus Activities Board (CAB)
B. Homecoming
C. KnightCast
D. Knights of the RoundTable (KoRT)
E. Late Knights
F. Multicultural Student Center (MSC)
G. Sport Club Council (SCC)
H. Volunteer UCF (VUCF)
Couldn’t it stand to reason, based on this list of agencies, Senate believed “production” referred to its plain and common meaning found in several dictionaries — especially in light of the slim chance that Sport Club Council, KnightCast, Volunteer UCF, etc would ever need to be restricted from spending student money on a concert without getting three bids first?
It is also curious to me that if this was the long-standing policy everyone knew of since 2009, why no one mentioned it to me when we discussed this at length back in December. I’m sure the readers will pick up on this point and question it as well, so if someone could please address it, I’d be happy to include an explanation about why this production definition wasn’t mentioned until after we pointed out how SGA refers to itself as an agency in its own constitution.
Again, any audio files which specifically can demonstrate everyone was on the same page by interpreting production expense as relating to concert production would really help prove to our readership, which tends to be skeptical of SGA, that this was the true intent.
___
Cliff

(Editors note: When the above email referred to “we” discussing the matter at length in December, it was not intended to mean KnightNews.com and Christa Coffey specifically discussed it at length in December. The “we” referred to KnightNews.com and SGA, which was being represented by Kristin Harris and Kayla Torpey at the time — not Christa Coffey. The two student communications representatives were unavailable to discuss the matter during the election, because they took time off to go campaign for the candidates their boss, SGA President Michael Kilbride, was supporting.) Coffey responded to the above email.

From: Christa Coffey <ccoffey@ucf.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: Public Records Request – T-shirts
To: “KnightNews.com” <news@knightnews.com>, Joseph Sciarrino <Joseph.Sciarrino@ucf.edu>
Cc: SGA Public Relations Specialist <sga_pr@ucf.edu>, SGA President <sga_pres@ucf.edu>, Grant Heston <Grant.Heston@ucf.edu>, Chad Binette <Chad.Binette@ucf.edu>

Cliff

I will have to see which of the many meetings that discussion was a part of and then if that meeting, which would have been from 2 years ago, was actually recorded. Unfortunately, due to my schedule, I won’t be able to check until later this week or next.


At the time the clause was added, the context of the discussion revolved only around event production; I did not think to have them clarify since it was clear to me (as well as, based on Joe’s email, the A&SF Business Office, who interprets the proviso). Since language was drafted and approved in the past, it can’t be fixed at this point; all I can do is encourage the current committee to provide clarity now.


Regarding a discussion in December, I am unsure of that to which you are referring. I don’t recall a conversation I had with you, but feel free to jog my memory.


Christa

KnightNews.com explained to Coffey how we were referring to Torpey and Harris, and not Coffey, as being the people we spoke with in December, and cleared that issue up.