Maybe it’s me, but I’m rather confused by this whole NYPIRG (New York Public Interest Research Group) thing. If I have my story straight, Binghamton University just approved by referendum to provide student funding, through a mandatory student activity fee, to a non-profit that states that one of its goals is to lower student tuition. How ironic that I have to pay a non-profit for the privilege.

The take from Binghamton’s student body is $5 per head per semester. I don’t know the exact number of students enrolled at the University, but let’s take a wild guess and call it 11,523 undergrads. That means NYPIRG is pulling down $115,230 a year from a population that is already carrying a mountain of debt. Multiply that number by 20 to roughly account for the other campuses and you’ll get some idea of the scale we are talking about here. Tony Soprano would be oh so proud.

However, you’ll be glad to know that, in exchange for that grip of cheddar, the students do receive ‘vital campus services’ such as ‘educat[ing] students ‘ about the small claims court process,’ ‘bringing ‘ speakers to campus’ and ‘providing two full-time ‘ organizers who offer ‘ access to NYPIRG resources.’ Whoa, that’s a whole lot of bang for the buck. I’m wondering why we don’t have this same subsidy program for all N.Y. non-profits.

To be fair, NYPIRG seems relatively benign, and with it what you see is what you get. It was founded by students with the aid Ralph Nader, so we know two things for sure. In the great tradition of Mr. Nader, NYPIRG personnel will always look like they just got out of bed, and whatever candidate they endorse will split the Democrat party, allowing a Republican to win. Actually, I’m sure NYPIRG would have me remind you that it is NON-political. Just ask former NYPIRG legislative director Blair Horner. He now works for the newly elected attorney general and fellow democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Although it’s a moot point, I’ll ask anyway: Should we at Binghamton be funding this organization? Well, I’m of the opinion that the court had already settled that in a lawsuit at SUNY Albany. That pesky 2005 court decision disallowed the use of a ‘referendum in allocating funds collected through mandatory student activity fees.’ Sound familiar? I would have thought that spelled out NO in bold letters to funding NYPIRG through a referendum. But apparently Albany is so very far away that’s it’s practically another country, and therefore any legal interpretation there can be ignored here.

Tantalizingly, the NYPIRG bylaws at Binghamton University state that: ‘The preferred method of funding is by collection of a NYPIRG fee on a mandatory basis with an individual refund provision.’

OK, now we’re talking. These guys have a refund policy!

Cryptically, that last bylaw statement is followed by: ‘If 50 percent of the students on any campus request refunds, a mandatory fee with a refund shall no longer be employed there.’

Uh oh. I’m not sure what that last statement means, but it doesn’t sound good. Does that mean if 50 percent of students request refunds NYPIRG will cancel their refund policy, and refunds will no longer be available, or does it mean if 50 percent of students request refunds the mandatory fee goes away? If it’s the former, that would be similar to a guarantee that will only replace your defective product if half of the other people who bought that piece of crap product don’t request refunds before you do.

Hmm. Sounds like a job for a consumer advocate. Where’s Ralph Nader when you need him?

‘ Megan Donahue is junior nursing major. She’s currently wondering if she can utilize that NYPIRG instruction on the small claims court processes in order to get her refund.