Repeat paintball bill causes concern in House

The Paintball Club requested funding for expenses related to an upcoming tournament.  Although the club had previously received funding from the SGA for practices, the tournament requires that the club purchase a specific type of paintball on the day of the event.

“At a single day tournament we shoot more paint than we usually shoot in two practices,” said Stephen Fox, club president.

He and his fellow club member Reid Pigott defended the necessity of the bill in the face of intense scrutiny in both the Senate and House, respectively.

Legislators were concerned that the club was already receiving extensive amounts of funding without sufficient effort to offset costs on the part of club leadership.

At-large Rep. Mathias Rost specifically noted that the club has recently reduced its semester dues by $100, reducing their income so substantially that they would have been able to fund this tournament otherwise.

Other representatives also called to attention the fact that the club had already approached the SGA for funding in the past and would likely do so additional times throughout the semester to subsidize tournaments.

Junior Reps. Mike Mosgrove and Eran Mordel pointed out that the club did not submit a budget and should not be disadvantaged for submitting piecemeal funding requests. The House ultimately postponed the bill.