Several Student Association senators and President Omar Woodard opposed a bill introduced Tuesday night calling for restrictions on SA food and drink spending.

Ben Traverse (CCAS-U) wrote the legislation, which calls for a $10 per person limit to spending on food at an event and a ban on the purchase of alcohol with student funds. The limits would apply to all SA bodies and all SA-funded student organizations.

While the measure has yet to be voted on by the Rules and Finance committees, it is already facing criticism from Woodard and other senators who said the bill is poorly drafted.

“I think some limit placed on food spending is reasonable,” Woodard said. “If the SA passes this legislation in its current form, they would be severally handicapping student organizations across the University. They would destroy the student planning and initiatives that go on by student organizations and for them to do that would be irresponsible.”

Woodard said he would veto the bill in its current state, citing that 60 percent of SA allocations given to student organizations is spent on food. He added that graduate student groups, such as the Law School’s Student Bar Association, use SA money for events where everyone is older than 21 and alcohol is purchased.

“This bill in its current form would prevent this group from doing what it has been doing for years,” Woodard said. “Let’s not forget about our graduate students that we represent here as well.”

Earlier this year, Woodard was the center of a Senate debate that arose over a $414 dinner the president had with his cabinet over the summer at Sequoia, an upscale restaurant. Traverse was one of the most vocal critics of the dinner, calling it excessive spending. A Hatchet review of SA finances found that the organization spent has spent $7,000 on food and drink in the last year.

Traverse, chairman of the Rules Committee, said the legislation is not a direct response to the Sequoia dinner and is a continuation of the “Ethics Package” he introduced as a senator last year. He added that at this point, a check on the SA is necessary to curtail spending.

“We’ve reached a point where something like this is necessary,” Traverse said. “Not only to contain the spending of current and future SA officers but also to try to get back some trust from the student population on the issue of financial responsibility.”

Morgan Corr (CCAS-U), one of the bill’s co-sponsors and the recently appointed vice chairman of the Rules Committee, said logistical issues such as those brought up by Woodard will be “ironed out in committee.” He added that the legislation targets undergraduate groups who are not legally allowed to consume alcohol.

“This is a compromise,” Corr said. “It does not cut out the possibility of expenditures dealing with food, but it allows the SA to have a subsidized dinner or expenditure while controlling the amount to ensure that it doesn’t end up being a $414 dinner at Sequoia.”

The legislation is the fifth installment of a series of “Better Internal Government” bills introduced by Traverse, who has announced that he will run for SA president in February. All five bills have the acronym “B.I.G.” in the title, referring to the senator’s campaign slogan, “BIG Ben Traverse.” Of the five pieces of legislation, only one has been adopted by the SA.

Traverse said the B.I.G. package was not introduced to further his campaign but rather to look out for students.

But Ryan Kilpatrick (ESIA-U) said Traverse’s latest bill does not do enough to look out for students and crack down on excessive SA spending.

“I cannot support this bylaw change,” Kilpatrick said. “I feel that some senators have taken a stance and are now changing their position, which I respect, but this really doesn’t fix the problem. To me the problem is committee’s spending money on food.”

Kilpatrick said senators should have to pay for all expenditures on food and not be able to charge any such purchases to the SA budget.

“It is one thing for a student organization to have a dinner meeting or dinner celebration. It is another thing for committees, during the normal work that they do, to pay for food on students’ dime,” he said. “I think if it is $5 per person or $15 per person it is unreasonable and senators should be prepared to pay for that themselves.”

Traverse said he believes there are some circumstances when it is appropriate for SA funds to be spent on food, but a limit does have to be enacted.

“It’s not justified when you’re spending $30 to $40 per person, and it’s not justified when you’re going out to buy luxurious steaks and fancy wines,” Traverse said, referring to Woodard’s Sequoia dinner. “Sometimes it is justified, if you’re meeting as a committee for 48 hours over a weekend and you want to order some pizza, when I held my freshman Senate outreach programs to attract people – these are events where it is justified.”