A controversial issue from last spring was born again Thursday when some NIU students charged the vice president for student affairs with unfair behavior concerning a June 25 memo.

The controversy began when Barbara Henley used her authority to allocate $850 for the Campus Activities Board Visual Arts Committee for art show refreshments after the request was rejected by the Student Association senate.

To clarify the process, Henley created an ad hoc advisory committee to recommend how the administration and the SA should work out money conflicts.

Student Regent James Mertes and SA President Preston Came said they requested to bring the issue up at the last senate meeting in April but didn’t receive the memo until June.

Henley said the delay occurred because she didn’t receive the recommendation until late April, although it was requested in January.

She said she accepts most of the committee’s recommendations. “I believe it (an allocation) would only be done if the consensus procedure doesn’t work and if there is consent of the president,” she said.

Mertes and Came also were upset with a section in the memo concerning her power to allocate funds from the SA.

The memo states “circumstances could exist” when Henley could overturn senate denials of funding if she feels it is “authorized and justified” and her reversal would preserve “legitimate programming.”

Henley said the sentence came directly from a letter from the general counsel to the Board of Regents. “My understanding is the students requested an interpretation of the section regarding veto power,” Henley said.

Mertes and Came said an Oct. 18, 1977 Northern Star interview with Harry Canon, a former vice president for student affairs, contradicts Henley’s statement.

The article said the vice president can’t mandate how fees are allocated, but can only try to persuade the SA. Also, Canon said, the vice president can veto SA allocations but cannot overturn the SA if senators decide to deny funding.

“She’s using a lot of jargon and the final statement is saying she can make an allocation and is not acting in a manner compatible with the BOR and state law,” Mertes said.

“We went through this process with good faith,” Came said.