SUNY Geneseo’s Club Cheer tried in the first trial of the Student Court since the court’s re-commencement
The breaking of financial policy and the clarification of the Student Court’s powers
Photo courtesy of cottonbro studio/Pexels
On Nov. 20, 2025, the SUNY Geneseo Student Court convened for the first time since recommencing during the Spring 2025 semester. The justices—Chief Justice Ryan Hyzy and Associate Justices Mina Klentos, James Gardner, Drew Varrichio, and Victoria Coppola—oversaw the case Club Cheer v. The Student Association (SA). During this case, the court heard testimony from both a cheer representative—Mary Koziej, the Treasurer of Club Cheer—and a Student Association representative—Colin Henley, the Student Association Director of Business Affairs.
Koziej, speaking on behalf of the entire Club Cheer organization, discussed and affirmed the breach of SA financial policy, adding that while true, the offending actions fall solely on the former president of the organization. Koziej claims that these actions were a mistake, but one that is repairable, and that the new board has taken massive steps to do so, ultimately claiming that this case should not have been the subject of the Student Court proceedings.
She explained that the former president told her, the serving treasurer, to order bows from a specific Etsy shop. These decoration-filled bows were half the price of comparable bows, and only knowing this, affirmed the purchase decision without further validation. The defense stated this account “potentially” belonged to the grandmother of the former president, but SA review determined it to belong to the former president, as that was all they were informed of before their account was frozen and this case set. She argued that while the former president is in the wrong, the SA violated Annex B policy by not warning (or reaching out to) the board of their first violation before freezing their account, as their funds are essential for the club to meet. Likewise, this was not a situation that warranted the club being “the subject of a student-wide email,” as it has emotionally strained the team of over 30 students.
Henley, speaking on behalf of SA, explained that this was a violation of Section 18 of the SA Financial Policy, not Annex B, and listed quality concerns that initially prompted the board to review the purchase, along with the board’s rationale for freezing the organization’s budget. The quality was questioned after the bows were purchased, believing that the money provided by SA had been scammed. This prompted SA to look further into the Etsy shop, which allegedly showed the former president’s name and photo.
Members of Club Cheer reached out to The Lamron for comment, stating that going forward, “our biggest challenges will be learning [from] and repairing the relationship with the people who got us into this situation[,] as well as being able to trust future leadership of our club.” It was added that “the lack of communication between E-board and members will likely continue to create more issues,” which was followed up by “the team leaders have yet to loop in the team with the issues addressed and what the team will look like in the future after suspension.” These members continued, adding that the club is “tak[ing] a step in the right direction and [but still must] re-evaluate the way [it] is being run.”
These members affirmed that the court case damaged the organization’s reputation on campus, but is seen as “justified,” though potentially harmful. One member added that “Regaining the trust in leadership from our team as well as proving ourselves to SA again is going to be difficult.” Another stated that this case acted as a “reality check for E-board members who may need to start paying more attention and fulfilling their roles more,” as the club continues to recuperate. These members continued to add that while on the face of it much has changed, much more has stayed the same.
Returning to the proceeding, Henley, during his portion, discussed why these actions are being viewed as a violation of this policy, and not of Annex B, as the latter requires the first warning to “take the form of a resolution adopted by [the] SA Executive Committee at a public meeting,” per the SA Financial Policy. Henley stated that Annex B’s purpose is for “more minor violations,” using an example of a student “accidentally taking a computer mouse.” Section 18 is being used as SA views the former president’s “as an abuse of organizational budget,” and is more serious than an Annex B violation. The SA Executive Board “voted unanimously” in a private meeting, and Club Cheer’s budget was frozen as a result. Although Henley clarified that while SA believes this was a serious violation, they recognize that it is not the entire club’s fault.
In defense, Henley stated that the Mandatory Student Organization Officer Training, which all Student Organizations must complete, does not cover this specific situation, but that students “should ask questions” if they are unsure of policy. When asked whether there are circumstances in which organizations can purchase from family or student businesses, especially if it will save money, Henley answered that organizations must be “clear with SA,” noting that quality is important regardless of money saved. When Henley was asked whether there is a written policy for these circumstances, he emphasized that “SA is able to do a lot with waivers,” but clubs must communicate with SA prior. Here, Henley argues that quality, conduct, and abuse of organizational budget was the reasoning for SA action; this was “merely policy being enacted.”
Chuck Hazlett, the SA Assistant Director for Services and Programs, when reached out to for clarification said that the transaction itself was compliant with SA Financial Policy and thereby was processed without errors. However, he added that “Clubs are responsible for reviewing the individual Etsy shop they choose to purchase from, including product descriptions, photos, and reviews. Only the business name, not the shop owner’s name, was available through the initial purchase process. SA’s initial review during the purchase showed that the business had a positive seller history, an acceptable amount of longevity and number of sales.” Here, he clarified that “Etsy’s status as an approved vendor provides standard consumer protections, including…the ability to contest product quality,” which was taken by SA. “During that review, it became evident that the shop owner was the President of the club and immediate actions were taken.”
As of Dec. 4, 2025, through recommendations by the Student Court and the SA respectively, the tentative plan is to un-freeze the budget of Club Cheer at the start of the Spring 2026 semester. They would allow the new executive board to begin operations in January, as the club itself has proven itself in their eyes, despite the former president's actions.
On a clarifying note, The Student Association explained the powers of the court in this case and in the future: “The court, where applicable, can render non binding recommendations to the SA exec committee. This means that they may ask for something but have no definitive power to force a matter. If the Exec Committee chooses to disregard their decision that is allowed by policy.” The board continued, “In summary the court has no absolute power except where the [SA] exec board grants them explicit one off decision making powerin financial decisions. They function as a 3rd party arbitration board to gather information between two parties and make recommendations.”