The Student Activities Commission voted Monday to make several changes to its constitution and funding guidelines, including plans for a town hall, which met the demands of an open letter signed by 46 student leaders last week.

The commission also voted to alter their allocation procedures so that this semester’s process can stay on schedule, allowing campus groups to book spaces as planned. Under the new system, SAC will draw on its reserves to dole out funds before their budget request is officially approved by the Georgetown University Student Association Senate.

The meeting was held amid a push by club leaders for changes to SAC’s budget allocation process. After the commission revised its funding guidelines on Feb. 20 without soliciting formal feedback from student organizations, the International Relations Club — a SAC-funded group — spearheaded an effort demanding an opportunity for student input.

“I think it’s a good first step,” SAC Commissioner Ruiyong Chen (SFS ’13) said.

At the meeting, SAC first made several changes to their constitution. They voted to appoint a secretary, who will be responsible for taking and posting minutes of SAC meetings. They also approved an appeals process for student groups to challenge allocation decisions.

They further voted to approve an amendment that will allow for future revisions to the funding guidelines during the fiscal year, when called for by the SAC commissioners. Previously, funding guidelines were binding for the year once approved.

The constitutional amendments must now be approved by Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson. Despite Olson’s pending approval, the group went on to revise their funding guidelines — a process allowed by the amendments.

Because the GUSA budget will not officially be passed until after spring break, SAC commissioners expressed concern that the allocation would take place too late after the start of the campus space reservation process, set to begin today. Space concerns were a major reason that SAC set an early deadline for student groups to send in their plans for next semester.

“The truth of the matter is that we have to do whatever is necessary for our groups,” SAC Commissioner Carlos DelaTorre (COL ’13) said during the meeting.

After debate, commissioners voted to pass a resolution that would allow SAC to spend its reserve funds in an attempt to keep the allocation process on schedule. Under the revised system, SAC will use the budget that GUSA’s Finance and Appropriations Committee will pass on March 15 as an estimate to determine allocations. They will then use the funds actually allocated by GUSA when the senate passes the budget to replenish their reserves.

Although many commissioners said they were concerned about the risk and uncertainty involved in pre-budgeting the funds, a desire to avoid delays in the allocation process won out in the end.

“I think this is what the reserve is there for,” SAC Commissioner Amanda Lanzillo (SFS ’13) said.

The proposal will allow groups to begin booking spaces during the third week of March.

The town hall that the signatories of last week’s open letter called for is scheduled for 8 p.m. on March 29. Commissioners did not determine whether or not the funding guidelines would be put to a vote at the town hall, which the letter also called for.

Eitan Paul (SFS ’12), chair of IRC and principal organizer of the student movement, said that while the changes were a great first step, he thinks SAC still has more work to do.

“It’s great that they’ve made some strides, but unfortunately I think it’s too little, too late.”

For example, Paul said he was dissatisfied with the provision for an appeals process. The process SAC approved would allow clubs to resubmit their funding applications to the commission. Paul said that he had hoped that the commission would establish an appeals process through a different organization, such as the Center for Student Programs.

He also said that while he was glad SAC decided to hold a town hall meeting, he still thinks it is important for the guidelines to be put to a vote among campus clubs.

“We still don’t really have any guarantee that they would take into account feedback. The commissioners could still choose to ignore club advice.”

Chen, however, said that she wants to continue working with students to improve the funding process in the future.

“I hope that in the future we won’t need an open letter to get done things that should have been done in the first place,” she said.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *