The Lecture Fund debated a proposal to sever its ties with GUSA at its meeting last night.

Lecture Fund leaders had planned a vote at yesterday’s general membership meeting, but the absence of a faculty advisor and a desire to build a consensus on the decision convinced them to delay the referendum.

“When it all comes down to it, ultimately student leaders have the responsibility to provide as much information to their membership so that a compromise that is informed and prudent can be reached,” Gerard Alolod (SFS `05), chair of the Lecture Fund, said.

GUSA presidential candidate Happy Johnson (COL ’07), a former Lecture Fund member, said that the movement for the fund’s complete autonomy in choosing executives will most likely face opposition.

“The Lecture Fund already works in an independent fashion and [is] basically independent already,” he said. “There will probably be a lot of backlash against the idea [of Lecture Fund’s independence] from where power is centralized.”

Lecture Fund general board member Craig Kessler (SFS ’07), who attended yesterday’s general meeting, said that the meeting failed to yield a vote for independence because members were still weighing the advantages of remaining part of GUSA. The fund will not make any decision until they have explored all the possible options.

Last year, GUSA adopted Lecture Fund constitutional changes that handed over appointment of Lecture Fund executives to a committee composed of the GUSA president, a member of the GUSA president’s Cabinet, the outgoing Lecture Fund Chair and a delegate from the Lecture Fund general membership.

Those changes, spearheaded by Stephen Glaser (SFS ’04), then chair of the Lecture Fund, came in response to opposition within the Lecture Fund to an earlier attempts by GUSA executives to choose the Lecture Fund’s leadership.

Brian Morgenstern (COL ’05), then GUSA president, opposed the amendments, fearing that they could lead to the appointment of a Lecture Fund Chair without the approval of the GUSA executives.

The GUSA Assembly approved the amendments last November. orgenstern exercised his veto power over Assembly legislation but the veto was overridden by the Assembly shortly thereafter. Much of the debate centered on constitutional admissibility of the amendments. Some, such as Morgenstern, said they would give the Lecture Fund “preferential treatment.”

“If eventually our ideas, which everyone agrees are good in principle, are unable to be put into practice, then this begs the question why the Lecture Fund is part of GUSA in general,” Glaser said.

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

Comments are closed.