Georgetown University Student Association’s efforts to reform club funding will come to a vote on Monday when its latest funding bill hits the floor. Judging by Wednesday night’s town hall meeting on the subject, popular sentiment on campus seems to have turned against the legislation. Many of the changes are radical – and student concern is understandable – but they are ultimately the right prescription for an ailing funding process.
Perhaps the biggest change contained in the proposed legislation is the abolishment of the Funding Board. Currently, the Funding Board has the authority to allocate funding acquired from the Student Activities Fee – a $50 charge paid by undergraduates – to the Georgetown Program Board and the five campus advisory boards: the Student Activities Commission, the Media Advisory Board, the Advisory Board for Club Sports, the Performing Arts Advisory Council, and the Volunteer and Public Service Advisory Board (which collaborates with the Center for Social Justice). Those boards then allocate the money to the student clubs they oversee. GUSA hopes to dissolve the Funding Board and make the GUSA Finance and Appropriations Committee responsible for dividing the Student Activities Fee among the advisory boards and the Georgetown Program Board.
The primary benefit of this expanded GUSA oversight is the increased accountability it will bring to the funding system. Of the 13 members of the Funding Board, only seven (the membership of the Finance and Appropriations Committee) are elected. The representatives of the advisory boards and Georgetown Program Board, however, are appointed.
Additionally, while the Funding Board only meets a few times per year, the GUSA committee would hold funding meetings weekly. In theory, the body that controls the Student Activities Fee should be answerable to the students the fee is meant to serve. As of now, however, the Funding Board is somewhat removed from the student community.
The legislation also calls for reforms on the advisory board level. SAC and the other boards will have to institute measures to make the funding process more transparent – including publishing meeting minutes and allowing for groups to appeal if their requests are rejected. Both requirements would help bring student groups into the funding loop and equip them with the know-how required to make their case for funds.
oreover, the advisory boards would be charged with creating a mechanism that enables groups to receive their funding in a lump sum rather than incrementally throughout the year. Student groups who opt for a lump sum will be able to significantly cut down on the red tape associated with accessing their budgeted funds. (Admittedly, groups who choose the lump sum route must be careful not to throw it away on too many ice cream socials, and should still stick to a planned budget.)
any club leaders have voiced worries that reform will mean decreased funding. To a certain extent, their concerns are justified. If the legislation passes, it will give GUSA unprecedented control over group budgets. Despite the fact that it is an elected entity, GUSA is certainly not a perfect representation of the student body. Although the Finance and Appropriations Committee would sit at the head of the funding food chain per the legislation, marginalizing the advisory boards should not be its modus operandi. Instead, the committee ought to work with SAC and the other boards in a collaborative fashion, allowing them to effectively represent their groups.
Some club leaders have painted the proposed reform as the result of ongoing bad blood between GUSA and SAC. Naysayers ought to recall that GUSA drafted these reforms only after listening to student groups air their dissatisfaction with the current funding process at a club summit in November.
Those who say that the reforms are nothing more than the most recent pull in a political tug-of-war fail to consider how close the vote falls to election season. GUSA President Calen Angert and Vice President Jason Kluger have announced they will run for re-election once the campaign period begins Feb. 9. The pair is expending critical political capital on the legislation, and any breakdown along the way could deal a major blow to their campaign. It is doubtful that the bill would be brought to the floor if Angert and Kluger were not sincerely invested in making funding more streamlined and easily accessible for student groups.
Ultimately, the issue is much simpler than any GUSA party line or political tactic. Clubs need funding, and they need it now. Their events cannot wait for appointed boards and committees to hash out who gets what and when – or if they get it in the first place. Students pay the activities fee, and they expect to use those funds on projects about which they are passionate. If the GUSA funding reform legislation will make it easier for students to obtain the money they are entitled to, then the bill ought to be given a warm welcome.
*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinionthehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*”