At the first-ever Georgetown University Student Association Budget Summit held Sunday by the GUSA Finance and Appropriations Committee, the five advisory boards, the Georgetown Program Board and the GUSA Executive presented their budget proposals for fiscal year 2010.
Almost all groups present requested an increase in funding for the upcoming year, except for the Performing Arts Advisory Council, which requested the same amount as last year.
The total amount requested by all groups that receive funding from the Student Activities Fee exceeded the amount of funds available for Finance and Appropriations Committee allocation by $57,213.
Before the sweeping club funding reforms passed by the GUSA Senate in February took effect, the advisory boards, GPB and the members of the Finance and Appropriations Committee would meet to draft and vote on a budget for the upcoming year.
The legislation, which was passed on Feb. 8, stripped the advisory boards and GPB of their votes in the funding process and the allocation of the Student Activities Fee, requiring the boards to present their budgets separately in front of the seven members of the Finance and Appropriations Committee throughout the course of the day; the summit lasted from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
According to Sen. Colton Malkerson (COL ’13), a member of the Finance and Appropriations Committee, the committee plans to release a complete budget before spring break. After a period of public comment and appeals hearings, the senate will vote on the budget, after which it will go to the GUSA Executive for approval.
Most of the advisory boards receive their funding from a combination of the Student Activities Fee, which is a $50 fee that all students pay each semester, and funds from tuition money and the university’s contract with Coca-Cola. Some boards, such as Club Sports, receive almost all of their funding from the Student Activities Fee, while others, such as the Student Activities Commission, receive only a portion from the fee.
After each board presented its budget proposal, the committee reviewed a six-point funding reform plan with each of the groups, which required boards to hold open votes and meetings, lower excessive reserve funds through spending, implement an appeals process for groups dissatisfied with funding allocated, allow clubs to request lump-sum funding, increase accountability of advisory board members to their constituents and allow student organizations to retain any funds they raise autonomously.
Most of the boards were receptive to the reform plan and agreed to adopt at least some of the reform suggestions, including cutting down on reserve amounts by spending to the amount recommended by Associate Vice President Jeanne Lord of the Office of Student Affairs.
In order to reduce the amount of their budget request, the senate voted Sunday evening to transfer $150,000 from the GUSA Fund to the Student Activities Fee general reserve account, an action that reduced the amount of money the GUSA Fund can allocate for the year by half but increased the amount available to the advisory boards and the Georgetown Program Board and the Student Activities Commission for their budget proposals next year.
Representing the Student Activities Commission, the only group present that expressed firm opposition to the reforms, Chair Ethel Amponsah (NHS ’11) said that the changes to the club funding process would not allow SAC to operate properly.
Amponsah refused to consider open votes, citing the public’s sensitivity to the funding issues being addressed and SAC commissioners’ heavy involvement in the organizations they represent. She declined to put in place a concrete plan for reducing close to $215,000 in SAC reserves to the recommended amount of $150,000, stating a need for high reserves so that SAC could protect clubs from liabilities and contribute to capital improvements such as improving the quality of student space in spaces such as Riverside Lounge.
In response, the senators said it was unfair for SAC to diverge from the example of the other boards and to expect to be granted its requested funding, since the amount of money requested by clubs exceeded the amount available and most boards were willing to spend their reserve funds or had already significantly dug into their reserves to accommodate new goals.
“Money shouldn’t be going to boards that have enough fees to sustain themselves,” said Finance and Appropriations Committee Chair Nick Troiano (COL ’11).
On the topic of open votes, Amponsah was candid.
“There are small instances that become controversial and I won’t have commissioners’ names put next to votes,” she said.
All of the other boards, except for the Media Board, agreed to have open, published votes. The Finance and Appropriations Committee agreed to allow the Media Board to have closed votes because unlike the other boards, for which members submit applications and freely run for positions, each of the four major media outlets on campus choose a member of their organization to be their representative on the Media Board.
Malkerson said that the new reforms will increase fairness in the budget process, especially in a year in which the advisory boards requested more money than is available.
“Our votes are open and our meetings are public,” Malkerson said. “All of our actions will be scrutinized. We will be forced to defend any decision we make. This is a good thing. We should be able to stand by anything we do, and this is the same principle we are asking all the advisory boards to follow.”
During the summit, each board presented their budget proposal, which included a summary of past budgets for the prior two years, a written overview describing how the funding benefited students and any significant changes that impacted funding in the budget proposal.
Correction: This article originally stated that the GUSA Senate voted to transfer $150,000 from the GUSA Fund to the Student Activities Fee general reserve account. The senate voted to transfer $15,000.
