The Student Activities Commission passed an amendment to its funding guidelines Monday night allowing student groups to formally appeal programming arcs, sanctions and event approvals through the Center for Student Programs.
Previously, student groups could only appeal SAC decisions through the commission itself.
For event appeals and sanctions, students groups will submit their initial appeal to SAC, which will then submit the appeal to the CSP. Two CSP representatives will make the formal decision on the issue and return the ruling to the group within ten business days.
For programming arcs ─ the schedule of events each student organization must submit before the beginning of a semester ─ the appeals made will be first reconsidered by SAC, and only if necessary will be adjudicated by CSP.
SAC Commissioner Amanda Lanzillo (SFS ’13) presented the amendment.
“Some of what came out when we met with groups, is that maybe things should not just be coming straight back to SAC, especially in instances in which we’ve already made up our minds on things,” she said.
“This is just a small step towards making SAC more transparent and open,” SAC Vice-Chairperson Ruiyong Chen (SFS ’13) added.
SAC also dealt with three more amendments that arose from the recommendations of working groups set up by the commission two weeks ago.
One of these amendments would clarify the Access to Benefits Review process.
“Group leaders complained about the vagueness of our sanctions process, so we thought it would be a great way to clarify it,” Chen said.
This section would specify the reasons that groups could be placed under review and how the process itself functions. The amendment was brought to a vote but did not pass.
In another addendum, SAC would allow groups to change the scale of their programming arc during the course of a semester if necessary. This could include reducing, modifying or increasing the number of events in the arc.
The programming arc amendment was not brought to vote. The authors were instructed to clarify the language of the proposal before presenting it again.
A possible contingency fund through which SAC could allocate groups additional money was the last of the amendments.
The contingency fund would allow SAC to retain a small percentage of allocation funds every semester as a contingency fund in order to support “unexpected and innovative programming needs.”
However, some commissioners, including Carlos DeLaTorre (COL’13), took issues with the vagueness of this clause.
“I think it should be laid out specifically. What does creative programming mean?” he asked.
The amendment was not voted upon. According to Chen, it is unlikely that it will be considered again. The remaining amendments may be brought to vote after Easter break.