Following a Georgetown University Student Association Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee review of club funding policies, the GUSA Senate passed a resolution overhauling funding procedure for on-campus clubs that included the creation of the GUSA Fund, an alternate club funding board, on Sunday. The Funding Board rejected the creation of the GUSA Fund on Monday evening.

The GUSA resolution mandates that boards must implement an appeals process in the case that clubs are denied full funds that are requested for an activity or annual budget. Under the resolution, clubs would have the option of requesting a lump-sum budget allocated on an annual basis. Furthermore, as a measure to increase transparency, all minutes recorded at advisory boards’ meetings would be made public.

“The GUSA Senate took a firm stand on the side of the student body and campus clubs by unanimously passing the club funding resolution on Sunday,” said Nick Troiano (COL ’11), GUSA senator and finance and appropriations chair. “Where in the past we have failed to deliver on the change students desire, we will not fail this year.”

According to Troiano, the Funding Board’s rejection of the creation of the GUSA Fund in today’s vote does not necessarily impede GUSA’s plans for the creation of the fund. The Funding Board is composed of the six representatives of the advisory boards and seven GUSA representatives. At Monday’s meeting, six representatives of the advisory boards voted against the creation of the GUSA Fund. The Funding Board’s first vote on an issue requires unanimity; after 10 days, excluding Sundays, however, the Funding Board reconvenes to vote again on issues. In the second vote, a simple majority will be required to pass the GUSA Fund.

“We [GUSA representatives] have the majority in the Funding Board. Hence, the GUSA Fund should be passed in about two weeks. It is unfortunate that the advisory boards rejected it. It is clear that students and campus clubs support it,” Troiano said.

The GUSA funding resolution comes in direct response to feedback gathered from a student club summit on Saturday, at which members of the GUSA Finance and Appropriations Committee met with club leaders to discuss the new GUSA Fund and to address the complaints of various club leaders regarding club funding procedures.

The majority of clubs under the Student Activities Commission funding board agreed that fundamental changes need to be made to revise the current funding process. A campus-wide survey of clubs under the jurisdiction of various advisory boards revealed that those surveyed rated their SAC advisory board an average of 2.41 on a scale of 1-5.

ost club leaders said they were happy with the funding they currently receive from SAC, but expressed frustration at the procedural level; clubs must apply for funding for each event, which leaders said takes too much time and is a tedious process.

Students suggested that rather than being granted single-event allocations, it would be more efficient for each club to create lump, year-long budgets, which some said would give clubs greater control over their funds.

“For a school that turns out bankers and business people, it’s not that hard to come up with a budget for one year,” said Brian Harbour (MSB ’10), president of the Philodemic Society.

Jasdeep Singh (SFS ’10), CEO of the Georgetown International Relations Association, emphasized the value of a club’s ability to independently decide the use of its funds.

“One of the most important things to be included [in the GUSA Fund] would be the flexibility for clubs to move their money around,” he said.

A number of students voiced the need for increased transparency and accountability concerning SAC meetings and votes. Some wanted full minutes of every meeting posted online in order to see how each commissioner votes on an issue. Under the current system, only the sum of the votes is made public.

ost of those present also wanted the current process to select SAC representatives to be changed to one that involves more consensus from the student body, since currently three SAC representatives choose the new representatives.

“There’s a big disconnect between what’s expected of us and their knowledge of their own standards,” Michael Karno (SFS ’10), chair of the International Relations Club, said.

Fitz Lufkin (COL ’11), vice president of the College Democrats, said that SAC representatives should not dictate how other club leaders run their clubs, as they are not skilled at running their own events. He pointed to this year’s SAC open house as an example.

“It’s a lot easier to be on the other side of the table grilling people with questions,” Lufkin said.

The leaders also requested funding for purely social events, which they said are difficult to organize under the current guidelines. SAC will not fund social events unless they are held in public spaces.

“Since we don’t have fraternities, student organizations are pretty important to student life. If clubs want to have social events, those should be funded to a certain degree,” Harbour said.

“SAC is created in a way that is completely insular, and there is no feedback mechanism for accountability, which is the more fundamental issue,” Karno said.

Kate Mays (COL ’10), former editor in chief of The Georgetown Voice, said she was happy with the Media Board, an advisory board that allocates funding for all Georgetown student media organizations. Others who were present suggested that SAC should run more like the Media Board, which includes representatives from the organizations it represents.

“I was a representative on the media board last year, and the only time things got refused was when they were poorly thought-out or ridiculous,” Mays said.

any of the concerns that student leaders expressed at the summit on Saturday were addressed by the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee in the GUSA resolution.

“When these reforms take effect, clubs will be given the independence they deserve to conduct their activities and promote a robust campus life,” Troiano said. “Further, students will [be assured] that their money is being spent responsibly and the people who are spending it are accountable to them.”

– Hoya Staff Writer Laura Engshuber contributed to this report.

**Correction:** This article originally stated that the Media Board is an advisory branch of the Student Activities Commission. The Media Board is an organization independent of SAC.”