On Tuesday, student group leaders received an email announcing the formation of the Student Group Union, a student group alliance created in response to perceived transparency issues with the way the Student Activities Commission allocates group funds.
Emma Green (COL ’12), a former Philodemic Society treasurer, is heading the initiative. In the email, Green wrote that the SGU would be a way to increase dialogue among student organizations and with the administration.
The SGU is partially the result of a broader, campus-wide push to increase cooperation and communication among student groups. The SGU email mentions that groups “have lots of reasons to connect with one another (such as in massive campaigns against SAC) so it makes sense to have a mechanism in place for forging these connections.”
SAC is currently in the process of making changes to the funding guidelines that outline how the organization allocates funds to student groups. A draft proposal is to be made on Tuesday, Oct. 18, at a round table discussion with student groups.
While acknowledging steps in the right direction for SAC’s new system, SAC Commissioner Dalvin Butler (COL ’13) believes the process is not as open as it should be and that student groups are still unhappy with their involvement. Asked about the current SAC working group sessions, Butler said, “We’re operating in a vacuum.”
SAC Chair Andrew Koenig (COL ‘12) said that it was vital for student organization leaders to be aware and involved in the process of forming a new system.
“There is a perceived lack of transparency in SAC, and SAC commissioners in years past didn’t do much to change that perception. The way the programming arc was created … enforced the perception that SAC wasn’t transparent,” Koenig said. “I see it is a perceived issue and we need to respond to this.”
SAC commissioner Carlos DeLaTorre (COL ’13) paints a different picture. He said that student organizations are a part of the ongoing dialogue each step of the way.
“Student groups are always at the table. Their concerns are always addressed,” DeLaTorre said. “I think it’s a big misconception that SAC working groups meet in private, that’s not what we’re envisioning. We’re looking to establish these meetings to come up with the ideas and then talk to organizations to hear their ideas.”
While SAC has involved students in redesigning the funding guidelines, students say they are still concerned about the lack of transparency in the process of SAC’s decisions for funding groups.
SAC has a weekly Monday meeting where student groups can make proposals, but the votes on these proposals are closed.
The process “means that on our records and on the official minutes, who voted and in what manner isn’t recorded,” Koenig said. “The lack of transparency [involves] the funding process. We are encouraging a lot of student input in this process.”
GUSA Vice President Greg Laverriere said the GUSA Fund, which provides funding for student organizations that are not able to get money from SAC, remains committed to keeping students involved every step of the way.
“The meetings are all open to the public the whole time and their votes are all public and recorded,” Laverriere said. “They are willing to debate the issue while you’re sitting at the meeting.”
Colton Malkerson (COL ’13), a GUSA senator who has worked on negotiations with SAC in the past, pointed to some of SAC’s previous transparency issues.
“SAC has always struggled with transparency, and the last time they made any substantial changes to their bylaws they did so in secret,” he said. “I’m not criticizing SAC, [but] I think student advisory boards can always be more transparent in their reforms.”
SAC commissioners appear to have come to a consensus on their commitment to student involvement in funding guideline reforms. The main issue now is how SAC will continue the dialogue with students.
“I don’t think that there is room to say that we aren’t trying our darndest to get student groups at the table. They’re already there and we want to increase that presence,” DeLaTorre said.
Butler offers some forewarning for student leaders about the SAC reform process. “Student organizations will be able to give feedback which SAC may or may not consider. It’s not guaranteed that SAC will consider this feedback,” Butler said. “But they should be at the table when crafting these guidelines.”
This quote says it all:
====
Butler offers some forewarning for student leaders about the SAC reform process. “Student organizations will be able to give feedback which SAC may or may not consider. It’s not guaranteed that SAC will consider this feedback,” Butler said. “But they should be at the table when crafting these guidelines.”
====
Is this kid serious? Why have the groups come to the table if you aren’t even going to CONSIDER the feedback. Despite Bill McCoy finally being gone, SAC is still largely just a bunch of amateurs who don’t know much of anything about running a club. I grant there has been some progress, but we still need to push for major changes.
“Student groups are always at the table. Their concerns are always addressed,” DeLaTorre said.
This guy is totally out of touch with student groups and obviously have not been paying attention. My group’s needs have not been addressed nor are we at the table. SAC needs a real reform plan!