By unanimously passing Student Activities Comission Chairman Matt Connolly’s (CAS ‘04) resolution to abandon the current SAC funding system in favor of a new and supposedly more efficient system, GUSA has voted in a potential disaster.
Currently, clubs are supposed to keep money they receive from SAC and money they raise independently in University accounts. The money does not accrue interest and does not roll over at the end of the year. According to supporters, this forces clubs that have end-of-the-year fundraisers to spend any money they make almost immediately.
Club leaders can access their money by filling out purchase orders or request forms, and by using personal funds and being reimbursed later. They must gain approval from the Office of Student Programs before withdrawing any money and are allotted SAC funds on the basis of individual events. For example, if a club is selling food in Red Square, SAC will give it the money to purchase the food. The club must pay SAC back from its profits and deposit any money it raises beyond what it owes SAC in its University account. However, according to Connelly, many clubs don’t want to go through the hassle of dealing with the University, so they keep extra cash “in shoeboxes.”
Under the proposed system, each club would have an individual account with the Georgetown University Alumni and Student Federal Credit Union. These accounts would hold all the money that clubs net after they have paid SAC. Clubs would be able to access this money by writing checks or using a debit card. SAC would receive the records of all purchases. Money in the accounts would roll over to the next year if not spent by the end of the year, and the accounts would accrue interest.
The new system, while seeming to alleviate the disorder of the current system, presents problems as well. Both SAC and club leaders would be expected to keep record of every single student purchase made from the credit union accounts. Considering that each club leader would be working with their own debit card, this is no small feat.
The prospect of earning interest seems to benefit clubs. However, the interest will probably not add up to more than ten dollars a year, a small reward for the trouble caused by the new system.
The transition from the current system to the new system would be arduous and lengthy, since the University will have to pay all its debts to clubs, close the club accounts and transfer all funds to the credit union.
Although we support such benefits as rollover and interest, abandoning the old system is too hasty a move. Obviously, this method is in place for a reason. There are better and more effective ways of reforming it than relinquishing it favor of an inherently flawed system.
As Connelly noted, “SAC funding requires an innovative new system.” However, this innovation should come in the form of revamping the old system. GUSA should focus on lobbying the administration to restructure the Accounts Payable and Financial Affairs departments in order to improve the infrastructure of the old system rather than implementing a completely new one.
