When I first heard that the Georgetown University Student Association wanted to strip the advisory boards of their votes on the Funding Board, I thought it was a joke. I know GUSA senators sometimes demonstrate an inferiority complex about their perceived inefficacy, but this seemed to be an outrageous power grab, even for them. Moreover, I was convinced that it couldn’t be done.
I should not have been so blasé. Not only was GUSA successful in taking control of the reserve funds it’s been complaining about for years, in February it took over the entire budgeting process. Now, the six advisory boards—the Student Activities Commission, the Center for Social Justice Advisory Board for Student Organizations, Media Board, the Performing Arts Advisory Council, the Advisory Board for Club Sports, and the Georgetown Program Board—are simply that: non-voting entities that present their budgets and “advise” GUSA’s Finance and Appropriations Committee on where to allocate funds.
As a member of the Voice who was on the GUSA beat for a year and an editor of countless stories about GUSA and funding politics, I am used to taking a disinterested, if occasionally bemused stance on student government goings-on. Until this year, GUSA and SAC’s antics served mostly to fill news sections and blog budgets. But it’s time to start taking GUSA seriously. Its short-term solutions to funding reform could have unintended, yet dangerous, long-term consequences.
In 2006, GUSA set the precedent for this year’s radical restructuring of the budgeting process. Then-President Twister Murchison (SFS `08), along with his Chief of Staff Eden Schiffman (COL `08), and Deputy Chief of Staff Matt Stoller (COL `08), set out to completely overhaul the then-GUSA Assembly. The Accountability and Reform Act expanded the student senate, shifted GUSA from at-large representation by class to residence-based representation, and granted GUSA “plenary power to appropriate all Student Association funds.” Ninety-three percent of the 3,386 students who voted were in favor of the ARA.
With the funding reforms of the ARA, GUSA was able to create the Finance and Appropriations Committee, whose six members each have votes in the annual funding allocation process. (Before the ARA, just one GUSA representative had a vote.) Accountability increased as advisory boards were required to disclose how much they held in reserve funds.
Unfortunately, the ARA was not able to temper the animosity between GUSA and SAC. I think blame can be placed on both sides: SAC’s allocation decisions to individual clubs can be myopic at best, and its attitude toward requested reforms has been frustratingly stubborn. In turn, GUSA has tried to solve the SAC problem through threats and stonewalling. Last spring, the budget almost didn’t pass because some GUSA members, including President Calen Angert (MSB `11), threatened to reject it if GUSA didn’t get its requested $60,000 from the reserve funds for a GUSA-run “Georgetown Fund.”
After some wrangling in the fall, the advisory boards and Finance and Appropriations Committee did come to an agreement on a $30,000 GUSA Fund: $26,000 would come from the reserves and GUSA would provide the last $4,000 from its own budget. I don’t so much have a problem with the Fund—if GUSA senators want to act as supplementary SAC commissioners, that’s their business.
I do have a problem with how GUSA is trying to fix SAC, and by extension, the other advisory boards that don’t actually need to be fixed. Last fall, GUSA listed six reforms that it wanted the advisory boards to adopt. Most already had, aside from the stipulation that boards spend down their reserves to 10 percent of their yearly allocation, a short-sighted notion for boards like GPB and Media Board that need much larger reserves for big events or damage control. Senator Nick Troiano (COL `11) later admitted that the 10 percent was an “arbitrary” number.
I would have hoped that the GUSA senators would have done a bit more research before calling for reforms and taking over the funding process. When I went to a “club summit” in the fall as the Voice’s “club leader,” I was shocked by how little the senators knew about any of the non-SAC advisory boards’ funding processes. For starters, I was the only club leader not affiliated with SAC at the meeting, and the senators seemed unconcerned by the discrepancy in attendance. By my count, SAC clubs were the only ones complaining. Similarly, the survey results on which GUSA based its immediate need for budget reform were disproportionately heavy on dissatisfactory SAC responses, while the feedback from the other funding boards was largely positive.
Nevertheless, GUSA’s Finance and Appropriations Committee voted in February to strip the other advisory board members of their votes, mostly to teach SAC a lesson about disregarding its reforms. While every other advisory board received close to, if not all, of its requested budget, SAC was given just $12,500 of its requested $37,000. Although that amounts to less than half of their request, SAC actually got off relatively easy—several Finance and Appropriations Committee members wanted to allocate nothing to SAC.
SAC definitely needs reform, but this is a petty and damaging way for GUSA to go about it. GUSA is dragging the rest of the funding boards into its fight with SAC, and using the Student Activities Fee money as leverage.
Rather than communicate with the funding boards individually, respecting those who are transparent, accountable, and effective, GUSA ostracized all of them. Why not work together with the compliant advisory boards to try to hold SAC more accountable, instead of withholding club funding as a punitive measure? The advisory boards are not children that GUSA can send to their rooms for misbehaving.
In the fall, I met with a Finance and Appropriations Committee member to discuss GUSA’s proposal, and he assured me that this was a measure to enforce its reforms with SAC that wouldn’t affect the other funding boards. And so far it hasn’t. But I can’t trust that institutional memory is enough to preserve the intentions behind this year’s exercise of GUSA’s “plenary power” over student funds. In several years, I doubt that the precedent GUSA set in taking over funding allocation will still include the clause, “but only to fix SAC.”
This is a reasonable and fairly accurate piece, except for a few small points:
1. GUSA did not “take over the entire budgeting process.” It still only controls allocations at the advisory board level. For instance, how much SAC gets, how much PAAC gets, etc. The boards are still entirely in charge of how to budget individual clubs and manage the funds throughout the year, including everything from club recognition/access to benefits, to their actual budgets, to approval of specific events.
2. You are right that GUSA should have done a better job to make clear that not all of the boards have been as problematic as SAC. SAC and PAAC have been the worst. But then you say towards the end, “In the fall, I met with a Finance and Appropriations Committee member to discuss GUSA’s proposal, and he assured me that this was a measure to enforce its reforms with SAC that wouldn’t affect the other funding boards. And so far it hasn’t.” This seems to undermine your own argument in the previous ten paragraphs, since so far other than being equally responsible for the six reform points (that, as you point out, the other boards have by and large complied with), none of the other boards have been affected. Politically perhaps GUSA did not make it clear that not all the boards are equally culpable, but as you point out, no harm done. Seems a little histrionic considering that GUSA has in fact gone out of its way to avoid punishing the other boards.
I do agree with you that the reserves issue was not tackled particularly well. GUSA has a distance to go on this.
You might be interested to know that GUSA recognized the criticism of the initial reserve standard. As a result, before even beginning the budgeting process FinApp requested that the Advisory Boards receive reserve target estimations from the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. This way, reserve standards were tailored to the needs of each advisory boards. This was the standard that was used when evaluating reserves in terms of reform compliance. The “10% Standard” you talk about has not been operative for some time now.
Thanks,
Adam Talbot
GUSA Senate Speaker
First of all, you are incorrect saying that other advisory boards did not have problems. The student leaders survey showed that clearly. Furthermore, GUSA did the right thing by setting up commonsense benchmarks for all advisory boards to follow. Your likely counterargument to that point would be to say that all of the boards are different, and therefore have different needs. You are correct, and GUSA agrees with you. That’s why they have allowed advisory boards to comply with the six standards in a variety of ways, which allows for flexibility.
As Mr. Talbot has said, the reserve issue is a good example. While the 10% figure was arbitrary, GUSA was not deaf in listening to criticism. In fact, because they engaged in dialogue and were willing to hear and implement changes, the question of reserves is now no longer a problem.
Your piece recites the same old talking points that have been refuted time after time. The only one with even a shred of credibility is the point about institutional memory. And just so you are aware, everything is in writing, meeting minutes and all, at box.net/gusa.
Well, I’m trying to wean myself off commenting on GUSA articles, but seeing as I’m mentioned by name I think I can take a pass this once . . .
Just one quick point. GUSA’s power over the funding process doesn’t end with the Finance & Appropriation Committee, and, as ‘Student’ pointed out above, GUSA only controls allocations at the advisory board level. So, practically speaking, the only effect you could have is getting fewer student activities fees dollars than requested. And at the worst case, no student activities fees dollars.
But this allocation has to pass the F&A Committee, then the Senate 2/3rds of Senators agreeing (who also have the power to amend budgets) and then pass into law with the President’s signature or over his veto.
I find it extremely unlikely that a completely arbitrary budget slashing would make it past all those levels. Even now, it’s taken pretty much SAC’s ridiculous stonewalling against *universal* opposition over a number of years by clubs, GUSA, and newspapers to have even GUSA *consider* slashing their budget — and even then, they’re still (currently) giving them 1/3rd of their request. And we haven’t even had a vote by the Senate or seen if the President will sign it or not.
So I think all of the concern is overblown.
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it