This past Monday the Student Activities Commission passed a constitutional amendment allowing it to amend funding guidelines partway through the semester. This change and another reform meant to improve the appeals process were in response to vocal discontent with SAC’s new funding process. After numerous complaints, including two open letters signed by most major clubs and student leaders, SAC has finally taken the first step toward making its rules more student friendly. But this was a small step, and true reform will require SAC to scrap its new programming arc approach, while increasing its transparency and feedback to clubs.
Under the programming arc, clubs need to submit their funding proposal for next year to SAC by Mar. 2, with every event they are planning listed. Clubs are only allowed one fundraising event that is not listed on the programming arc. It is unreasonable to expect clubs to be able to anticipate every event they plan on holding for the next year in the beginning of March. A better system would require clubs to submit one umbrella budget with most expected expenses for the next year, but allow individual requests for additional funding at any point during the semester. Such a process may take more time, but this could be addressed by increasing the number of SAC commissioners to lighten the workload.
Clubs and student leaders have openly called for a formal feedback system through which organizations can express their suggestions for revising the programming arc funding process. SAC’s hesitancy to allow formal club input before ultimately agreeing to hold a town hall reflects the organization’s insularity and aloofness. SAC needs to allow clubs’ concerns to have official weight in any final decision. After all, SAC exists in order to meet these clubs’ funding needs.
Some clubs have suggested that SAC allow student leaders to vote on a set of revisions to the current funding process. This is a possibility, but one that could lead to an imperfect result. A better approach would be to create a small committee consisting of several club leaders, SAC commissioners, and Erika Cohen-Derr, Georgetown’s director of student programs, to draft and vote on a new process. This would prevent the implementation of a funding process that, while attractive to club leaders, may be infeasible for SAC.
SAC has resisted change for years, but is now showing signs that it may finally be willing to adapt. If the commission doesn’t closely consult clubs as it makes these important decisions, however, the changes that do come may only be for the worse.
