Student leaders criticize SAC, push for funding changes

Although student leaders vocalized months worth of pent-up criticism about the Student Activities Commission’s new funding method at a town-hall meeting Tuesday night, SAC commissioners made no definite commitment to change the policy in the near-term.

After an opening presentation from SAC Chair Andrew Koenig (COL ‘12), various club leaders expressed their concerns with the current SAC program, a lump-allocation system that requires groups to submit programming arcs that outline all of the clubs’ events for the upcoming semester. SAC then allocates funds based on the average cost for each type of event.

According to International Relations Club Chair Eitan Paul (SFS ’12), the most recent amendments to SAC’s funding guidelines were made in an unannounced meeting during which no minutes were taken. Paul suggested that “a real appeals process” could be an important step away from SAC’s “ad hoc approvals and allocations.”

“We realized only after the fact that it wasn’t the right way to do things,” Koenig said when pressed by Paul, citing deadlines that necessitated rushing through changes. “We weren’t trying to do [it] in a secret manner by any means.”

Vice-Chair Ruiyong Chen (SFS ’13) stressed that all of SAC’s deliberations are open to the public. The commissioners’ votes, however, are anonymous.

Student groups have criticized several parts of the new system this semester, releasing two open letters addressed to SAC in February. At the meeting, the leaders further clarified their concerns.

“You made up these guidelines and you made up the allocations for them,” Philodemic Society Treasurer Emma Green (COL ’12) said.

Green added that she was also frustrated that SAC prevented groups from hosting “zero-allocation” events unless they were including in the group’s programming arc.

“There is absolutely no reason that an event that costs no money should not be created and supported and advertised on the ListServ.” Green said. She said that SAC was meant to create equity among student groups, but that “not all clubs are created equal.”

“By sticking to [these] guidelines, you actually produce disequity,” Greed said, while several members of the audience nodded in agreement.

Other leaders claimed that the averages used to determine funding encouraged small events that may have little to do with groups’ core missions.

“A basic stats class will show you that’s the wrong way to do things,” said Adam Giansiracusa (SFS ‘12), the International Relations Club’s chief of staff.

During the meeting, the commission repeatedly assured students they did not intend to frustrate groups.

“It was never my intention to prejudice against organizations.” Koenig said. “There are implicit things that weren’t intentionally in [the new guidelines].”

Some of the appeals were more emotional. GU Jawani members lamented that SAC allocated hundreds of dollars for the club’s barbecues last semester, but not nearly enough for costumes for Rangila, a dance event that Jawani produces and promotes.

Shuo Yan Tan (SFS ’12), International Relations Club treasurer, said that the guidelines encouraged introversion and the formation of exclusive cliques.

“We’ve regressed from where we were,” he said. “[This] goes against the very spirit of student life.”

Chen later assured the audience that the commissioners would talk about amendments regarding SAC policies, but did not promise to make any changes.

“I can’t definitely say that there will be amendments made to affect this fall,” she said.

Despite the tough criticism from the groups, many group leaders expressed gratitude and appreciation for SAC’s hard work. Nevertheless, they pressed SAC to adopt more definite deadlines moving forward.

“We want to see [these changes] while we are still at Georgetown,” Green said.