This week, Student Assembly (SA) voted on and passed several changes to its funding codes. There were three main changes to the funding codes — two restrictive changes, and several small clarifying edits, which were passed largely unanimously. The two restrictive changes, which Student Assembly passed this week, garnered the most contention. Previously, organizations could request up to 10 percent of the Student Assembly’s semester budget; the change decreases this number to 8 percent. The other major restrictive change addresses travel per diems. Previously, organizations were allowed $25 per diem for each participant, and this has been decreased to $15 per diem; receipts are required for reimbursement. Around 20 percent of the annual SA budget goes to academic teams, and so this funding change is in an attempt to cut back on disproportionate spending.
“The biggest criticism was that students didn’t find how we allocated funds equitable,” said Jake Engelman ’19, the SA Treasurer. “Some organizations felt it was unfair how they were being allocated funds compared to small handfuls of mainly academic teams that come close to the 10 percent each semester.”
Many clubs, such as club sports, must self-raise a portion of the funds that they are granted, and so the cut in funding is meant to be more proportionate in the funding allocated to each team.
“None of this is meant to target academic teams, but they make up the handful of teams that are exclusive, small, and have an enormous cost per head per trip,” said Engelman.
Engelman oversees the funding committee, with which he has been doing extensive research on what is best for the allocation of SA’s budget. The changes were presented to the Student Assembly, and then a Google Form was sent out so that Assembly members could vote on every individual change. From there, it was determined that the only controversial change was the cutback on the food budget. What was passed was a compromise from what was originally in place.
“Funding code changes have to be reviewed every two years, and it had been more than that since they had been widely reformed,” said Engelman. “Having worked with the codes for many semesters, we recognized the many problems in terms of budget constraints, and we drafted changes that would better the funding codes.”
Several academic teams, including the Debate Team, Model UN, and Mock Trial, attended the meeting to discuss the consequences this funding change could bring to their groups.
“One of the key promises of our organization is that it is essentially cost-free. That’s how we recruit. That’s how people stay on our team,” said Evan Weinstein ’19, co-president of Debate. “The fact that you don’t have to pay for food is huge. Significantly fewer people would come if that were not the case, and our organization would shrink.”
“One of the best things about Mock Trial is that it’s low or no cost for students, especially given the recent outreach efforts we’ve made with students in opportunity programs,” said Conor O’Shea ’18, co-captain of Mock Trial. “Close to one-fourth of our team this past year had some kind of connection to an opportunity program.”
“We’ve already done significant cutbacks to our budget. We’ve cut down the number of conferences, we’ve cut down the amount of places we can travel,” said Almahdi Mahil ’20, co-president of Model UN. Many of these academic teams saw the funding cuts as being detrimental to the future success of their organizations, which they try to keep as open as possible to all those wishing to participate. Many also agreed that the initial $25 per diem was not always sufficient while competing in expensive areas, such as New York City, and cutting it down to $15 would have significant effects. Meal exchanges are an alternative for buying meals, but it can be difficult for those teams traveling for several hours to make the meals during those time periods.
“We collaborate and work with students and other schools. We think that definitionally meets the goals of Student Assembly and the Student Activities fund,” said Weinstein, echoing the concerns of many that the funding cutbacks may limit the amount of competitions teams can compete in. The fact that funding cuts were done in an attempt to provide more equal funding to a larger number of organizations has also been critiqued by many.
“These organizations are fundamentally different than on-campus organizations. We compete off-campus. We can do stuff on-campus but this isn’t the same thing as clubs like Club ENTO or GNAR Club,” said Sam Gordon ’19, a member of both Mock Trial and SA.
With this also came the discussion of external funding, much of which comes from various grants, as well as the Oral Communications Center. Engelmen also proposed that participants that demonstrated need could apply for funding for off-campus trips. The two main restrictive changes were the cause of much contention, and worrisome for those involved in affected teams. The funding codes, however, are able to be changed, and so those on the teams have the ability to disclose any issues after they come to fruition in hopes of redoing the funding.
