I agree that there should be some sort of accountability on the part of the AdBoards to justify their reserves, but most of them have apparently only built up reserves little by little to dip into when they find it necessary– I would see capital improvements as a good reason to do so. There is no reason for programs like Relay to have to justify their budget to Funding Board each year– CSJ just loans the money and expects it back in its reserves when the event is over. I don’t see why GUSA sees the need to take over (practically) ALL of these reserves to do with as they see fit. I see a lot of this money eventually being funneled into the GUSA Fund.

The GPB advisor brought up an indisputable problem with this proposal: What happens when groups are requesting money out of reserves right up until the end of the fiscal year? Funding Board will certainly not be convening in June.

It can also grant funds to individuals, who don’t need to get club approval (as long as what they propose to do doesn’t violate the University’s Access to Benefits policy).

But as to clubs under other advisory boards:

Scenario 1.

Say a club wants to hold Event X. It requests $500 for event from Advisory Board Y. The board only grants them $300 (but approves the event). The club can then go to the GUSA Fund and try to supplement that. Of course, it may be that the club was proposing to use the additional money poorly and don’t need it; I would expect the GUSA Fund not to do it. They could alternatively (or simultaneously) choose to appeal the decision.

In any case, it’s not any “additional” work, as if the GUSA Fund was generating extra bureaucracy. The club under the old system simply would not get the extra $200; here they have a chance.

Scenario 2:

Club already has a budget but gets a good idea for an event. Rather than perhaps submit to the onerous process it might take to get advisory board approval for funds (but not for the event), it could go to the simplified, transparent and accountable funding procedures by the GUSA Funding Board.

Then, assuming it gets the funds, the club can go to their advisory board and say, “We’ve been allocated $X to put on this event. That money completely covers the costs. All we need is approval to put on the event.” Seeing as at that point the group has everything it needs and isn’t affirmatively requesting any money from the advisory board, I don’t see how the process should be onerous at that point. The advisory board simply checks to see if the event is in line with Georgetown’s access to benefits policy.

Like, let’s say the Medieval Club gets money from the GUSA Fund to throw a “Rennaisance Faire” idea, where they will dress in costume, hire a Minnesänger to perform selections from Tristan & Isolde and provide medieval-inspired cuisine and games. They then go to SAC and say, “Hey guys, we have all the money we need for this. All we need is your approval.” SAC checks to make sure they aren’t doing anything dangerous (like hosting a jousting tournament on Healy lawn, for example), illegal or against the RC doctrine (buying medieval sheepskin condoms to distribute there). This should take all of 10 minutes. Finding none, they approve it.

How does that increase the bureaucracy?

Leaving out the reserve issue, I don’t see what the objection to the other issues are.

If an advisory board already provides that the constituent clubs under it vote the AdBoard, there’s no issue — GUSA and the Board sees eye to eye. Ditto with an Appeals Process, transparency in voting, an option for clubs to get a lump sum to do with as they will and an ability to keep money they fundraise.

So, if your advisory board already does these things, cheers! You’re ahead of the curve. The student body and your clubs applaud you.

But given the results of the recent GUSA survey, it looks like all advisory boards could use some level of reform (the Media Board being the best handled, from what I understand).

As to the reserve issue: As I stated above, I’m not quite convinced that a blanket 10% level is appropriate. That having been said, advisory boards still need to justify their current reserves. How much do they usually appropriate annually from the reserve funds?

If, as you say, some boards make yearly loans from the reserves, why not just give them more money annually? And if some boards (e.g., GPB) only dip into their reserves once every three or four years, why not take that money out and put it in a general reserve account to free up money?

There’s also the question, as I brought up, of the $310,000 that has heretofore been put in the endowment — which is $1.8 mil. I think the idea of the endowment was a noble idea that never quite got off the ground–so we potentially have not only $1.8 million to work with, but also $310,000 additional per year — double the funding.

Some advisory boards already “elect” their members through clubs– GUSA has clearly not done enough research into this matter, as well as the 10% reserve requirement, and together, this makes them unfit to be running ALL of Funding board without the votes of the Advisory Boards.

The main source of discontent seems to be between SAC groups and SAC Commissioners– institute SAC reform, don’t screw over the rest of the Advisory boards.

@Matt: If only all of GUSA were so forthcoming. I don’t believe GUSA should be the sole bloc in charge of the money. I understand that, officially, they are responsible for the student activity fees, but it is logistically impossible for responsible GUSA members to be fully aware of the funding nuances that each Advisory Board deals with. Isn’t that why we have Advisory Boards to begin with? Instead of hiding behind the broad shield of enacting “reform,” GUSA has yet to call out each board individually on what they are doing wrong (minus SAC). I have yet to see (or hear, for that matter) any intention of “giving back” Advisory Boards their voting privileges.

All of this totally disregards the disconnect between the two points of contention: Funding Board reform and the GUSA fund. The GUSA fund is supposed to reduce the bureaucracy needed to get approval through Advisory Boards (never mind the fact that MANY groups don’t have issues with their Advisory Boards, again, sans SAC). The Funding Board Reform ENSURES more bureaucracy because then groups must go to their Advisory Board first, only to be told reserves have been folded into Funding Board reserves, and then they must take the additional step of going to the (GUSA-only) Funding Board and explain at length things that their Advisory Boards already understand. I don’t see how both “streamline” the process together.