In a close vote, members of Georgetown’s Student Activities Commission approved funding for what may be an unprecedented of event at Georgetown University, if it takes place—a University-funded panel of three speakers, all pro-choice, holding a discussion of men’s roles in the pro-choice movement.

The event, which is being organized for the controversial “Plan A Hoyas” campaign, is the first event organized by “Plan A” that SAC has funded. It was subject to much debate about whether it violated the University’s mission and speech and expression policy before SAC approved it. Challenged on whether the event went against Georgetown’s mission, a representative of UF said that it did not, according to SAC meeting minutes.

“Our constitutional mission statement is to promote equality for women, and since women are the sole bearers of children, it is within our mission to advance the equality for health services for women,” she said. “Our mission is to promote dialogue about these issues, not limit ourselves to one point of view.”

During the discussion period of the meeting following the presentation, SAC Faculty Adviser Bill McCoy doubted that the event would encourage debate, since its panel was one-sided. Commissioner Scott Stirrett (SFS ‘13) countered that the Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life could be construed as similarly one-sided. Ultimately, the locus of their discussion became whether or not the panel constituted advocacy or dialogue, and whether it was in violation of the University’s policies or not.

Read the rest of this entry »

The first Georgetown University Student Association Budget Summit was a real doozey, lasting from 10 a.m. all the way to 8 p.m. on Sunday. During the meeting, the advisory boards presented their budget proposals to the Finance and Appropriations Committee of the GUSA Senate, which has taken on the role of the Funding Board.

There wasn’t a whole lot of deliberation among senators since the meeting was mainly focused on presentations and actual allocation will take place later this week, but there were some interesting clues—particularly regarding SAC—about how budgets may look next year.

First came the proposals from the Georgetown Program Board and the Center for Social Justice for $45,000 and $64,000 respectively. Both proposals were well-received by the committee, but CSJ’s request for 46 percent more funding than last year faced opposition. Chairman of the Finance and Appropriations Committee Nick Troiano (COL ’11) made clear that since there was $55,000 more in requests this year than in available funds, some groups would not receive all the money they requested.

“We want to give [CSJ] more money, but I would doubt they’ll receive their full request,” Senator Colton Malkerson (COL ’13), who sits on the FinApp committee said.

The next budget proposal, $25,000 for the Performing Arts Advisory Council, did not go as smoothly. The FinApp Committee felt PAAC’s budget proposal lacked specifics and didn’t make clear how the requested money would be spent.

Read the rest of this entry »

On Monday, the Student Activities Commission heard proposals from the students planning Sex Positive Week, a weeklong series of events designed to encourage discussion about sex and sexuality at Georgetown University, and ultimately approved funding for all the proposed events, although they put some conditions in place after their funding of Sex Positive Week caused a stir last year.

Looking at the public minutes of the SAC allocation meeting, Sex Positive Week, which will take place from February 22 to February 26, is going consist of events like “Virginity and Losing It,” “Disability and Sexuality,” “God and the Erotic,” and a “Sex Positive Carnival.”

SAC voted to stipulate that some of the events and material—like the Zine, which will print Sex Positive stories and images—will need further approval from SAC before they are ultimately funded.

Funding for “Virginity and Losing It,” which the organizers described as “a discussion about virginity and the climate surrounding that issue on campus,” was approved at $75; “Disability and Sexuality” was approved for $85; “God and the Erotic” was approved, but the organizers did not request any funds for that event. All of these events were approved unanimously.

Open Mic Night, for which the organizers did not ask for funding, was approved 8 to 1 (objecting) to 2 (abstaining).

From the looks of the minutes, the next item, a proposal for a Sex Positive Carnival, “a fun, creative way to get out information on things people don’t usually think about or care to learn about,” generated a lot of discussion among the student commissioners.

Read more, including the minutes of the SAC meeting, after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Given the kind of concerned, accusatory letters some advisory board leaders sent in the last week, the town hall that the Georgetown University Student Association hosted last night to shed additional light on its proposed funding reforms was surprisingly quiet. A few students grudgingly observed that they didn’t think GUSA had enough knowledge about the various advisory boards to oversee the new club funding process they are proposing, and club representatives individually worried about how specific events their group holds will be affected by the potential funding changes. But for the most part, the town hall was uncontentious. It even ended early.

It kicked off with a half-hour presentation by members of GUSA’s Finance and Appropriations Committee detailing the reforms they intend to (or already have) passed in order to completely remake the current process by which student groups at Georgetown get funding, followed by a about an hour-and-a-half long question and answer session.

Standing below a large powerpoint presentation in a lecture hall in Reiss, members of the FinApp committee reiterated the now-familiar goals of funding reform, among them increasing transparency and efficiency in the funding process, and improving oversight of those involved in allocating the Student Activities Fee, the $50 that each student pays at the beginning of each semester. FinApp members also touched on some of the things they feel show that there their efforts have student consensus, like the Accountability and Reform Amendment—an amendment that students passed in 2006 giving GUSA the authority to the authority to audit the advisory boards and final say as to how much money is appropriated to each board.

Greg Laverriere (COL ‘12) walked the audience of about thirty students through the results of a club satisfaction survey GUSA conducted last semester (see the results here), and summed up student sentiment about the current funding process.

“Student clubs and organizations face an uphill climb to secure resources and receive reasonable control over their activities …. Student clubs and organizations are not getting the money they deserve and need,” he said, adding that the club funding process is bloated and opaque compared to the process at peer schools.

Read the rest of this entry »

On Thursday, Vox published a letter that Student Activities Commission Chair Ethel Amponsah (NHS ‘11) had sent to student club leaders challenging the various funding reforms the Georgetown University Student Association is working to enact. In her e-mail, she referenced another letter she had sent to GUSA specifically addressing the six reforms GUSA had said all of the funding boards must achieve, or they would withhold student activity fees from the boards.

Vox has obtained the letter from Amponsah, which she sent on December 4. In her letter, she maintains that there is already an appeals process for clubs that go before SAC, SAC meetings are already open to the public, and that SAC is already in the process of creating a means for clubs to get lump sum funding. (Disclosure: Amponsah and I participated in an After School Kids group together our freshman year).

Readers have also sent Vox a letter that members of GUSA’s Finance and Appropriations Committee, including Chair Nick Troiano (COL ‘11), sent to club leaders in response to Amponsah’s e-mail on Friday, January 29.

“We’d like to set the record straight,” it reads. “Our proposed reforms seek to make the student activities funding process more democratic, accountable and efficient. Let us be clear, our sole intention is to make the system work better for you.”

Finally, there’s a letter from the Center for Social Justice Advisory Board for Student Organizations to its student clubs in response to GUSA’s proposed reforms.

“If officially passed, this legislation would greatly hinder ABSO’s ability to represent, actively advocate, or secure funding for you,” the letter reads.

Read all three letters in full after the jump!

Read the rest of this entry »

In response to the legislation to reform the Funding Board that the Georgetown University Student Association will soon consider, Student Activity Commission Chair Ethel Amponsah (NHS ‘11) has sent the letter reproduced below to student club leaders. In it, she emphasizes that there is legislation to eliminate the votes Advisory Board chairs who sit on the Funding Board have, including the SAC Chair, and her feeling that the six reforms GUSA has suggested were based on misconceptions. She promises to fight the proposed changes.

“By eliminating our votes, GUSA will … remove your representation as student organizations on the Funding Board, thereby limiting our opportunity to participate in the process of distributing the Student Activities Fee in an equitable manner.

“GUSA states that this legislation is based upon its 6 recommendations presented to all of the Advisory Boards. I have responded to these arbitrary recommendations, noting various errors within the document and statements made based on rumors,” she writes.

“Please know that we will do everything possible to prevent changes to the voting structure of the Funding Board.” (Disclosure: Amponsah and I participated in an After School Kids group together our freshman year).

Student club members’ responses to the host of club funding reforms GUSA began pushing for in the fall, including the 6 reforms Amponsah references, have been a mixed bag, but several advisory board chairs sitting on the Funding Board have balked at GUSA’s proposal to strip them of their votes.

At the same time, many club leaders have expressed their displeasure with SAC’s funding process and Amponsah’s letter itself, with some of the club leaders who forwarded Amponsah’s e-mail to Vox saying her letter used scare tactics. Amponsah has not yet responded to requests for comment about these characterizations, but we’ll update this post with her response when she does.

Update 10:47 a.m. January 29: Amponsah has responded by e-mail, “The letter I wrote to student organizations is in no way a fear tactic.  I believe in informing students about changes in policy or procedure that may directly affect their organizations, not scaring them.”

See the full letter after the jump!

Read the rest of this entry »

“An urban tantra workshop.” “An event in support of survivors of sexual assault and fighting rape culture.” “A forum on virginity and celibacy.” “An orgasm workshop.”

Those are some of the events that the 20 students crammed onto the plush couches in the Women’s Center suggested when they met Tuesday night to begin planning this year’s Sex Positive Week.

The week is based around the idea that sex, in whatever context—heterosexual, homosexual, BDSM, or strictly within marriage—is nothing to be ashamed of. (And it was a very sex positive group—although Vox identified herself as a reporter and therefore not a meeting participant, she was still encouraged to take part in the introduction game, by naming the food she finds most sensual.) It will be the second time that Georgetown plays host to Sex Positive events, and judging by Tuesday night, the week may turn out to be as outre as last year’s.

Agreeing that they want to focus on “empowerment, education, and positive body image,” the students decided that they want to hold diverse events—some tame and communal, like an open mike night and student-centric discussions, and some more aggressive events, like a potential “guerilla theater”-style event in Red Square, in which women would act as female statues demonstrating “how lesbians have sex.”

“I’m so down for that,” one student said.

A student later cautioned against planning events that were too far out of the ordinary in order to give the week a broader campus appeal.

“I would really like to see this week reach out past communities like the queer community and women’s community and maybe toning it down or having a good balance of themes, just so it’s more mainstream,” he said.

Read the rest of this entry »

These little piggies want to keep their votes

When the Funding Board reconvened yesterday after the board’s contentious meeting two weeks ago, it approved the GUSA Fund once GUSA agreed to amend its request of $30,000 and instead ask for $26,000 from the general Funding Board reserve. GUSA now plans to provide $4,000 from its own operating budget, pending Senate approval.

Advisory board members indicated that GUSA investing some of its own money would be a show of good faith since advisory board members were concerned about investing such a large sum in a new funding structure. Last meeting, all six advisory boards voted down the GUSA Fund. After this meeting’s amendment, the five advisory board members voted yes, with only GPB Chair Matt Brennan (COL ‘10) voting no. Brennan had said he wanted the Funding Board to allocate even less to start up the Fund and then reconsider how much the Fund needed in the spring.

The Funding Board came to its decision after Erika Cohen-Derr, Director of Student Programs, encouraged the group to seek “consensus based opinion” instead of a unanimous decision. GUSA members wanted to move forward in the meeting, but advisory boards reiterated the need for more discussion before the group moved to a vote.

“At every funding board meeting I’ve been to before this, after each proposal, we actually talk about it, talk about changing it, and try to figure out a proposal that’s acceptable to everybody, whereas this year, we’ve voted and waited 10 days,” said Club Sports Chair Nick Calta (COL ‘10).

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the lesser-known inalienable rights

FUNDING REFORM – THE BIG ONE: On Sunday afternoon, GUSA passed a resolution threatening to withhold student activity fee funding from advisory boards, like SAC, that do not achieve six new reforms.

First, funding boards must reduce reserve accounts so that they do not exceed 10 percent of the board’s yearly allocation, and surplus funds must be rolled into the general Funding Board’s reserve account at the end of the year. Second, advisory boards must set up an appeals process for clubs who are denied funding. Third, clubs must have the option of lump sum funding for the year instead of funding event by event. Fourth, minutes of all meetings, including information on votes, must be made available online. Fifth, members of advisory boards must either be approved by the GUSA Senate or elected by club leaders. Sixth, clubs must be given reasonable control over the money they fundraise themselves.

“It seems harsh, but it’s a necessary thing to do,” said bill sponsor Nick Troiano (COL ’11—Village A, A-D). “Past negotiations have sometimes fallen through.”

The bill was passed unanimously with no contentious debate.

“This has been a long time coming,” Josh Mogil (SFS ’11—Off Campus) said. “I think it’s amazing.”

Mogil said this reform was different than club funding reform in the past because this time GUSA reached out to clubs to seek their input.

The Finance and Appropriations Committee based their recommendations on an e-mail survey to club leaders and responses from the Club Summit held on Saturday. The Club Summit was a chance for student leaders to voice their concerns about club funding. The leaders were mostly concerned about the tediousness of the process, their inability to keep funds that they fundraised, the lack of transparency in SAC leadership, and the number of events that are rejected or underfunded.

Read the rest of this entry »

Looks like the war between GUSA and the Student Activities Commission is heating up: The Voice has obtained the draft of a bill (below) that proposes to give GUSA complete control over the entire Student Activities Fee.

Currently, the Student Activities Fee is administered by GUSA’s Finance and Appropriation Committee and six funding boards: Media Board, Club Sports, the Performing Arts Advisory Council, the Georgetown Program Board, SAC, and the Center for Social Justice.

At the annual spring Budget Summit the groups divvy the money (around $650,000) amongst themselves and try to come up with a unanimous vote. If, after six days, the vote isn’t unanimous, a majority vote decides money allocation.

This new legislation would change that, making GUSA’s Finance and Appropriation Committee the only board members with votes. There’s more, including the estimated timeframe for the bill, at the Voice site.

After the jump, check out the draft of the bill.

Reporting by Kara Brandeisky

Read the rest of this entry »