The Student Government Association (SGA) met Tuesday evening to vote on the funding bill for the Big Blue Jay Tailgate, co-sponsored by the Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (Beta). SGA also faces a Judiciary case filed against it by several Advocacy and Awareness groups.
SGA approved the tailgate bill with 20 out of 22 voting yea. SGA closed its meeting to the press to debate the bill. SGA Executive Vice President Kyra Toomre explained the tension associated with the bill.
“It was a hard bill because of the timing of the event. The whole point of the event is that it is the first home football game and [it sets] a tone of school spirit so it needed to either approved or denied at this meeting, which made it difficult,” Toomre wrote in an email to The News-Letter.
A predominant concern within SGA was that the event would give Beta an unfair advantage over other fraternities as recruitment season draws nearer.
“People had all sorts of reservations, but yes, one of them was due to recruitment… Everyone thinks that it is a good event. Well, at least the majority. It is just the timing issue,” Toomre wrote.
In addition to the tailgate, one of the SGA’s other upcoming concerns is the Judiciary Board case that Advocacy and Awareness groups have filed against the SGA because of their recently decreased funding. Members of the Executive Board met with the groups on Wednesday to discuss the case further.
“Right now, the Advocacy and Awareness clubs don’t get funding the way everyone else does. During my campaign [for Executive President] at the end of last year we decided to try to help them get that annual funding, and we did. Last year we passed a bill saying they get $300 from the Student Activities Commission (SAC) every year, which is not quite enough, I understand,” SGA President Janice Bonsu said.
The Advocacy and Awareness group funding stipulation to which Bonsu referred was part of a bill passed in April of this year.
“Advocacy and Awareness Groups are entitled to receive an annual SAC allotment of $300 provided they meet proper application deadlines,” the bill states.
The Advocacy and Awareness groups that have combined in their suit against SGA include the College Democrats, the College Republicans, Voice for Choice, Voice for Life and the Students for Environmental Action (SEA).
“One of the problems is that if we even were to move to funding each individual club equally around the school, it would be [approximately] $518 per club. So what they have to say is valid, that they feel like they don’t have a voice on campus because they don’t have money like everyone else on campus,” Bonsu said.
While she suggested that there is no perfect solution to the club funding issue, Bonsu pointed out that more attention could be paid to each club’s individual funding.
“They each get $300 regardless of what kind they are and how big they are, whereas other groups, like a dance team for example, might get $1000, but they might have to pay a choreographer, so there are different considerations,” Bonsu said.
Bonsu pointed out that Advocacy and Awareness groups still have some advantages in the resources they can access over other kinds of student groups.
“We wanted to encourage [the Advocacy and Awareness groups] to fundraise for the rest of the money if they have that capacity whereas other groups might not. It’s easier if you’re an advocacy group to tap into your national base, so for example the College Republicans tap into their larger organizations, whereas maybe the Eclectics don’t have a national organization to tap into,” Bonsu said.
She noted that despite the opposition levied against the SGA’s funding policy, the Advocacy and Awareness groups did not unanimously accept their allotted funding.
“Not all the advocacy groups even apply for [the $300]. I think only thirteen of the groups applied,” Bonsu said.
The meeting that occurred yesterday between the SGA and the Advocacy and Awareness groups was spurred by the SGA’s desire to resolve the issue without the intervention of the SGA Judiciary.
“I feel strongly that if the two sides are still willing to talk, there’s no need to go to Judiciary. We decided to sit down with these groups and just see if they think we can solve this off the table. We’re not against giving funding. We just want to make sure the small amount we have is used efficiently,” Bonsu said.
Editor’s Note: Editor-in-Chief Jack Bartholet, who currently serves as the Chief Justice of the SGA Judiciary, took no part in the reporting, writing or editing of this story.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.