Former Student Government President J Hudson spoke before the SG Summer Planning Committee Wednesday evening to clear up confusion concerning his proposed merger of the Undergraduate Organization Relief Fund, Graduate Organization Relief Fund and Programming, Support and Initiatives Fund.
“This came up in March, and then we took it to a Senate Resolution, though it was more of an urgent request,” Hudson told the committee.
The Senate approved the packet, but students had a problem with the inclusion of Groovin’ on the Grounds being included.
Hudson said he took the issue to Dean of Students K.C. White, who didn’t think it fair to take out Groovin’.
Another issue was whether the Vet and Graduate schools would be involved in the merger.
Hudson met with the Deans of both schools. The Vet school did not want to participate; the Graduate school did as long as a few stipulations were included.
In an e-mail between Hudson and Graduate Dean W. David Constant, the dean said that the current committee was too big and needed to be smaller. The dean also wanted to make sure everything was in line and all the details straightened out.
Constant said graduate funds should be used for graduate students only. He also wanted to see support from the Administration.
Hudson brought a slightly revised memo before the committtee Wednesday evening reflecting these changes, but made sure to point out the memo was virtually the same as the first.
He told the committee the funds for ORF, GORF and PSIF were to be combined and allocated by one joint committee.
“The rationale behind this merger … is that people are confused,” Hudson said.
Hudson told the committee that with the current system, groups don’t know who to approach to seek funds for events. With the merger, groups would go to the joint committee of these organizations.
Continuing their discussion from last week, the committee analyzed the different proposals from Senators.
Senator De Andre Beadle, Chief Justice Danielle Rushing, Chief of Staff John Parker Ford and Senator Emeritus Zac Lemoine all had slightly different proposals, but agreed on the same points.
They all proposed having between two and five members, and were all weary of having titles to these positions for fear of students running simply for a resume builder.
“With more people running, there is an increased likelihood of better turnout, because those running will get all their friends to vote for them,” Ford told the committee during the presentation of his proposal.
All four members of the Senate had another concern with the current college councils — they agreed there needs to be more oversight for funding. However, opinions differed on who should control the funds.
Another point of contention among the senators was what the college councils should have to do to remain active and eligible for funding.
The general consensus was to have them submit an annual plan for approval.
After all the proposals were presented, Senate Speaker Aaron Caffarel called for an agreement on the main points — structure, finance, oversight and the annual plan.
As far as structure, it was agreed there should be a president, vice president and three members at large.
SG Vice President Kathleen Bordelon said the reason is “because that puts five members on each college council, and it’s an uneven amount, so there is never a tie when voting on plans.”
The overwhelming response for financing was to put all the funds in a “big pot.”
Money for the college councils comes from the Student Government budget. According to Caffarel, it has to be between 5 and 15 percent of SG’s budget. It is currently at 10 percent, and the committee agreed to keep it there for now.
The committee agreed to propose that the Senate have oversight of the funds.
Director of Finance Amber Guillory was concerned, asking if the Senate could handle the increased traffic in meetings. The committee agreed that they could.
The committee agreed the college councils should have to email their plan to Bordelon by the third fall legislative meeting of the Senate.
If a college council does not submimt their plan, they will be considered inactive.
The councils will have the ability to ammend their plan during the year.
At the end of the meeting, Bordelon brought up the issue of “drop/delete.” She said that if you repeat a class, both grades are shown on your transcript.
“Something needs to change,” she said.
Caffarel moved discussion of this issue to next week.
——
Contact Rachel Wilson at [email protected]