Administrators said they disapprove of parts of a recent Student Union proposal to reform the club funding system, describing it as an insufficient fix to the system.The administrators, Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer and Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett, particularly objected to the proposed establishment of a student programming board to allocate funding for events, and the continued classification of groups as "secured" for guaranteed funding.

Union President Jenny Feinberg '07, whose administration has extensively explored reforming the system during her time in office, said she had already withdrawn the programming board idea in the wake of concerns voiced by both students and administrators.

Sawyer and Bennett also said that all clubs should have to request funding from the Finance Board, rather than giving eight secured groups a guaranteed percentage of the almost $1 million fund that finances nearly all student clubs on campus.

"I don't know of any organization-civic, educational or corporate-where people are just guaranteed a budget in the following year," Sawyer said of the eight secured groups. Those groups include the Justice and Student Events, which is the campus programming group that receives almost 25 percent of the total fund, and stands to lose significant control over financial allocation for events if the proposed programming board is created.

Both administrators agreed that the Union shouldn't be responsible for controlling the entire $1 million fund and said there should be a limit on the number of groups eligible for funding.

Every student pays the Student Activities Fund (SAF) a fee equal to 1 percent of tuition, which is distributed pursuant to the Union Constitution. The eight secured groups receive approximately 60 percent of the fund. Over 200 chartered groups request money from the F-board, which has less than $400,000 to allocate.

The proposal, as described in a memo from Feinberg to Senior Vice President for Students and Enrollment Jean Eddy, would significantly decrease funding to secured groups, require the F-Board to approve secured groups' budgets (with the lone exception of the Justice), create a capital expenditures fund to pay for secured groups' emergency expenses and establish a student programming board.

The proposal would allocate approximately 50 percent to the F-Board instead of the current 40 percent, according to Union officials.

Eddy has yet to comment publicly on the proposal. An assistant said she was unavailable for comment until next week.

Sawyer hinted that he would prefer to not have the Union distribute the entire SAF.

"If I were student government, I'd be interested in taking away a lot of that [SAF] money and what goes with it," he said.

But Feinberg said she was "100 percent sure" that the Student Union should control the distribution of SAF.

"It's the very ideal Brandeis was founded on," she said. "Students are not only responsible for other students, but understand the most about other students."

Sawyer said he lamented how he has seen, in the last 15 years, a shift in the Union's purpose, from being a student advocacy body to being a financial-political body because it's responsible for so much money.

"Most of my interactions with them, to be quite frank, have been about money," he said.

Feinberg cited several recent Union accomplishments, including the launch of an off-campus shuttle, as proof of the Union's advocacy efforts.

"I resent that Sawyer seems to think the only thing we've been working on is money," said Feinberg.

Sawyer said a successful plan to reform the SAF must include a way to limit the number of student groups eligible for funding.

"We tell prospective students, 'Oh, it's a great place because you'll find what you want. If you don't find it, you can set it up yourself,'" Sawyer said. "I'm a proponent of that."

However, Sawyer also said there should be a classification for organizations chartered by the Union that must wait for an available "slot to allow funding."

"The last thing I'd like to see is limitation of student clubs on campus," Feinberg said. She acknowledged a "proliferation of chartered groups," but said the Union has been investigating groups and has de-chartered inactive groups.

Bennett, citing chartered groups like the Skydiving Club, which she said only appeal to a small segment of the community, asked, "Should we be funding social life at all?"

Feinberg answered: "The beauty of going to college is that you have the opportunity to do things you may not normally be able to do."

Feinberg said the student programming board was proposed because students have expressed dissatisfaction with Student Events' ability to incorporate student input into event planning.

Even though the programming board portion of the proposal has been shelved, Feinberg said she was proud the Union proposed the SPB because "up until this point, it was almost impossible for people to consider fundamentally changing [Student Events]."

Director of Student Events Helen Pekker '06 said the whole process has made the group realize that students have not been happy with the way Student Events plans activities and picks its staff members.

Feinberg said that in place of a new programming board, she is working with Student Events on a number of reforms including adding elected and racial minority representation and creating a new Department of Communications that will "be obliged to listen to and respond to the views of the community." She also said Student Events must open its meetings to the public.

Pekker said she supports a new Department of Communications and incorporating elected representatives into the group. However, she cautioned against making all the group's positions elected because she said she didn't want to politicize Student Events' work.

Pekker said she also likes the idea of adding a student representative of racial minorities.

"SE is mostly white and we want the views of everyone," Pekker said.

Another point of contention is that under the proposal, the Justice only needs to have its budget approved by the Union Treasurer rather than the F-Board like the seven other groups.

Feinberg said it was crucial to separate the Justice because she didn't want to risk government infringement on freedom of the press.

Sawyer acknowledged that when secured organizations were established in the '70s, this issue was a valid concern, but he said it no longer is, arguing that there is no need to be concerned with the government censoring the press.

"[Sawyer] proved his very point," Feinberg said. "Because the government can't control the Justice's finances, we're guaranteed to have a separation."

Editor in Chief Dan Hirschhorn '07 said he was concerned The Justice's funding would be limited by the government, if it didn't like what The Justice printed.

Feinberg said she hopes to have the amendment, which requires the approval of two-thirds of voters to pass, on a ballot before April vacation, and said she is sure it will come to a vote before the end of this academic year.